What if it was proven wrong?
What if we find out, in our time or after, that the way we date things could be wrong? or that it is wrong?
Would you easily say that you just don’t know?
Or would you be forced to wonder if the story of creation is actually true?
Romans 8:38-39
“For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ.”
As we learn more about the history of our planet, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the earth has had many faces over its history. Remains of tropical forests have been found within 400 miles of the North Pole. Dinosaurs once lived in the tropical lushness of Alaska. At one time you could even walk to Australia from Asia.
It’s also been known for some time that the great Antarctic continent was once much warmer than it is today. However, only recently have we learned that the frozen wastelands of Antarctica were forested hills not very long ago. In the 1980’s, the remains of a forest were discovered along the Transarctic Mountains. The forest stretched over an area of 1,300 kilometers. When the Antarctic forest was growing, the mountainous area looked like the fjords of Chile and Norway. Scientists have continued looking for evidences of the animals that might have lived in the forest.
How long ago did the forest grow where there is now only ice and snow? Scientists have found wood from the forest. It’s not very fossilized. In fact, it still floats and it can be burned. Scientists who typically assign great ages to the earth say that the evidence now says that the changes that took place in Antarctica happened much more rapidly than they once thought.
Our earth is dynamic, changing much more rapidly than most ever thought. That is, unless one has believed the catastrophic history of the earth recorded in the Bible.
If your just going post an insult, rather than an answer, don’t bother.
@Justin, How was I trying to prove the bible, with the bible? Why not read the question before commenting.
That is an interesting question to ponder. There would be wide sweeping, devastating consequences for not only science, but theology as well. If our dating methods are wrong, it means nature itself is inconsistent, has no laws or constants. Our dating methods rely on well-known universal constants and fundamental laws of nature. They are not something that science has invented; they are what science has discovered to be true about the universe. For example, the Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) radiometric dating method uses the known radioactive decay rate of uranium into lead to date samples. Some dating methods can be used to cross-check each other for accuracy. Science would crumble if the universal constants and fundamental laws of nature were not consistent. Science relies on those constants and laws to describe the universe.
Theology, on the other hand, would suffer a great blow as well. Theology has always promulgated a perfect, all knowing, all powerful, loving God. An inconsistent, imperfect universe that has no laws or constants would totally debunk the notion of a perfect God. There would be no need to even consider the creation myth because theology would have to rewrite itself.
Also keep in mind that conflicting dates between the creation myth and reality is just one in the plethora of conflicts the myths has with reality. Incorrect dating does not address the issues of incest, talking serpents, global flood, boats that hold millions of animals, or all the evidence of evolution that exists. It also does not address the obvious issues like the vengeful, evil God that the Old Testament portrays. If the dating method was found to be wrong, it would make me question science and what we think we know about the universe. It would not, however, make me think the creation myth was true.
I’m open to new ideas, but Christianity is not new to me. So no, I would not be "forced" to wonder if the creation story is true.
References :
Very interesting! ~I agree with you that I believe what the Bible says,there has been people even in our time that have tried to disprove the Bible and ended up proving it to themselves instead!~
References :
The popular dating systems rely on circular reasoning. How intelligent people can claim to take them seriously I can not imagine, unless it’s just for political points.
References :
This planet is not like it was when created. There was a canopy over the earth like a greenhouse would have. Which made even temperatures around the globe.The flood destroyed that canopy and that is where all the water came from.They were spun towards the poles and froze. Nothing else makes sense.
References :
sure
References :
You know there is more than one dating system, right? It’s not as if everything hinges on a single measurement or something.
"unless one has believed the catastrophic history of the earth recorded in the Bible."
You’d have to be a retard to accept a religious document as a history guide to the earth. Sorry, but that is the way it is. The Bible is not a science text; to try and use it as such is beyond idiocy.
To answer the header question: even if ALL of science were proven wrong, that would not make the Bible nonsense any more likely.
References :
Oh, by the way, "rapidly" in geological time is still not exactly rapid in terms humans would comfortably work with. Unless you want to say the dinosaurs started up, lived, dominated the planet, died out, all in the span of whatever Biblical timescale you want to come up with.
It’s pretty well established that this world is over 6,000 years old. Everyone has their own thoughts, I’ll leave them to figure it out, I looked into many relgions and it doesn’t matter they are self-serving, money and power hungry. If the bible is right God said give away your money and come follow me, Religions say pay God and come follow us. I see religions as evil so it really doesn’t matter to me. If you think I’m going to hell so be it. God said beware of false prophets, guess what.
References :
LOL
You try and prove the Bible, with the Bible.
I guess Homo Habilis was a trick pulled by Satan and never existed.
LOL
You quoted the Bible like it’s some sort of "fact"
If the Bible was some sort of "history book" You would be seeing Top Biologist like Richard Dawkins talking about it.
The Bible also states the Earth came first not the Sun. LOL
References :
Sure.
Look in the real world.
Decode this lyrics " You’ll see "
"Wonderful world"
"Don’t know much"
"The Final Countdown"
"The Great Commandments"
"Believe it or not"
"Reality"
"Can you feel it"
"Feel the force"
Watch in picture " Indiana Jones with Raiders of the Lost Ark"
What happen to all the by standers watching the opening of the Golden Ark?
How Indiana Jones was at loss and blurred in time?
Then look in the real world in time?
Luke 21.30-36
Luke 9.25,55-56,60
Luke 8.5-8,10-17
Luke 24.44-45,47-48
Luke 6.39-40,41-45,46-49
John 7.19
Revelation 22.13-17
What do you think?
References :
decoded from the missing x-files.
i did not read you all
but i understood what you wanted to ask
to answer this i would only say
if you believe any thing and that is not in real every thing that is said about it will not harm you
if you don’t believe that thing and that might be in real will indeed harm you
so its better to believe things rather then denying them
Golden words of Zahid
Zahid from Pakistan
References :
I’d probably be like Wiley Coyote and try to figure out how to build a better Acme rocket. As the old saying goes "back to the drawing board." I would not accept creationism though as a pre gone conclusion. I would still need some pretty solid evidence to consider that as a valid alternative. So far, well at least I am concerned, I haven’t seen any yet.
References :
I still have trust in science and what you are talking about is scientific discovery.
References :
Well as an agnostic my position would remain unchanged.
I should point out that both science and religion are quests for the truth, not the absolute final truth.
Science uses empirical data to formulate theories that explain what is observed.
Religion uses hermeneutics (considered interpretation of revealed dogma) to address metaphysical questions, such as the meaning of life or what (if anything) happens to your consciousness after death.
The two are completely different and unrelated subjects (both equally valid) the only problem is when people confuse the two, trying to use science to comment on religion or vice versa.
Ok let’s use an analogy to explain this idea of equally valid as I know some people will object to the claim.
You need a package delivered to another location (say half way round the world). You have two choices (over land and sea by truck(s) freight train, and boat) or by air. Which is the best method? Clearly it would depend on your package and the urgency of the delivery. Let’s say your package is small and light and needs to be delivered fast, clearly air would be the best mode of transport. Now let’s say it’s a huge cargo container weighing several tones? It’s still possible to ship it by air but it would be prohibitively expensive, especially if the delivery is not urgent and you don’t mind waiting, in that case by land and sea would be the most efficient mode of transport. I hope this analogy has helped to solidify my case that we need the right tools for the right jobs.
There is problems when there is overlap, such as when religion touches on things which are observable, most famously the creation myths. In this case we can still accept religious revelation as true but we must interpret that revelation metaphorically, as in this instance scientific observation is the sharper tool. Dogma gives an overview of roughly what happened, but science provides the details of how it happened. Likewise in issues of ethics and divinity we are better off being guided by revealed dogma to comfort us on the big questions of the meaning of life rather than blundering around in the darkness or simply denying that such things exist.
Of course it would help more people take religion seriously if there was more agreement within the religious community, while religious people continue to squabble over which dogma is more authoritative or how best to interpret it there will be a steady increase in the number of people who want to steer clear of the whole religious minefield.
References :
yes good answer terry.
References :
Katie, evidence of God, and a Creator is very obvious to those whom He has called. The problem is, not everyone is called, and even fewer are chosen. The majority of those who deny God and the Bible will never believe, regardless of the amount of evidence shown to them, unless God opens their hearts and minds to His truth. The knowledge of Him is not for everyone. God calls certain people to Himself. Just as He called the Jews in the Old testament, not the Egyptians and Babylonians, He calls certain people from every tribe and nation today. We cannot know God unless He first reveals Himself to us, for we are all spiritually as dead as Lazarus until He revives our Spirit and gives us the opportunity to repent and serve Him. It’s a hard thing to understand that although God desires to see everyone saved, He does not intend to save everyone. This is not because God is evil or wrong, it’s because we are all depraved sinners, who would never choose God on our own. Therefore instead of passively letting everyone go to hell, He calls (pre-ordained) some out for Himself. If He did not, than we would all be hopeless. Jesus said He did not come for everyone, but He came and died for His sheep, which is for those who God has given Him. Although His death was sufficient for everyone in the world, it was in no way intended for everyone. This is all done for God’s glory, and so the Son will be glorified in the end. We may want everyone to know the truth and be saved, but the fact remains, few are chosen. Romans 9 reveals the essence of God’s election, and it is a common factor throughout the Bible. This is why what seems so obvious to us seems like foolishness to those who do not believe.
References :
I Have said this many times before, and that is that The entire debate over Creation vs Evolution is Not about ‘evidence’ as the Seculat Atheist Evolutionist would have you to believe, That is a smoke Screen used to hide and disguise the ‘real’ reason and that it is about Philosophy and ideology,
Consdier this
The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish
http://www.strimoo.com/video/14877425/The-Origin-of-Man-by-Dr-Duane-Gish-Veoh.html
Skull Fossils – As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897kM
Neanderthals – Smarter Than We Thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o
Creation In The 21st Century – Our Young Moon 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3jtYx7NMk
The "Dark Cloud" of the Big Bang
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903287973124207940&ei=znTFScGOApzE-gHD6IHBCg&q=Dr+Robert+gentry&hl=en
Why do creationists feel sorry for delusionists?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d4b_1214585502
Today’s World Population Debunks Evolution- Dr. Carl Baugh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWxqzNM76jE
Creation In The 21st Century — Noah’s Ark and Jesus 1 of 3 (Parallel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQg67H4GK1o
References :
The Lightning Strikes
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, no if ands or buts about it. Yes "we" may have dated time wrong because we just don’t know we were there when it got started there are just some things we have to wait on for the answer and really who cares about dates and times we better be getting ready for the second coming of Christ Jesus!!
References :
That is an interesting question to ponder. There would be wide sweeping, devastating consequences for not only science, but theology as well. If our dating methods are wrong, it means nature itself is inconsistent, has no laws or constants. Our dating methods rely on well-known universal constants and fundamental laws of nature. They are not something that science has invented; they are what science has discovered to be true about the universe. For example, the Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) radiometric dating method uses the known radioactive decay rate of uranium into lead to date samples. Some dating methods can be used to cross-check each other for accuracy. Science would crumble if the universal constants and fundamental laws of nature were not consistent. Science relies on those constants and laws to describe the universe.
Theology, on the other hand, would suffer a great blow as well. Theology has always promulgated a perfect, all knowing, all powerful, loving God. An inconsistent, imperfect universe that has no laws or constants would totally debunk the notion of a perfect God. There would be no need to even consider the creation myth because theology would have to rewrite itself.
Also keep in mind that conflicting dates between the creation myth and reality is just one in the plethora of conflicts the myths has with reality. Incorrect dating does not address the issues of incest, talking serpents, global flood, boats that hold millions of animals, or all the evidence of evolution that exists. It also does not address the obvious issues like the vengeful, evil God that the Old Testament portrays. If the dating method was found to be wrong, it would make me question science and what we think we know about the universe. It would not, however, make me think the creation myth was true.
References :