do you believe many animal fossils are fake?

[BryanW92]

thatis to say ... anytime spent fighting them on an intellectual carnal level ..the level they reason from, is a waste of time for sure .. but battle in the spirit we must haha i sound like yoda .

for it all these stances of atheistic origin are seeded in the spirit of antichrist and no other source .

Arguing with them might be a waste of time, but I'm still Arminian enough to think that it is the duty of those who believe to teach the truth so that the teachers of atheism's lies aren't the only voice people hear.

 

[Alithis]

Arguing with them might be a waste of time, but I'm still Arminian enough to think that it is the duty of those who believe to teach the truth so that the teachers of atheism's lies aren't the only voice people hear.

with you there

 

[Gene2memE]

Hi SS,

When we take a fossil out of the ground we have no way of knowing how old the fossilized formation is. We then subject it to testing through various methods that we 'trust' are able to give us correct dates. However, each one of these dating methods are based on certain 'assumptions' that we must hold as 'true'.

For example: We know that today the speed of light is x. We can therefore determine the 'age' of heavenly bodies from our position by simply dividing the distance that we know the heavenly body to be from us, by x. The answer tells us that the heavenly body must be 'at least' old enough for the light to have traveled to us. However, it could be much older. This formula depends on one foundational assumption: light has always traveled at the speed of 'x'.

However, several Scriptural problems arise when we try to test this factor 'x'.

Scriptural problems, yes.

Scientific problems, no. Not assumptions either, but verified, tested observations

Variable speed of light is an invented fiction. Its psuedo-science of the first order.

The speed of light has been a constant for at least 2 billion years and has probably only changed by about 1 part in five billion (that is 0.0000000002%) in the last 10-12 billion years.

The highest reputable estimate for any change in the speed of light is about 1 part in 100,000 over the known age of the universe, and that includes the funkyness in the first few million years after the Big Bang, when baryosynethesis and nucleosynthesis were happening.

The problem lies not in the science, but elsewhere...

 

[Alithis]

Scriptural problems, yes.

Scientific problems, no. Not assumptions either, but verified, tested observations

Variable speed of light is an invented fiction. Its psuedo-science of the first order.

The speed of light has been a constant for at least 2 billion years and has probably only changed by about 1 part in five billion (that is 0.0000000002%) in the last 10-12 billion years.

The highest reputable estimate for any change in the speed of light is about 1 part in 100,000 over the known age of the universe, and that includes the funkyness in the first few million years after the Big Bang, when baryosynethesis and nucleosynthesis were happening.

The problem lies not in the science, but elsewhere...

? my goodness what a massive assumption you have presented as fact.nothing but your chosen belief.it offers you nothing ad gains you nothing.
the topic is abut fossils and most have pointed out the guess work that is used to determine the fossils age ..that method is utterly flawed and presented with extreme bias in favor of a theory which refuses to acknowledge God .science has disproved itself over and over again and wil continue to do so .it is fully subject to the whims of men and just as often their desire for financial need and gain .it is consistent only in its dishonesty.

we all ,mankind,must repent of unbelief ... believe in the lord Jesus and be saved from the righteous and just judgment of God to come .
he has made a way for us all to be saved freely .

 

[Gene2memE]

? my goodness what a massive assumption you have presented as fact.nothing but your chosen belief.it offers you nothing ad gains you nothing.

No assumptions, but repeatedly verified observational experimentation.

See: SN1987A and the Age of the Universe

and Does the Speed of Light Slow Down Over Time

the topic is abut fossils and most have pointed out the guess work that is used to determine the fossils age ..that method is utterly flawed and presented with extreme bias in favor of a theory which refuses to acknowledge God.

Evidence for this flaw and bias?

science has disproved itself over and over again and wil continue to do so .it is fully subject to the whims of men and just as often their desire for financial need and gain .it is consistent only in its dishonesty.

This paragraph shows a fundamental mis-understanding of science and the scientific method.

Science doesn't prove anything. Leave proof for mathematics and courts of law.

Science provides evidence that supports or contradicts hypothesis. Basically, we come up with ideas about how the world works, test to see if the world does work that way and then confirm or reject the idea depending on the evidence.

The scientific method is a self correcting process. It repeatedly tests its ideas. If new evidence is unearthed, or the old evidence was found to be incorrectly interpreted, then the previous hypothesis is rejected and is replaced with a new one.

If science stopped doing this, it would mean one of two things. Either the entire concept of the scientific method has come acropper. Or we've dicovered all the information in the universe and explained it to an almost perfect degree of accuracy.

we all ,mankind,must repent of unbelief ... believe in the lord Jesus and be saved from the righteous and just judgment of God to come .
he has made a way for us all to be saved freely .

Your welcome to your beliefs. You are not welcome to your own facts.

You believe in a God. You believe that God gave you a brain. Do you think that God would be happy with you rejecting knowledge - tested, observed, verified knowledge, earned through centuries of diligent study and rigorous intellectual endeavour - in favour of simple dismissal and falsehoods?

 

[Inkfingers]

Do you believe that many animal fossils are fake?

No.

I'm not generally one for conspiracy theories; and as I don't believe the 6 days to be 6 literal days (someone who takes the Bible totally literal must believe that the apostles were literal sheep) but instead see it as a poetic rendition of the world existing to serve God who created it, I have no cause to look for one.

The fossils are genuine unless I have good cause to think otherwise.

 

[Alithis]

No assumptions, but repeatedly verified observational experimentation.

See: SN1987A and the Age of the Universe

and Does the Speed of Light Slow Down Over Time



Evidence for this flaw and bias?



This paragraph shows a fundamental mis-understanding of science and the scientific method.

Science doesn't prove anything. Leave proof for mathematics and courts of law.

Science provides evidence that supports or contradicts hypothesis. Basically, we come up with ideas about how the world works, test to see if the world does work that way and then confirm or reject the idea depending on the evidence.

The scientific method is a self correcting process. It repeatedly tests its ideas. If new evidence is unearthed, or the old evidence was found to be incorrectly interpreted, then the previous hypothesis is rejected and is replaced with a new one.

If science stopped doing this, it would mean one of two things. Either the entire concept of the scientific method has come acropper. Or we've dicovered all the information in the universe and explained it to an almost perfect degree of accuracy.



Your welcome to your beliefs. You are not welcome to your own facts.

You believe in a God. You believe that God gave you a brain. Do you think that God would be happy with you rejecting knowledge - tested, observed, verified knowledge, earned through centuries of diligent study and rigorous intellectual endeavour - in favour of simple dismissal and falsehoods?

all misdirection .the speed of light and iother such laws of science do not govern God ,god governs them ..should he wish to change it he does . as it is written "God is light and in him is no shadow of turning."

your only correct in one aspect ..I am welcome to my beliefs ..this is a christian forum where we encourage and promote those beliefs.
your not welcome to debate against those beliefs.
doing so offers me no reason ,no hope no anything .
you are not able to fathom how God has created all things .knowledge based on what man thinks he knows is folly.

and nothing you argue changes that we all will give account for our words to God .
the good news is ,if you repent ,turn away from your own thinking's and believe in the lord Jesus you will not perish but have everlasting life .

fossils are real , the measure by which their age is determined ..is ,after approximately 2000years .. utterly unreliable .

 

[Gene2memE]

Ah, you appear to be a biblical literalist. Likely with young-earth creationist leanings?

This would explain much.

Even when I was an active Christian (Marist and Jesuit educated for 14 years), I was taught and understood that the Bible was neither a historically reliable document nor a basis for scientific knowledge.

The Jesuit priests and laymen who taught me history, biology, physics, chemistry, religion and mathematics had no problem with an old earth, evolution and or that Genesis was a myth, drawn from earlier mythical creation narratives.


I was not attempting misdirection, I was correcting a falsehood - that the speed of light has not been a constant within the span of human history - with information that shows the case is otherwise.

If you choose to reject this knowledge for stories with no evidential backing, that's no skin off my nose. But, to better function in life, I'd prefer to know as many true things as possible, and hold as few false beliefs as I can.

Rejecting hard won knowledge in favour of stories with no evidential backing violates that objective.

 

[Alithis]

Ah, you appear to be a biblical literalist. Likely with young-earth creationist leanings?

This would explain much.

Even when I was an active Christian (Marist and Jesuit educated for 14 years), I was taught and understood that the Bible was neither a historically reliable document nor a basis for scientific knowledge.

The Jesuit priests and laymen who taught me history, biology, physics, chemistry, religion and mathematics had no problem with an old earth, evolution and or that Genesis was a myth, drawn from earlier mythical creation narratives.


I was not attempting misdirection, I was correcting a falsehood - that the speed of light has not been a constant within the span of human history - with information that shows the case is otherwise.

If you choose to reject this knowledge for stories with no evidential backing, that's no skin off my nose. But, to better function in life, I'd prefer to know as many true things as possible, and hold as few false beliefs as I can.

Rejecting hard won knowledge in favour of stories with no evidential backing violates that objective.

Because you believed what some priests told you and the disbelieved them..does not equate
to ever being a believer in the lord Jesus.knowledge is not automatic truth... knowing a man is dead does not make it true.because i know a man who died and rose to life again.
if i choose to reject flawed knowledge which is only partial incomplete and mostly conjecture in favor of instructions which, when followed ,give the promised result.that is better then rejecting truth for incomplete erronious knowledge

we must all repent of unbelief.

 

[thesunisout]

Scriptural problems, yes.

Scientific problems, no. Not assumptions either, but verified, tested observations

Variable speed of light is an invented fiction. Its psuedo-science of the first order.

The speed of light has been a constant for at least 2 billion years and has probably only changed by about 1 part in five billion (that is 0.0000000002%) in the last 10-12 billion years.

The highest reputable estimate for any change in the speed of light is about 1 part in 100,000 over the known age of the universe, and that includes the funkyness in the first few million years after the Big Bang, when baryosynethesis and nucleosynthesis were happening.

The problem lies not in the science, but elsewhere...

You may not be aware that the big bang model has some major problems of its own

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNclw25jCc

The idea that the speed of light hasn't changed or couldn't change is a matter of faith, btw. Why should there be uniformity in nature? Why couldn't that change?