Question about Fossils

[Troy Rambo]

Jus wondering how you guys respond to people when "New Discoveries" of fossils come out and they are said to be 100,000s of years old when Earth is only 6000 years old.

The answer is really quite simple: The world is full of lies and deceptions designed to test your faith; maybe even designed to get you to abandon your faith. Isn't that Satan's primary goal?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I wonder if you can smoke them and what it would taste like. Probably chicken.

 

[timewerx]

The answer is really quite simple: The world is full of lies and deceptions designed to test your faith; maybe even designed to get you to abandon your faith. Isn't that Satan's primary goal?

That's what discernment and wisdom is for. Jesus commanded us to be gentle as doves, wise as a serpent (float like butterfly, sting like a bee, Just kidding!).

While science got some mistakes, there are things it sure got 100% correct, otherwise, we won't be sending probes to Pluto and keep an eye on its progress via internet...

For historical events however, unless we have invented some sort of time travel or figured out how to extract "recorded" data from the fabrics of space time, or perfected the science of genetics, dating historical facts will always be like trying to hit to bulls eye with a blind fold.

For now, I'm placing my bet on genetics will be the soonest to give an answer....But I'm also betting the answer is one which we will not like.

 

[Doveaman]

So the proper Christian/Church response to any scientific theories should never have be that the Bible refutes it, but that IF a theory is PROVEN true then whatever concept one maintains the Bible has "revealed" to us that is in conflict to that proven theory - that Biblical concept must NOT have been what God wanted "revealed". IOW we did not understand His message to mankind.

Scientific theories are never PROVEN. They are always held tentatively, always subject to change, never a certainty. Any church that adjusts its doctrine to fit a scientific theory is leading the flock down an uncertain path. The blind leading the blind.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Scientific theories are never PROVEN. They are always held tentatively, always subject to change, never a certainty. Any church that adjusts its doctrine to fit a scientific theory is leading the flock down an uncertain path. The blind leading the blind.

Not sure why there was a compulsion to reply here or how this addresses the point of my post. A theory is not truth merely speculation about truth. Once proven, it is not longer a theory or speculation, it is truth. My post was not endorsing blind leading blind. It was rejecting the false notion that any search for knowledge (the goal of science) must be viewed with skepticism. God is Knowlege.He is Truth. So in a very real sense all science represent what He put in our nature - the desire to know Him. So whether the scientist acknowledges Him or not - the goal to "know" what is true is seeking to know God. Which is why my post said the Church and science do not have to be seen as in conflict.

 

[katerinah1947]

I apologize for producing the overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans.

Hi,

In all that work, is there any reason to suspect that they too, knew of fossilized remnants, in the same places that we see them, because of the rather large amounts of stone work they did back then for construction?

Additionally, as a more hunter gatherer group than we are now, the probability increases that they knew much of fossils and put that information in thier art work.

Were there any non fictional stories of living with dragons?

LOVE,
...Mary Kate., .... .

 

[timewerx]

Scientific theories are never PROVEN.

Here we go again... Internet used to be just a theory, now we're using it!

Perhaps what you mean is that scientific theories regarding unrecorded past can never be proven?

What if a time machine was invented? If anyone thinks it's impossible then why does our Universe has a mechanism to correct paradoxes of time travel if time travel is not supposed to be possible??

 

[Doveaman]

Here we go again... Internet used to be just a theory, now we're using it!

When the Bang Bang theory and Evolution theory becomes useful, let me know.

Perhaps what you mean is that scientific theories regarding unrecorded past can never be proven?

No, I meant what I said. Scientific theories are never proven. That's why they are called theories. Something that is proven is not a theory. The Big Bang is unproven and is therefore a theory. Human evolution is unproven and is therefore a theory.

What if a time machine was invented?

Impossible.

If anyone thinks it's impossible then why does our Universe has a mechanism to correct paradoxes of time travel if time travel is not supposed to be possible??

When that so-called "mechanism" becomes useful, let me know.

 

[Doveaman]

Not sure why there was a compulsion to reply here or how this addresses the point of my post. A theory is not truth merely speculation about truth. Once proven, it is not longer a theory or speculation, it is truth. My post was not endorsing blind leading blind. It was rejecting the false notion that any search for knowledge (the goal of science) must be viewed with skepticism. God is Knowlege.He is Truth. So in a very real sense all science represent what He put in our nature - the desire to know Him. So whether the scientist acknowledges Him or not - the goal to "know" what is true is seeking to know God. Which is why my post said the Church and science do not have to be seen as in conflict.

A scientific theory is an explanation of existing facts.

In other words, the scientific theory is not the facts, but only an explanation of the facts. The facts may be proven, but the explanation, or theory, is never certain. So for the church to adjusts its doctrine to fit a scientific theory is to lead the flock down an uncertain path. The blind leading the blind.

If a man said he just came out of a house fire with no fire protection on his body, but there was no evidence indicating he was in a fire (no burns on his body, no smoke inhalation in his lungs, no smell of smoke in his clothing, nothing), what would the scientific conclusion be? Was the man in the fire or not? And would that scientific conclusion be true? And should the church go along with that conclusion?

 

[timewerx]

Scientific theories are never proven. That's why they are called theories. Something that is proven is not a theory.

Perhaps what you mean is "not been proven YET". You have to be more clear with your statements.

When that so-called "mechanism" becomes useful, let me know.

You can only have distinct experience of the "mechanism" if you time traveled to the past and met with your past self, because you will retain the memory of yourself time traveling from the future but realize you are powerless to break the chain of events.

However, you can entirely change the course of history apart from the fact, you have entered an "infinite time loop" which is really nothing more than an expression... While infinite time loops are analysed as such, it is imperceptible and you proceed with time in a linear fashion from your frame of reference.

I've only experienced it a few times, briefly, and not much time backwards. Not enough to re-write history but enough time for little things like saving myself from an impending accident that would have otherwise killed me.


The inevitable fate of a time traveler is the fact that he or she cannot prevent himself or herself from time traveling despite having the knowledge of the future. That only way this could be stopped is that if another time traveler stepped in.

I'm not making this up. We do live in a Universe that is full of "miracles" and surprises!

 

[Doveaman]

Here we go again... Internet used to be just a theory, now we're using it!

Perhaps what you mean is that scientific theories regarding unrecorded past can never be proven?

Perhaps what you mean is "not been proven YET". You have to be more clear with your statements.

There was no scientific theory of the internet. A scientific theory is an explanation of existing facts. If the internet was not an existing fact there could have been no scientific theory on it. It would simply be a general theory, or general idea, which eventually led to the creation of the internet.

A scientific theory is an explanation of existing facts. The facts may be proven, but the explanation, or theory, is never certain.

You can only have distinct experience of the "mechanism" if you time traveled to the past and met with your past self, because you will retain the memory of yourself time traveling from the future but realize you are powerless to break the chain of events.

However, you can entirely change the course of history apart from the fact, you have entered an "infinite time loop" which is really nothing more than an expression... While infinite time loops are analysed as such, it is imperceptible and you proceed with time in a linear fashion from your frame of reference.

I've only experienced it a few times, briefly, and not much time backwards. Not enough to re-write history but enough time for little things like saving myself from an impending accident that would have otherwise killed me.

The inevitable fate of a time traveler is the fact that he or she cannot prevent himself or herself from time traveling despite having the knowledge of the future. That only way this could be stopped is that if another time traveler stepped in.

I'm not making this up. We do live in a Universe that is full of "miracles" and surprises!

I have never met a time traveler before. Pleased to meet you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

If a man said he was in a house fire without any fire protection on his body, and he was then examined by a scientists who did not find a single thread of evidence of a fire on the man (no burns on his body, no smoke inhalation in his lungs, no smell of smoke in his clothing, nothing), what would the scientific conclusion be? And would that scientific conclusion be true? And should the church go along with that conclusion?

Assuming the man's claims are true, am no scientist but as they could not offer an observable explanation, anything offered would be speculation on their part, (including denial of reality by suggesting hallucinations with many possible causes of that).

I would think the Church would and should be hesitant on taking a stand in such matters as it would be foolish to pronounce any event as Supernatural intervention without some lengthy investigation, and they actually have a process for that which can take many, many years even when the parties involve claim supernatural intervention (not all parties to such things do and the Church can and has still investigated based on the claims of witnesses).

Still not sure my point is understood and/or not following you correctly either. If something is actually true then it is true. Whether it is the Church or science proclaiming that truth is irrelevant. Truth is truth no matter who is proclaiming it. So something is either true or not true.

So science does indeed declare both truths (earth orbits sun) and also theories about what might be true (man evolved from apes - earth is very, very, very old). With all theories we could talk about what is most likely to be true in explaining something we can observe now; but talking about what is most likely is not the same as knowing that explanation is indeed true - especially when other possible explanation exist (even if less likely to be true).

My point was that if something is SAID (not proven) to be true and the Church or Bible is said to say otherwise, then are only a couple of possibilities. Both sides could be wrong - (neither position is actually true) or one of the two sides is correct. So if for example science is actually correct on the age of the earth (IOW not just a good theory but it is known/proven as an undisputed fact/certainty- a truth) and someone claims the Bible is opposed to that truth - then rather than see the Bible as "wrong" what is wrong is the understanding gleamed from the Bible that suggest an age different than what is "proven" by science. And it could go the other way as well - against a popular theory of science for example. The Bible was once widley accepted as the keystone for dating historical events/records, and still is in some circles. Archaeologist who wanted to dispute the accuracy/authenticity of the Bible use to proudly scoff at the name of Pilate in the Passion story as there was a long time before archaeological support was uncovered for someone having that name, in that area and at that time period of the Passion. So the "scientific" scoffers claiming something to be true (and opposing the Bible) apparently had to eat crow on that one or at least admit less of a claim.

 

[timewerx]

There was no scientific theory of the internet. A scientific theory is an explanation of existing facts. If the internet was not an existing fact there could have been no scientific theory on it. It would simply be a general theory, or general idea, which eventually led to the creation of the internet.

There is one theory of my own that was later on proven to be true.

Once I postulated a theory that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics could be violated. I even described a scientific study and methodology on how it may be violated.

Of course, everyone in the mainstream science field thought I was crazy. I was even banned in a prolific science forum....

....Last year, 2014, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was violated by another team. This team produced hard evidence of it and made it publications.

Of course, I never could pull off such expensive project, I'm just a clerk!


I'm telling you, the unfounded biases and discrimination by many people in authority are actually slowing down our progress in science and technology. I could have made a difference in science but I was never given that opportunity.

 

[-57]

Hi,

In all that work, is there any reason to suspect that they too, knew of fossilized remnants, in the same places that we see them, because of the rather large amounts of stone work they did back then for construction?

Additionally, as a more hunter gatherer group than we are now, the probability increases that they knew much of fossils and put that information in thier art work.

Were there any non fictional stories of living with dragons?

LOVE,
...Mary Kate., .... .

I kinda doubt it. Do you know what is involved of removing fossilized bones from rock? It's not like you walk along a path and ...look! There's a dinosaur fossil fully assembled.