Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's a hypothesis. So is evolution. A hypothesis is not promoted to a theory until it is tested.
I'm not sure that's quite correct.
A hypothesis can be tested.
A theory is a probable explanation.
You can have one with the other, one without the other, but evolution is most definitely a theory. It may well have a hypothesis or two attached to it, but the core theory remains.
OK, so you believe that Jesus created man as the bible says, rather than man evolved from animals? Why wiggle?
Dad said:I am suggesting your dates are wrong.
There are no older remains.
Your dates are based solely on the assumption that present nature is what we can use to model the far past.
The dates are no better than the unproven belief that the past was the same.
Dad said:God was way out in front. No news there. Chariots are mentioned before this, they have wheels you know.
Dad said:You refer to dates based on beliefs. Quit treating them with any reality or seriousness, they are bogus.
Best to say you use religion and hate for God actually and His word.IMHO, it is best to say that we use theories to construct hypothesis.
No 'wiggling' necessary.... God created Man and as man could not write (did not leave written records of the time)
we read of his (man's) artifacts, as they are found, and use the environment they are found in, to help us 'establish a date'
as to, WHEN they were made.... Their existence, is undeniable < they, did not make themselves and monkeys
apparently did not and do not have the 'smarts' to create them
Those that do not want to see, might as well be blind
When remains (artifacts) are found, in / beneath 'undisturbed surroundings' that haven't 'seen the light of day' for a long time ....
It is an accepted practice, to accept, that the artifact is at-least as old, as other materials found in it's vicinity
eg: grains / pollens / vegetable-matter
If you tell me Adam had a chariot, please forgive me my chuckling (at the thought)
Why, would they be bogus ?
You 'believe' whatever you believe > based upon beliefs
We would no-longer have credible reason to believe ANYTHING if, we stopped treating them with seriousness
or, took the possibility of their 'reality status' away from them
You appear to accredit everyone, whose opinion differs from your own, with ...
the reasoning power of a Lemming
_and I do assure you, that just because everyone-else appears to be jumping off a cliff... that I won't follow, Why is that ?
>> because I am capable of using my head to think 'independantly' (of others)
I am using 'the gifts' I have been given, to examine the gifts God has given us
sight, hearing, touch, memory and logical thought .....
ie: WHO, would have 'been around' to make these 'tools' <that, could not, produce themselves
dave
Some race of proto-hominids probably used tools like rocks especially, the use of taking a rock and smashing something with it doesn't require very much intelligence or human advancement...From the article it appears they're considering the not so out there possibility that the Homo genus were not the first to use tools. Always fascinating when things are discovered which cause theories to be reconsidered.
I understand that my character can effect what I am able and willing to believe. And since I am not perfect, my beliefs can be also not perfectly honest. I can see things the way I want them to be, "more or less".Some race of proto-hominids probably used tools like rocks especially, the use of taking a rock and smashing something with it doesn't require very much intelligence or human advancement...
God Bless!
Best to say you use religion and hate for God actually and His word.
Some race of proto-hominids probably used tools like rocks especially, the use of taking a rock and smashing something with it doesn't require very much intelligence or human advancement...
God Bless!
I think it behooves us to point out that the religion of science so called falsely is against Scripture and it's adherents display a disrespect and even hatred at times for God and His word.Wonderful contribution to the thread.
There also was a picture of all the tools together. They also pointed out that a hammer and anvil operation were used and the tools were processed a certain way.In the first post of the thread, it looks like that is a rock, and that is supposed to be a tool? It looks like a plain rock, to me, but I understand ones have likely examined it closely to see patterns of wear on it, which would indicate it was used by humans or some other creature.
We should also consider that the fossil record has no man or animals early on in the record. Why? God said we were all created together the same week. The answer is likely that the different state or nature of the past did not allow remains of most creatures, just some. Those 'some' are the fossil record! That means it is useless ridiculous and totally not any record of all life on earth!And, for all I know to consider . . . if it was a human who invented the stone grinder, the people could have died and their bones could have been eaten and digested by a porcupine or someone else, so there might not show any remains of human bones.
It says a mist went up and watered the earth, if I remember and understand right. And it had not rained until the flood. And there were four seasons after the flood. So, I can see that the earth before the flood was warm and moist with a world-wide rain forest . . . where things "might" not be preserved, with all the moisture and bone eaters around, possibly.The answer is likely that the different state or nature of the past did not allow remains of most creatures, just some.
It says a mist went up and watered the earth, if I remember and understand right. And it had not rained until the flood. And there were four seasons after the flood. So, I can see that the earth before the flood was warm and moist with a world-wide rain forest . . . where things "might" not be preserved, with all the moisture and bone eaters around, possibly.
More than that. Moisture doesn't allow angels to marry women and live here. It doesn't allow people to live 1000 years. It doesn't allow trees to grow fast. It doesn't allow stars to be seen a week after being made. It doesn't allow land and water to be separated on a planet wide scale without great heat from friction. It doesn't allow for a flood and taking of the flood waters off the planet..etc. The best explanation is that there was a different nature.
There also was a picture of all the tools together.
They also pointed out that a hammer and anvil operation were used
and the tools were processed a certain way.
>means it is useless ridiculous and totally not any record of all life on earth!
Actually, the "best" explanation is Goddidit.
Great, so it would be post flood, cause they probably didn't eat meat before.For sure, the obtaining of, 'bone marrow', would have needed such tools
#2
The flood would certainly have washed away any remains and concealed them, by all number of means....
NOTE: Just because something is not seen, does not confirm it's non-existence
iow: ....it just simply hasn't been found yet
He made the nature of the day. Of course He did it.
Great, so it would be post flood, cause they probably didn't eat meat before.
Not really. If a flood washes away a fossil we would find it downstream or wherever.
There are no remains of pre flood man or animal, except for some creeping thing fossils and etc.
One should know what to look for and what actually should be seen.
If man and lions and birds and etc etc were here as long as trilobites and other early fossils,
there should be some remains IF they left remains.
The ancient city of Lord Krishna was once thought to be merely a myth
but ruins discovered in 2000 seem to be breathing life into the old Indian tale.
The story goes that Lord Krishna had a magnificent city which was made up of 70,000 palaces
made of gold, silver, and various other precious metals.
The city was prosperous however upon Lord Krishna’s death Dwarka supposedly sank into the sea.
The ruins are situated 131 feet beneath the ocean surface in the bay of modern-day Dwarka,
one of the seven oldest cities in India.
Acoustic studies have shown the ruins to be amazingly geometric, stunning experts.
Many artefacts have been recovered from the site
but perhaps none more important, than one which was dated to 7500 BCE,
supporting the theory that the ruins may well be the ancient Dwarka.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?