Still don't believe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Got links foothead, I'm feeling lazy. . .

Yikes. Gonna have to search through my history. It seems that all the news stories are going by the AP report, which said 4800 years, but I found one that did a little digging and discovered that nobody else is able to get the result of 4800 years, and they are getting something much more recent.

Found something....

Many comments relate to carbon dating: In this case, Kuniholm is not questioning the validity of carbon-dating techniques, but just wondering whether the dating was done correctly. He said he was presented with earlier samples of wood from Ararat that he was told were dated to just 1,400 years ago.

brb with link, my iPhone deletes text I I switch tabs.

Edit: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/27/2280442.aspx

see the update.
 
OK, he was commenting on earlier finds only dating back 1400 years. He said this about the new discovery:

Also, one of the factors behind the scientists' skepticism is that there has been no published research about these finds. If it could be verified that this wooden structure is indeed 4,800 years ago, that would be notable - whether or not it came from an ark.

Either way it works out, it is an interesting discovery.
 
I didn't read the article. Just the title.

Not only that, the Bible has been tailered to many particular writer's fancy. And you have to be off your rocker to take all the stories literally. It's a book of parables.
A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson.

Come one man, that is even said in the Bible.

According to Bible thumpers, the Earth was made 12,000 years ago. How do they come by this figure? They basically add up the ages of all the people in the Bible and figure it out from there... Dinosaurs were just a joke from God then right? To test our faith?

Here's another Bible story, Cain and Able, Cain kills Able. Cain is forced to walk around the Earth in shame with a mark on his forehead so no one would kill him... Oh wait, Adam and Even are the only people. Except Cain's hundred some brothers and sisters from Eve. That makes sense. Not to mention that a very similar tale is in mythology... So it was used to teach a lesson there as well. It's not meant to be taken literally.

no one knows how long the earth was around for before humans were created, the genesis account of the 7 days (phases) of creation cannot be 7 24 hour periods because if the earth and the sun were not created untill the nth day then there are no night and day nor '24 hour days'
 
OK, he was commenting on earlier finds only dating back 1400 years. He said this about the new discovery:



Either way it works out, it is an interesting discovery.

Nope, that was an update after the article was published. Someone who actually had a piece of the wood and carbon tested it sent that in, so he posted it. The only people claiming 4800 years are the ones who discovered it. Note that no experts are makingthis claim, just a religious group that was looking for the ark specifically. Very biased IMO. The person who dated the wood to 1400 years was most likely completely unbiased, so I am gonna trust him before the group that found it.
 
Did you even read the quote I posted from that article foothead?

Here's the previous paragraph:

Many comments relate to carbon dating: In this case, Kuniholm is not questioning the validity of carbon-dating techniques, but just wondering whether the dating was done correctly. He said he was presented with earlier samples of wood from Ararat that he was told were dated to just 1,400 years ago
 
I interpreted that to mean that they werefrom the same site, but back when they first discovered it. They have waited quite a while before going public with this.

I read another article that said that the rest of the samples were dated to more like 1800 years, I just cannot find that one right now.

I would love for this to be real, I just do not see it. How many times has the ark been discovered before, evidence was shown to cause the public to believe it, then it was revealed to be something else?
 
This was like the Sasquatch "capture" that got big on the media a while back. It was some hairy guy in a furry (!?) suit laying in a cooler of ice. :confused:
 
Similar bible, different beliefs. In other words, different religion.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_Christianity_and_Catholicism
Some of you may know it as "Follower of Christ".

I'm aware that there are differences between the catholic church and the protestant church.

as I said above, the catholic church can trace its roots right back to the big JC...

the protestant church can trace it's roots back to a split in the church caused by the leader of the church in England, (king Henry 8th), who formed the protestant church. and then through the catholic church back to the teachings of Jesus.

The catholic church is therefore supposedly based on the teachings of Jesus. (including all the godly miracles such as wine turning into the blood of Christ, and wafer turning into the bod of Christ during holy communion).

Whilst the Protestant church is much much younger. formed by a king angry that the catholic church wouldn't let him divorce...

i.e he took bits of the religion that he liked, and left bits he didn't and made up a whole bunch of other stuff...

Basically, historically, the teachings of the protestant church must therefore be less accurate than the teachings of the catholic church. they are made up one one and a half thousand years after the fact.

the point also surely still stands that there is the word of god, (the one true unwavering word of god). at least that's what religious leaders tell us...
yet the people of the same position are those same people who have been changing the one true unwavering word of God all the way through the history of the church.

if you're a protestant Christian, you can't distance yourself from the fact that the word of God has changed a lot over the years. yet we're still reading from the same text supposedly?

Name a few. I'd love to get into the details with you on this, but you need to show your examples and sources. (even if you are your own source!)
priests should be celibate
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

I think that we can also conclude that since contraception didn't exist in the year 33AD that Jesus most likely had no strong feelings on contraception either.
-despite the fact that contraception hadn't been invented, and thus teaching that contraception is wrong cannot possibly the word of God as handed down to the prophets at the time of the writing of the bible and other holy texts, it is now taught and taken as gospel that contraception is wrong within the Catholic church. - even to the extent that the pope publicly advises people in Africa not to use contraception, not even to help prevent the spread of AIDS,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom