Because it's impossible for both to exist? I can't wait for your well thought out, copied, and pasted reply.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
Because it's impossible for both to exist? I can't wait for your well thought out, copied, and pasted reply.
Just more Watchtower garbage....
"When I got untethered from the comfort of religion, it wasn't a loss of faith for me. It was a discovery of self. I had thought that I'm capable enough to handle any situation. There's peace in understanding that I have only one life, here and now, and I'm responsible," - Brad Pitt
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...well then, here it is!
Is the theory of evolution really compatible with the teachings of the Bible? If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18-24) Is that how Jesus viewed this Bible account? “Did you not read,” said Jesus, “that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”—Matthew 19:4-6.
Jesus was here quoting from the creation account recorded in Genesis chapter*2. If Jesus believed the first marriage to be a fictional story, would he have made reference to it to support his teaching on the sanctity of marriage? No. Jesus pointed to the Genesis account because he knew it to be true history.—John 17:17.
Jesus’ disciples likewise believed the Genesis account of creation. For example, Luke’s Gospel account traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) If Adam were a fictional character, at what point would this genealogical list have turned from fact to myth? If the rootstock of this family tree were mythological, how firm would that have made Jesus’ claim that he was the Messiah, born in the line of David? (Matthew 1:1) The Gospel writer Luke said that he had “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” Clearly, he believed the creation account in Genesis.—Luke 1:3.
The apostle Paul’s faith in Jesus was linked to Paul’s trust in the Genesis account. He wrote: “Since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1*Corinthians 15:21,*22) If Adam were not literally the forefather of all mankind, the one through whom “sin entered into the world and death through sin,” why would Jesus have needed to die to undo the effects of inherited sin?—Romans 5:12; 6:23.
To undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible. Any attempt to marry these beliefs can only give birth to a weak faith that is prone to being “tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.”—Ephesians 4:14.
Why not? We get lessons and teaching from stories all the time.
It's myth all the way down.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
How accurate is carbon dating?....not very!
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm
So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm
So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.
MVP
Well-Known Member
such a cute and reliable website
. I love question under article - are you ready to accept Jesus?.. LMAO...
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
such a cute and reliable website
....so why don't you pick a website that says "carbon dating" is most reliable, especially with regards to specimens dating more than a couple of thousand years!
https://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/the-science-behind-carbon-dating/
60,000 seems more than a couple of thousand.
Dude the Earth wasn't even around 60,000 years ago...that's how unreliable carbon dating is!
