Tell ME atheists: Why is a 10,0000 year old BONE proof but the Bible is not?
- DavidLv 71 year agoFavourite answer
Anything before recorded history (about 2300 BC) is speculative and uses unproven assumptions to come up with dates. Truth does not need to hide behind unproven presuppositions (like materialism, naturalism). Atheists are assuming old age to prove old age; delusional, inconsistent, illogical and irrational to fabricate something then believe it to be factual w/o evidence.
Adopting an unproven (and arguably disproved) presupposition as an exclusionary priori prevents one from following the evidence where ever it leads thereby precluding science from being an honest search for the truth. If the scientific method is valid, it does not need priori's!
Evolution and the supporting myth of millions/billions of years are nothing more than a speculative ideas that have no basis in science.
We know we can't rely on science for ancient history. In 1963, a geologist counted 46 different theories for dinosaur extinctions by the scientific community, and many more have been added since then.
Probably only the cause of the Pleistocene ice age has generated as many bewildering theories. (As of 1968, there were 60 theories for the cause of the ice age). Science has never been the authority on history.
What were the ASSUMPTIONS used to come up with this 10,000 year old date? Oops, atheists don't confirm assumptions, just jump to conclusions from OPINION. This question ASSUMES some bone is how old? Anyone can assume anything they want, but to draw conclusions would be confusing reality with irrationality.
That men can speculate about the meaning of artifacts, including adding religious interpretations, has no bearing whatsoever on Christianity, or its actual history.
- Anonymous1 year ago
Because the Bible is mythology
- 1 year ago
The Bible and people who propagate it make claims without solid evidence, while those who rely on science and a body of evidence, which would include 10,000 year old bones like you’re talking about, collect large amounts of evidence, examine them and keep collecting facts, until they then derive a claim based upon a mountain of solid, hard, forensic evidence. See the difference?
- 1 year ago
A 10,000 year old bone is proof that an animal of a certain species lived 10,000 years ago.
A 2,000 year old bible is proof than an author wrote a story 2,000 years ago.
Can you do the math?
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 1 year ago
Bishop Ussher used The Bible to calculate when the First Day of Creation began.
If you BELIEVE the Book of Genesis, etc, then you BELIEVE there are no bones older than 6,503 years, since there were no animals before then. No animals=no bones.
Asking about ANYTHING older than that, exposes you as a person who does not accept the Bible as historically and scientifically accurate.
Since doubting the Bible condemns us BOTH to HELL, I can only HOPE that we don't end up cellmates.
- TommyLv 51 year ago
A single piece of evidence by itself does not prove anything. When combined with other bits of evidence the picture becomes much more clear.
- ?Lv 71 year ago
Because the bone exists as real and the bible exists as a plagiarized fantasy.
- BabsLv 41 year ago
The bone is reliable evidence of the existence of a life form from long ago.
The Bible is proof that ancient people told stories about supernatural beings. It is not evidence that those stories are true.
- El Nerdo LocoLv 71 year ago
The source of the bone is going to something ancient and interesting which paints part of a larger picture of what life was back then. And the more of them you find, the more that picture gets filled out.
- Donut TimLv 71 year ago
A bone, the bible, or anything, may be used as evidence.
A 'Proof' requires a proper progression of logic.