if the skeleton of the 3.3 million year old little girl?

Question

is proven to be real how do you think it will affect those that believe that humans have only been around for 6 thousand years?
will it affect their faith?

Answer 1

I don't know where I stand on the old earth new earth debate, but when science figures out something they no that does not directly refute the scope of what they know they adjust the picture to include it and move on. No where does the Bible give a specific date for creation, if enough evidence shows that six to ten thousand years is wrong, most will adjust their knowledge on that area and keep going, no big deal. a eighty million year old skeleton isn't going to knock God off his throne.

Answer 2

Then again, it might be the earth was created 6000 years ago, with everything aged to appear older...

Of course, those aren't 3.3 million year old bones. Those are pieces of rock, that may have been bones 3.3 million years ago. I have to take it on faith that:
1) They once were bones.
2) That the dating test is 100% accurate in dating it.
3) The scientists involved are being truthful.
4) That the person asking the questing is being accurate, and not deliberately garbling things to prove a point.
5) That I myself am not full of it, and am being truthful...Oops, that's on your end of things.

Wow, in science, alot of things gotta get accepted on faith.

Answer 3

Here is the irony....
We have a book that is proven to be real. We have proof that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead. The Bible has been copied accurately for centuries and we have accounts from people that really knew Jesus, etc.
The people won't don't believe the accounts from people 6000 years ago, will believe that there is a 3.3 million year old girl. ONE 3.3 million year old girl. Are there any eye witnesses, etc? Besides, if she were 3.3 million years old....wouldn't she be half-evolved or something?

Did you know that they carbon dated a LIVING snail to be 63,000 years old?

3.3 million year old girl will not affect my faith one bit.

Answer 4

This account took place about 30 years ago near a reservation in Nebraska.They found what was thought to be a mammoth after examining what was found it was confirmed that the bones were well over a million years old.Soon after an old Indian man who was close to a 100 yrs. old came forward and told the account of a circus coming to town.He being a young man at the time obtained a little work from the circus.One of the elephants had become ill and died.He had helped bury it.This is one of the stories they don't want you to hear about.Why are people so gullible to believe these theories,when are you all going to wake up and smell the coffee?

Answer 5

We ought never trust the science of men over the word of God.

For one thing, our dating methods rest on major assumptions and have even proven to be extremely unreliable. For instance, carbon-14 dating rests on two basic assumptions, namely that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and its rate of decay have always been constant. Yet, neither of these assumptions is provable. In fact, present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950’s (and factors such as the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would also have direct effects on C-14 level, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time.) Some examples of erroneous dates arrived at through our “radiometric” dating methods include shells from living snails being carbon dated as being 27,000 years old, living mollusk shells being dated up to 2300 years old, a freshly killed seal being carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago, and one part of a mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years while another part carbon dated at 44,000!

Answer 6

First of all they can not prove it real. Maybe real bones-okay. But the 3.3 my is not possible to prove. Scientist use the "index fossil" to date bones and rocks. This is a flawed system, but it yields dates that coincide with evolutionary thinking. If anyone chooses to use a "radio-metric" method to confirm the date, then the procedure must yield data consistent with the index fossil or it will be discarded as a faulty test.
No one can prove bones are that old. No one.
If people understood how bones were dated, they would never believe them.

Answer 7

Who ever thinks man has only been around for six thousand years is a complete lunatic, it is proven that man came thousands of years ago, they have traced the aboriginals in Australia back 45 thousand years.

Answer 8

You have to make the faulty assumption that the 3.3 million year date is accurate. Let me know how that works out for you. As far as affecting my faith? No, not in this lifetime.

Answer 9

No, it won't affect them because they get their science from their preachers and god squad websites. I've heard a lot of crap, such as evolution is wrong because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics, but they are applying the law incorrectly (they don't know the difference between a closed system and an open one). They also don't seem to realize that there many forms of radiometric dating, not just carbon-14.

Answer 10

First, one should look at the age given to the fossil. Carbon dating has already been proven to be inaccurate; it only provides a method for some scientists to hang on to their theory of Evolution. So, I cannot see a falsity affecting my faith, no. Hope this helps, God bless!