Bread_of_Life

Ew, basic scientific error alert. Actually, a banana and us came from the same thing, not we came from a banana, and not a banana came from us. That's what common ancestry means. Many serious Christians do though - indeed, very serious Christians, people who have devoted their working lives to God for example. You may not think they are Christians of course, but they sure as heck do.

Yes, yes it is, and I see it a lot from professional creationists. I see lying, misquoting, twisting of facts etc, and I see it a lot, and the people who do it are never brought to justice, and rejected from the creationist community (as happens in the scientific community where people are found to lie) For example, whoever told Nebula that mitochondrial analysis in some way confirmed the biblical story of Eve, or the biblical story at all, had either very seriously misunderstood mitochondrial analysis, or was simply twisting the truth/lying. Why would anyone do this in order to back up a book that they call "the word of truth"?

Bob et al, Again I'll say it, I'm not a biblical scholar, so I can hardly pretend to be able to answer Bob's points on the biblical narrative. However, I do know a thing or two about the earth, and the evidence we find therein. I also know that there are three sorts of revelation - personal (through the spirit), scriptural (through the bible), and general (through the world, universe etc). If these 3 are in conflict, then there's gotta be something wrong with your religious beliefs - they should all be broadly aligned, saying the same thing. Now, we're talking here about a conflict between two forms of revelation, scriptural and general. Bob says that according to scripture (or else, according to his interpretation of scripture), the earth is about 6000 years old, so is life, and there was no death before the fall. However, the earth says something very very different. The earth is testament, in every single rock, with every single fossil, with every single living being, that the earth is about 5 billion years old, and life (in some form) around 3.7 billion years old. The fossil record also shows us that, in that time, life has changed. It also says that human beings evolved through a series of intermediate forms from ape-like ancestors. As well as the fossil record, we have a treasure trove of information in our DNA that confirms these facts. I would submit that the evidence is not going away. Even if we destroy every fossil we have, we will simply discover more. Even if we burn every book on DNA, it will similarly be re-discovered. The evidence that pays testament to the antiquity of the earth and life, and changes therein, will remain long after the human race has gone extinct, and every religion if forgotten. Therefore, since the evidence isn't going to change (but rather, more evidence will be gathered!) - the only remaining option (other than rejecting Christianity, which is always an option) is to change the interpretation of scripture to bring it into line with the physical evidence.

Skidd Good question, but actually, there's some far more basic problems that the flood account has to tackle. After all, the genetic differences between humans are fairly small. I'm not saying it's not a problem, it is, there is far too much genetic variation in human beings for them to have descended from a set of 8 or 10 humans a few thousand years ago, but there are bigger problems. A more basic problem is that most modern creationists reckon that only around 10-15 thousand species of animal could fit onto the ark, and be fed. I think this is actually quite a high number, but anyhow. That's one animal for every *genus* we see alive today, not one for every species. In fact, there are over 10 million species on earth today - did these all evolve from 15 thousand species in the last 4500 years? The answer is no, this rate of evolution is ridiculous given the known rates of variation in most creatures. Another problem is mitochondrial DNA. Let me explain. Mitochondria are tiny cells, adapted from bacteria, that live inside our cells and help us produce energy (they turn glucose (sugar) into ATP, which we burn for energy). However, there are several things that are special about these mitochondria. Firstly, they have their own DNA. Secondly, they only come from your mother. Thirdly, they reproduce asexually, they do not sexually recombine or mix DNA. All this makes them perfect to test for common ancestry within a species. Using mitochrondrial DNA from 200 women around the world, scientists found that the earliest common ancestor to all humans by a female only line of descent lived around 200,000 years ago in Africa (although there is some debate as to whether it is closer to India). If the story of the flood was true, we would only find 4500 years of variation in our mitochrondia, rather than 200,000 years worth. Of course, there are many other problems with the flood myth, these are just a few biological problems. Hope that helps.

Arkon Could it be rather that you simply don't like it when your arguments are shown to be false is a very systematic way, by someone who's actually taken the time to research them? I mean, after all, if you are not here to: then why on earth start a thread like this - knowing full well that I, an atheist, will read and respond to what you have written? And if you are really here to: then why won't you answer my counterarguments? They should, after all, be very easily answered if they are false and you know it, and that would show people that the bible is literally true, right? Which of my remarks were condescending - and why would it be a waste of time responding to them? Why would this bother me, it is the very reason I am here!! Perhaps you're trying to say that an atheist is simply not welcome here? Or perhaps you are trying to imply that anyone who disagrees on any basis with your narrow interpretation of the bible should be banned? Well, these are valid opinions, but I respectfully disagree - and until that management you mentioned tell me to stop posting here, I will continue to do so, whether you like what I'm saying or not, and whether you want to respond to the evidence or not.

Bob, There is very little I can do to convince you that I am not satanically driven, or that I do not come here to mock you or God. The reason there is very little to be done is that I am a guy in England sitting at a computer keyboard, and you are a guy in American sitting at a computer keyboard, and since there is no personal contact between us, it will be impossible for me to prove anything about me whatsoever. I could be satan himself - I wouldn't even need a disguise because the internet is essentially anonymous. I could know fine well God exists, but be denying it anyway to try to lead people away from him, or out of my anger at him. I could secretly be enjoying the fact that many people on this board are ignorant of science, and inwardly (or even outwardly) laughing at them. I cannot prove that I am not, because I have no method at my disposal for such proof, and you already seem convinced of my bad intentions. Therefore all I can say to you is: "sorry, but we'll have to agree to differ" - since this discussion has gone as far as it can. I do hope that through my conduct on this board you will one day be convinced that I am not really as bad or as stupid or as ignorant or as foolish as you think I am - but then I am not here to convince you of my intelligence or enlightenment or anything else about me, but rather I am here to tell people about science.

BobTriez, I think that it is rather far fetch that a multi-faith, secular and disparate group such as the scientific community could possibly hold together any sort of conspiracy, far less keep it going! As well as that, I have personal experience of the scientific community - and while it is by no means perfect - it is certainly open to new ideas, it has an understanding of the tentative nature of its work, and it encompasses theists of all religions and denominations. Not quite. It means ignorant on purpose - a state of ignorance is a state of not knowing, dumbness is more not understanding. However, I would reject this accusation in general. I am not ignorant of the bible, or the claims made therein. I am also not ignorant of the standard apologetic arguments for theism and Christianity. I simply happen to disagree with them at the moment, because I am more persuaded by the counter arguments. That's not to say I am not ignorant of course, I am ignorant of a good many things. For example, I cannot speak German - that isn't because I don't have the means at my disposal to learn it, it's because I have chosen not to. However, I have a limited ammount of time on earth, I have to choose my learning wisely. The ignorance I see on this board though is a mixture of willful and accidental ignorance. Some people here will never have had the access to learning materials for example, or access to learning institutions in which they might have understood the scientific method and evidence. But of course, that's why I'm here - to make the case for science - so that these people have access to it in a way that's easy to understand. And look how many people reject what I say a priori. Look at how few people have been willing to take me up on arguments head on. Observe how many people here simply criticise me rather than reading what I have to say. Look at how many people post replies to me without having read what I've said. That my good man is willful ignorance - a self-imposed and unhappy state of naivety about the world around us, and the evidence it gives up to us. If I acted this way - if I ignored your posts or your arguments I would be happy to be accused of willful ignorance - but as it is, I think you might be throwing stones from inside a glass house... Scoff: vb 1. (often foll. by at) to speak in a scornful and mocking way about (something) < n 2. a mocking expression; jeer Could you highlight or quote an instance when I have been guilty of doing this on this board? I am certainly not here to mock or jeer - but rather to educate. I don't want to laugh at you in your ignorance, but rather save you from it. Therefore if I have scoffed, then I am sorry, but you will have to convince me of this by quoting evidence that this is what I have done. In what sense is this not willful ignorance, if the evidence you ignore by doing this may go against your interpretation?

Arkon Ah, this is going to be enjoyable: According to evolutionary theory, neither whales or trees have been around for a billion years, in fact, neither has been around for more than 100 million. Where did you get this one from? Yes, I do. Yes, they are. This is where erosion has dominated in certian eras, and eroded away significant parts of the strata. In the Grand Canyon alone there are 13 unconformities are various sorts - with 2 main unconformities. Out of the 2 billion years of history that Grand Canyon represents, about a billion years have been eroded away, and are now missing in these unconformities. Now, what you havn't told the audience Arkon, because it would go against your beliefs, is that creationists have absolutely no explanation at all for the existence of unconformities, and especially angularr unconformities such as that found in the Grand Canyon. After all, how could a flood sort rocks by age, put the right sorts of fossils in each, AND manage to leave hundreds of millions of year gaps in the record? The answer is, it couldn't. Unconformities can only be explained (along with the rest of the geological record), by processes that take hundreds of millions and even billions of years. Yes, they are, they are considered very carefully, and play a huge part in finding out about the history of an area. Ah, don't you love mythology. It's easy to spot, because it never comes with a peer reviewed paper. Here is a page that refers to several peer reviewed papers on supposed dinosaur and human footprints being found together: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html This just isn't so, trees do not protrude through several geological eras of rock - if you date the rock around so called "polystrate" trees, you'll find it of uniform age, not representative of several geological eras. What does this mean? It means that the bottom of some trees were rapidly covered with sediment, evidence of local flooding or sudden sedimentation. These things can happen - sedimentation does not always occur at the same rate. Some creationists have said that these trees may have been transported by the Noachian deluge to where they now rest, and then had sediment dumped on them by the flood waters. However, many fossil trees have a root structure in the surrounding rocks layers, suggesting that they were in situ, rather than transported. This is an old one, but fun, and it's a classic case of creationists not checking their facts. At first, when most creationists told this story, it was of a whale that was vertical in the fossil record. Then the story changed to about a 60 degree angle. In actual fact, it was closer to 50. But never mind. The real deception comes in what you're not told by creationists on this story. There's one fact you're missing. The whale was discovered *at the same angle* as the strata it was discovered it - it didn't cut through any strata at all. In other words, the strata themselves have been put at an angle, in this case by tectonic forces (just as they are at the Grand Canyon btw - remember I mentioned the angular unconformity). Of course, you would have known this, if you'd bothered to read the paper by the scientists who examined the fossil: Allison, P. A., Smith, C. R., Kukert, H., Deming, J. W., and Bennett, B. A., 1990, Deep-water taphonomy of vertebrate carcasses: a whale skeleton in the bathyal Santa Catalina Basin. Paleobiology. vol. 17, pp. 78-89. But, like your creationists friends, you didn't check your facts. If you want to know more, why don't you visit http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html and read all about it - also, there are lots of links into peer reviewed papers there so that you can find out more in general about science and geology!

His Son Really? So, let me get this straight, everyone practicing science is an athiest trying to lead people away from God, and we have a huge worldwide conspiracy to keep people away from the truth of the bible? Is that correct? The people who created evolutionary theory believed in acquired characteristics. That doesn't mean that if acquired characteristics is wrong, then evolution is wrong. Similarly, the people who created the scientific method certainly were practicing Christians, and may well have believed in the literal Genesis account. That doesn't mean that if the literal Genesis account is wrong, then science must be wrong. This is what they call "wishful thinking". Scientists are no more abandoning evolutionary theory than they were 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. Unless you can actually produce evidence for this exodus of scientists, rather than simply rumour, I would suggest that you've been conned by propaganda on creationist websites. The word atheist doesn't mean "don't believe in anything" - it means "without theism", or "without a belief in a deity".

Then you can come back with your questions and challenges, I'll link you into where I've already answered most of them, and take on the rest! Great idea Arkon!

In fact, I don't even have faith in this. That is why I expect experiments to be independently repeated, and subjected to thorough peer review. Scientists have been known to lie, or fudge, or fake. In fact, by repeating experiments and observations, and by peer review, these people do get found out, and immediately ejected from the scientific community. This is a senseless question, since you already know the answer is "no". Of course I have not performed every single experiment known to man in every field, far less in the field of radiometric dating. There are literally thousands of samples dated every year. Again, of course I havn't. I have already seen enough evidence, from independent sources and also from my own lab (or else, the lab I studied at before leaving university), to be thoroughly convinced in the effectiveness of radiometric dating. I also have a strong theoretical understand of radiometric dating - not only of the methods involved but also of the underlying physics of decay processes and nucleonic forces. This means that I can also know that the methods that I have seen working experimentally, and have been reported to work independently many more times than I have personally seen them work, also work out theoretically. So, therefore, does anything for which you havn't seen every single last piece of evidence yourself count as a "faith" belief? For example, I havn't seen every single last piece of evidence that my fiancee exists - after all, there is plenty of evidence for this before I knew her - does this mean I can only claim to have faith that she exists? Faith is defined as a belief without sufficient evidence or proof - not as a belief without absolute or complete evidence or proof. My knowledge and experience of the evidence for an old earth may be limited, but it is certainly *sufficient* to draw a very firm conclusion that the earth is in fact old.

AllforJesustheLord No, I am saying 2 things: 1. Big Bang cosmology is not an area of expertise for me - I did not study it in any great depth when I studied physics at University - certainly not deep enough to fully understand the solutions to CP violation. 2. The study of anti-matter, and why there is not more of it, will have wide ranging implications on our understanding of the first moments of the universe, and will probably change or add to Big Bang theory in the long run. Arkon I have corrected you, because you are wrong. I have corrected you in both my main posts about the age of the earth and radiometric dating - both of which I have also given you links to. I suggest you go and read them, see what you think of the answers you get there to this question, and then come back.

Arkon Since you clearly have no interesting in answering the points and evidence I bring up, I'll cease this discussion with this post, although others are free to ask me more questions. You said 2 things of substance in your post, you backed neither with evidence: Wow, great retort, how long did it take you to come up with this one? If only you could present evidence of inconsistancy between dating methods to back this statement up. Unfortunately, such evidence is lacking, not only in your post, but in the world That's right, by the K-Ar method. In fact, the K-Ar method can date new rock as old as 1 million years. Of course, you'd have known this, and why this happens, if you'd actually bothered reading this thread - because I have already explained why and how this happens when someone asked me earlier in this thread. This only confirms to me what I have been saying all along - that you havn't even the common curiousity, not to mention decency, to read what I say before making your posts. This has been proved over and over again in your series of posts on here, all of which have been making points that have been dealt with either on this very thread, or elsewhere on related threads.

Bob, Thankyou for your reply, although you're still accusing me of having "faith" in things. I did reply to this accusation very early on in this dialogue - I believe because of evidence, not lacking it, or in spite of it. If I believe that the earth is 5 billion years old, it is because I have a lot of evidence that this is so - not because I have "faith" in what scientists tell me, or some religious adherence to an old earth. I would thank you therefore to not accuse me of this in the future. Nik

All the more reason to write to him and find out how he came to that figure huh - it'll be a mystery for you to unravel. Also, the link I posted up was quite a long work - more than 20 pages. Did you read it all? Did you read any of it? I doubt it, because you say that this is "theory vs God" (paraphrase) - whereas the website does not present theories, but rather real evidence and experimental results. So, in real terms, this is about evidence vs your literal interpretation of the Genesis account. He also includes a section on "correctly handling the word of truth". Did you read this? What is your response to it? Did you even click on the link I posted up? If I were to check in your history right now, would it be there?

Firstly, I'm afraid there is rather a big difference between "direct observation" and "assumption" - it is not merely a semantic difference. If you had read my original post on this section, and you clearly have not, you would have found out that the original ammounts of parent and daughter element have not been assumed, and are not even *needed* for isochronic dating methods. As well as this, they can be directly measured, not assumed, by carrying the isochron on to the Y-axis intercept. I said this in my last post, did you even bother reading that before replying? Secondly, you clearly still havn't read my numerous comments on variance in half lives. Let's go through them again, in the perhaps vain hope that you will actually bother reading this post in any detail. Firstly, scientists have used time machines to measure radioactive decay in the long past (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8796). Secondly, scientists use Uranium Decay Chains (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8179) to check that radioactive decay rates have been constant. Thirdly, scientists have tested radioactive sources at extremely high temperature and pressure - and have found that radioactivity only varies by about 3% in these conditions - and even then, only in certain radioactive compounds. Lastly, scientists know that any dramatic change in radioactive decay would melt the rocks that the decay occurs in, resetting isochrons to zero, and releasing radiogenic argon - two things you know nothing about, having not yet read either of my posts on radiometric dating and the age of the earth. Thirdly, samples do not get "tossed out" if they do not conform. As I said to Mscoville earlier in this thread (the thread you havn't bothered reading before replying to it) mixing isochrons and even negative results are routinely reported because they often indicate interesting features in the geothermal history of the area the sample was taken from. This misapprehension can only come from a complete lack of experience of the scientific literature in this area - which isn't surprising, since you havn't even had the decency to read what I have written here, far less do any background research. Lastly, we are still using the same methods of radiometric dating that we always have. Uranium dating, K-Ar and the various isochron methods and other minor methods have been used for years with great success and agreement. This is a far cry from them being, as you claim, disasterous, or in constant need of replacement. All of this just goes to prove that all you need to write a post is a good strong set of fingers - you don't need knowledge, evidence, or even to have read what has been said before to make sure that what you say is relevant.

Yes, I do. He may simply have a different interpretation of God's word and the method of creation, or timescale of creation, but still keep his commandments and believe in his sacrifice on the cross. If we accused everyone who disagreed with our point of view, or interpretation of the bible or being a liar then it'd be a very tense and unhappy world we lived in, wouldn't it?

Arkon You claim that: This claim implies that you have actually bothered to read this thread, and especially the original post that started it, describing in detail the isochronic dating method. This claim is, I would venture, untrue. You havn't read the original thread at all. How do I know this? Because you went onto say: Actually, the original ammounts of daughter and parent element do not need to be known for an isochron dating method to work. Not only that, they can be found out directly from the data, by finding the Y-axis intercept of an isochron graph - so even if they were needed, we wouldn't have to assume them. If you had read my original post, you would know this. It would also help if you read other related threads before coming straight onto this one, as they contain more information. For example, they contain information which would make this comment: Look rather naive and out of place. In fact, there are several methods by which scientists can infer half lives in the long past. They can use time machines (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8796) for example. Funny you didn't spot this one, as you've actually posted on this thread. They can also use Uranium decay chains (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8179). Also, scientists know that half-lives havn't changed that dramatically because, if they did, the heat given off from the decay would melt both the rocks that the isotopes exist in, but also the earth as a whole. It certainly wouldn't create the fossil record we actually have though, as I have shown in other threads. Again though, I invite you to start a thread on this and share your evidence.

Presumably not his physical image though, as God doesn't have a physical image (he doesn't have arms and legs and eyes etc, he is non-physical). Therefore this passage clearly refers to Him creating us in his spiritual image - I though that was uncontraversial within the Christian community. So your interpretation says. Unfortunately for you this is incorrect. However, if you want to start another thread on it, I'd be glad to hear your evidence.

Essentially, antimatter is a sort of mirror image of matter, with opposite charge. Let me give you an example. The most famous and common antimatter particle is a positron. It is identical to an electron in mass, but has a charge of +1 instead of -1. When an electron and positron meet, they annihilate each other - they basically convert into energy. In other words, anti-matter is matter's charge opposite, and it also destroy normal matter on contact. Hope that explains it. As for where is comes from, that is an excellent question. Actually, it is the natural product of some decays and reactions - the real question is, why is there not more of it? Antimatter and matter seem to be produced in roughly equal ammounts when new particles are produced from energetic collisions (like in a particle accelerator) - so if the Big Bang is true - why was there not an equal ammount of matter and anti-matter produced by it, which would then have annihilated each other? This problem is called C-P Violation - the fact that clearly matter was produced more than anti-matter by the Big Bang. This is where my knowledge ends though I'm afraid, I don't know the answer to the problem, because I was never hot on cosmology in physics! Hey, dude, go to the website, and write to him. I wrote to him, and he wrote me a kind reply, sure he'd do the same for you. However, I do believe his claim that he believes in Jesus AND that he believes that the earth is 5 billion years old. Clearly it's possible to believe in the two together, you'd have to ask him how he does it.

Bob, I've heard this one before. I'm no biblical scholar of course, and I don't want to get too involved in biblical argument because I am really here to explain the scientific data. However, I have heard one answer to this that you might not have considered. What if God created Adam and Eve's physical form through evolution, then, once the physical creation was perfected, God suspended death and gave Adam and Eve a soul and spirit. Then, when Adam and Eve sinned against God, their spirits died, and death re-entered the world as it had been when it was being perfected? I know that there is no explicit backing for this in the bible - but I also know that the bible does not explicitely rule it out either. Anyway, no matter what the bible says, I (along with every single other credible scientist that I know) am certain beyond any reasonable doubt that things lived and died as long back as 3.7 billion years ago, long before man ever walked the earth, and before all the Genesis genealogies. There are literally vast swathes of evidence that this is the case, in fact, all the paleontological evidence we encounter confirms this fact. So, essentially, you're gonna have to get used to it, and accomodate it into your religion somehow - and if you can't, then it's time to dump the religion, cos the fossils arn't going to disappear.

Thanks TrafficDemon! So, how come you're interested enough in science to defend it in the face of religiously inspired anti-science?

Bob Triez Fair enough. However, I would still like to know whether any scientist to your knowledge expects people to believe things in faith, or has said that we used to be a rock, or has used arguments such as "all scientists cant be wrong". I now understand that it was your intention to encourage Christians to learn about the subject, but I can't help but feel that your post was also encouraging a false view of science as an institution. The more ICR they read, the more questions they'll have for me, and the more I'll be able to explain the truth about science to them - so bring it on! These two claims are important enough to have a thread to themselves, I'll start up a couple of threads on these two topics later on today. Yet many of the christians who inhabit this board seem to think that it's very important that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old...

followerofjesus, What exactly do you want to know about antimatter though?

BobTriez, In poker, they say that all you need to raise is a strong right arm. You don't need a good hand. Similarly, all you need to type a post are reasonably coordinated fingers. You don't need evidence to back up your argument, and you do not need to be accurately representing facts. And this very fact is proven from your post above. Take for example this little gem as an example: I spent 3 hours yesterday thoroughly researching the geo-chronology of the Grand Canyon to reply to txpaleo's post on it. I consulted several university level texts, and several peer reviewed papers stating the available evidence. If only I'd thought that, instead of doing this, all I needed to do was type "you ought to believe what I believe blindly in faith". That would have been *so* much easier than finding real evidence, and explaining it in detail, which is what I did, proving what I have said all along - that I expect people to respect the evidence, not me. Here's another example: It's no wonder you've presented no evidence to back up this assertion, because no evidence exists. Nowhere on this board, or elsewhere would you ever find me dogmatically believing in a scientific theory contrary to the evidence. At every twist and turn, in every debate, on every bulletin board or publication I demand evidence - as any good scientist should. Raising the pot takes a strong right arm. Making baseless accusations takes a strong right hand. It'll take real evidence to prove it though, and that's much harder to come by. Again, if you'd been listening to a word I've said so far on this bulletin board, and clearly you havn't, you'd have found out the difference between what I believe and faith. Faith, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is a belief lacking in sufficient evidence or proof. Yet, every single belief I have expounded on this bulletin board I would be more than happy to produce huge volumes of evidence for - and often have! Indeed, if you'd even read my signature you'd have found my favourite quote from David Hume, proclaiming that "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" - a practice opposite to that of having faith (which is by definition a belief that is not proportionate to the evidence). Another strawman, I have never and would never make the argument ad populam. Indeed, I have said again and again that the only thing that matters is the evidence - not what I believe, not what you believe, not what 99% of the population believes. The only constant is the evidence, and this is what we should be discussing. It would seem however, that you are more in your element making claims about me than you are making claims about the state of the evidence. This leads me to conclude that you are in fact neither familiar with me, or the evidence. May I introduce another christian perspective on the age of the earth: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html just so that young earthers don't hog the limelight, and to make absolutely sure that noone is in any doubt that this is not a religious vs irreligious issue, but rather a science vs ignorance issue. Another accusation - but again baseless. I have dealt with every argument put to me, without trying to sweep anything under the rug - and I have also given plenty of links with further information and encouraged others to find out more. Again, it isn't surprising that this sort of accusation comes without any evidential backing or examples. Never used this argument. Quite the opposite in fact, I've always focussed on the evidence, not my qualifications. Never used this argument either. Both the above are in quotation marks btw, who are you quoting? Me? Another scientist? A strawman that you invented out of thin air purely for the basis of advancing your paper thin argument? Ah, now I'm an evidence scoffer. Not that I've done any scoffing so far, nor anything particularly evil. Another accusation for the dustbin? Sure. I've never said this. I've never said this either. Never said this either (not on this board anyway, or in any relation to the age of the earth, in that it has nothing to do with it at all). No, you wouldn't want to answer for this post, nor would I if I simply made stuff up as I typed. And theists, don't forget the link I gave about - born again evangelical who believes in an old earth. I know, I'm such a liar! Phew, I just lie all the time. 4.2 billion years old? Pah! Never thought anyone would believe that whopper! But hey, with Satan's help, I'm convincing people! Again, I don't care what scientists claim or believe, what is important is the evidence. You should really find out about me before commenting - perhaps by reading what I write in my posts for example!? Right, well, I dunno - I've never done that whole evidence checking thing before. Can you teach me?