young creation?

[Lekcit]

SA,

I really only want to address this only the one time. All your "knowledge" don't hold much water because for every piece of information you present as "proof of evolution" can be turned around into "proof for Creation". The simple fact is that evolution is a theory. There is no definitive proof of such. Only man's interpretation of data. Data which I might add is flawed in many ways and most is even outdated but is still put forth as evidence of evolution and an old earth. For example, radiometric dating has been shown to produce as many "wrong" dates as it does "right" ones. What's the point? No consistency. But we never hear the wrong dates. The scientists keep working at it until they get to a date that they want and forget the scores of wrong ones that came before. Furthermore, I have heard testimonies from scientists that could not explain certain things and in their search discovered that, when understood from a Biblical/ young earth perspective, that things make more sense. If you are interested, I would direct your attention to Dr Gary Parker. He used to teach at Clearwater Christian College in Clearwater, Florida. I don't know if he still does but he does a lot of writing for AiG. I encourage you to check him out and see his story. It will greatly interest you, provided you approach it with an open mind and desire to know the truth, regardless of what it might be or where it might lead you.

In Him.

[Bread_of_Life]

Old Timer

For example: If there was no fall in the Garden there was no need for Christ

[Old Timer]

Lekcit, an excellent suggestion to check out Dr. Gary Parker for those having problems believing the opening chapter of Genesis. I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Parker speak on several occasions and also to spend a few hour in private conversation with him.

This is a short biography at the Answers In Genesis web site:

[Old Timer]

SA, rather than answer every question that you posed to me in your previous post let me just briefly state my thinking on this subject.

The Bible begins with a simple statement,

[Lekcit]

SA,

I, like Old Timer, will not take the time to answer your questions because I think your questions serve to cloud the issue. If you want a treatment of radiometric dating and the like, feel free to look at AiG and search for radiometric dating. Radiometric dating, at its core, is flawed. This is because to get any consistency out of the dates, all of science would agree that you need a closed system to insure that nothing affected the breakdown. Also you would need to know how much of the second element existed in the rock, or animal, or tree branch, etc, that you were dating and how much existed in the outside environs. None of these things exist. No one knows how much argon was in a particular item prior to it beginning its breakdown. Further no one knows how much potassium or argon might have been introduced into said item during its breakdown, thus skewing the results. Also outside forces such as weather changes, tidal changes, atmospheric changes, sunlight, changes in gravity, changes in the magnetic field of the earth (there is evidence of such and over a short amount of time no less) ad nauseum...

And this is just one example of how "science" is flawed when coming up with dates for rocks and such that is dug up or discovered...

All I am asking is that you approach this topic with an open mind rather than looking for ways to shoot holes in what we say.

In Him.

[Bread_of_Life]

Lekcit,

I am rather disappointed by your answer, since you did not take the time to answer my questions - but rather made a whole new list of allegations about the process of radiometric dating. I won't go through these, because doubtless your next answer will not go through my questions one by one, but will simply consist of an whole other list of criticisms and supposed problems with radiometric dating techniques.

Indeed, if either you or Old Timer are serious in discussing the scientific evidence, rather than simply berating or dismissing it, then I suggest you start up a thread, and prepare to learn. Clearly neither of you wish an actual in depth discussion on the huge and independent lines of evidence for an old earth than exist in nature. I will be happy to answer any questions you have, and explain all forms of radiometric dating to you honestly, as well as linking you into copious numbers of papers with real results to back what I say.

[Lekcit]

SA,

I cannot speak for Old Timer, but no, I am not interested in such a discussion because for every point you make, there is a point to the contrary. You have only what imperfect man has observed and thought up in his own mind about the age of the earth and interpretation thereof. I have the statement of a perfect, holy God, who cannot lie, that tells me the earth was created in 6 literal days with nothing to suggest otherwise. You tell me, who am I supposed to believe? Man, who cares nothing for my well being and eternal home or a holy, loving God who, even though He holds the universe in the palm of His hand, cared enough to send His only son to die so that I don't have to...

In Him.

[Bread_of_Life]

Lekcit,

Why do you believe in God in the first place? I assume this belief is based on some form of evidence? I would also assume that your belief in the bible is based on some form of evidence. Now, evidence takes many forms, perhaps it was an apologetic argument that persuaded you, perhaps personal experience, perhaps a vision, perhaps a combination of many things. But all evidence, nonetheless.

Therefore, given that your belief is based on evidence, surely it is also dependent on evidence. That means that, if new evidence arises, you can't simply throw it out before even looking at it or discussing it on the basis that it may contradict your current belief - after all, that belief was based on evidence - what epistemological basis could you have to trust this evidence and not the new evidence that you are now ignoring?

Now, of course, you may come back and say "well, actually, my belief isn't based on evidence but trust and faith". Fair enough, but then I would say that it is a blind faith, ignoring any evidence that may come along that might contradict it. You can believe in anything with a blind faith, in leprechauns, UFOs, the bible, or any other strange thing. As long as you ignore any evidence and argument against your idea, and take in any evidence or argument for it, then you will always believe in whatever you choose.

[nebula]

Nebula, does this help:

Exo 31:17

[nebula]

Did you read the link I posted?