blackbird

No I just looked at your link. That's not him at all. Just a second. I will see if I can find him.

That's what I was saying. That is not the Philip Stott I am talking about. The one you looked up died in 2004. The Philip Stott I am talking about is still alive and I met him at his second visit and series of lectures long after 2004.

There is more than one Philip Stott on google. The one I heard was a professor from South Africa. Think he was born in England. He has taught mathematics in university I believe. He has traveled around the world attending conferences and such on evolution and lectured on the subject. He has written at least one book on related topics. He is a very knowledgeable speaker. Yes, I believe he has a degree or degrees, most likely in mathematics.

Professor Stott was a mathematician himself. He believes in mathematics. He has no problem with true science. He just doesn't agree with things like the theory of evolution which are unproven by the scientific method.

This is where you are misunderstanding what I believe. I never said I don't believe Physics, chemistry and mathematics. I do believe in the conventional teachings about them. They do not conflict with the long earth age beliefs. Mathematics, chemistry, and physics is based on certain laws and principles which I would agree with.

Well yes, anything that claims the age of something in the universe was long, i.e. millions or billions of years, would not be in agreement with biblical creation. I would have to disagree with long ages of things.

I can't remember the scientific method except to say it is a series of steps to follow before coming to a conclusion about something.

Churches I went to had nothing to say about science. They don't deny science except they might not agree with evolution.

Well, professor Stott said it has not always been followed as it should have been. Sometimes claims have been made without clear proof and using the scientific method.

I am not ignoring anything. I have not used the word metalicity. Can you explain it?

No, of course not. Professor Philip Stott explained that the scientific method was actually abandoned by many scientists. He explained the importance of the scientific method. Some theories in science have been abandoned as new knowledge is discovered.

Some but it was a long time ago. I had a chemistry lab in the basement when I was a kid. Had quite a collection of chemicals. Passed chemistry in high school but can't remember much now. I know a little about chemical reactions. What about metalicity?

When a scientist sees a star, he might say that light has been traveling a million light years, which is a phenomenal distance. But it was probably created around six thousand years ago.

The same reason the earth was created with a certain age. The whole universe would have been created with an apparent age. In an instant the universe would have been created with galaxies, stars, etc. Even with the light from stars giving the impression it has been traveling for billions of years, when in fact, it must have been created to appear that way.

No. I was convinced the account in Genesis is true before I heard his slide presentation. He went into all kinds of things that were very fascinating. The universe I believe was created at the same time as the earth. So all the planets, starts, galaxies, black holes, etc. must have been created at the same time. Prior to that, perhaps there was nothing.

He believe the earth could have been struck by a giant meteor that caused a huge tidal wave to rush around the earth several kilometers in height. There may be some evidence for the earth being struck by a giant meteor because the earth could have been knocked off of it's axis. There is scientific evidence based upon the amount of the wobble and they have calculated when it was hit by the meteor.

Professor Stott also showed the Geological Time Charts with the life forms allegedly at different times. It is full of gaps that can't be properly explained.

If you gave a monkey a typewriter and allowed him to keep typing until he typed out the complete works of Shakespeare, how long would it take? That is like the theory of evolution. Statistically there is not enough time in the universe for evolution to occur because the random chance processes don't have enough time to create an evolving life. He said mathematically it is not possible.

The theory of evolution is built on something called random chance processes. Professor Stott, who is a mathematician among other things explained that the mathematical theories of probability are against evolution.

Yes. I believe the King James Bible. I was fortunate to be able to hear a series of lectures by a scientist Professor Philip Stott for four evening on the subject of creation and evolution. It was a slide presentation. He showed how from a scientific point of view the theory of evolution doesn't hold up and many other things.

Theologians have estimated from the events in the Bible that it is possibly six thousand years old. I think they get that from a timeline of events recorded in the Bible.

If you think about it, it makes sense that when the earth was created, everything had an apparent age even though it was just created.

Fossils must have been created as well at the time of creation. I found some fossils long ago.

That makes sense. According to scientists, doesn't it take millions of years to convert plants into coal? So the coal you see today must have been created with the earth.

It says God created the earth. Some theologians think it was created six to ten thousand years ago. All that coal would have likely been in the earth at the time it was created. IN other words in my humble opinion the earth was created with an apparent age built into it. If you think about, when the trees and plants were created, they must have had an age at the time of creation.