The Bible

[betsy]

FACT: Genesis is teeming with answers pertaining to origin - - three are already proven scientifically true.

Genesis 1

The Beginning

FACT: TIME, SPACE, MATTER, ENERGY

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,”

FACT: The human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements which are all found in the earth

Genesis 2

7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

FACT: RODINIA and PANTHALASSA, One land and one ocean!

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

----------------------------------

The following passages show that all living things were created by God.

Science - for more than a century now - is still looking for the single evidence to prove its theory of evolution.

Genesis 1

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Emphasis on “according to their kinds.”

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Emphasis on “according to their kinds.” So obviously this clearly states there is no macro-evolution. Up to now, there is no evidence to support evolution.

22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Why is there this need to reproduce? They say all things reproduce so they wouldn’t die out. I would understand for us human to think that way….but what about the creatures? Why should they care whether their species ends with them and die out?

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Again, that emphasis, “according to its kind.”

There are several passages elsewhere in the Bible that talks about the heavens and most notably, "darkness" or "the dark," and beyond. This could hold the key to unlock the mystery of the dark matter or the black hole and what lies yonder.

Edited May 30, 2011 by betsy

[msj]

Stark, raving, mad.

[sharkman]

Noah's Ark? Give me a break. No such thing existed. The Fertile Crecent flooded lots, though.

Dinosaurs didn't all live at the same time. There are three distinct periods: Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. So...Ark types...how did your god save Plateosauruses (Triassic), Diplodocuses (Jurassic) and Dromaeosaurus (Cretaceous) when seperated by over 100 million years of rock? Hmmmmm?

Oddly enough, they did find Noah's ark recently. The scientific community immediately started attacking the group that found it and generally responding with your attitude. No word, oddly enough, whether they carbon tested the wood or did any scientist stuff. I guess they were satisfied to shoot the messengers.

[Smallc]

So, you actually think that the bible story is completely correct, then? Gotcha.

[Jack Weber]

Umm, THE BOOK specifically states six days. But who knows how many versions of the book god has supposedly written, or dictated, or, or....

I guess we can assume you don't know much about the 6 Day Theory?

[kimmy]

Oddly enough, they did find Noah's ark recently. The scientific community immediately started attacking the group that found it and generally responding with your attitude. No word, oddly enough, whether they carbon tested the wood or did any scientist stuff. I guess they were satisfied to shoot the messengers.

Funny, you'd think a major discovery like that would have been an ongoing topic of conversation, not forgotten.

It would be interesting to hear if this is the real deal, or ifa bunch of Chinese scam artists just took a bunch of aged timber from a Black Sea archeological site and put it in a cave on a mountain.

-k

[betsy]

Speaking of scam artists, (fundamentalist atheists) evolutionists/scientists have gone to far lengths to downright falsification of data, creating hoaxes, giving irresponsible and negligent conclusions just so to support their theory of evolution! This practice had been going on for ages - check out the hoaxes list!

Furthermore, these so-called scientists think nothing of indulging in omission or giving misleading information - Dawkins (among others also named scientists mentioned in the other topic) apparently indulged in this kind of "scientific" activity.

That some pro-evolution scientists - some even well-known names in the science community - indulge in this kind of trickery and fraud, therefore it poses a huge question on the whole science community! WHICH FINDINGS ARE TRULY ACCURATE?

If certain people raise a question on anything regarding science's so-called "conclusive findings," it definitely is worth being taken seriously considering the numerous frauds and inaccurate/misleading conclusions that's been peprpetrated.

Atheist scientists like Dawkins - and those who fiercely fight for their atheistic faith - are no longer credible scientists simply for the reason that they are driven by bias!

[betsy]

Based on what's been analyzed and discussed, I feel confident to conclude that God gave only a summary of Creation and other events to Moses.

Information were not given blow-by-blow. It's not a detailed account. Therefore, some questions regarding other events like Noah's Ark, the dinosaurs, etc.., are not complete - which does not mean they didn't happen!

Edited May 30, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

There are a few different views on the Bible.

This is the first correct thing you have said in this thread since it was started.

[DogOnPorch]

Based on what's been analyzed and discussed, I feel confident to conclude that God gave only a summary of Creation and other events to Moses.

Information were not given blow-by-blow. It's not a detailed account. Therefore, some questions regarding other events like Noah's Ark, the dinosaurs, etc.., are not complete - which does not mean they didn't happen!

Doesn't mean they did, either!

[betsy]

Doesn't mean they did, either!

That counter answer pales somewhat when you look at all the facts listed here- all proven by science to be true.

Edited May 31, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Dinosaurs may not be that old after all!

The Bible and Radiometric dating

(The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods).

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

This test was done on August 10, 1990

(photocopy of document)

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)

Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.

2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes

3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material

("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v)

We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.

( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii)

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.

More....

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

And here's the conclusion from an article titled, "Is carbon dating accurate?" taken from the site:

All About Archeology.

So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm

Edited May 31, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Ummmm...C14 isn't used to determin ages of fossils.

[betsy]

Excerpt from Is Carbon Dating Accurate?. Taken from the site: All About Archeology

By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age (that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means), scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques.

Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating.

Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method.

The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable.

This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. "This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm

Edited May 31, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Again...Carbon 14 dating isn't used to determin the ages of fossils.

[DogOnPorch]

Here's one your wee articles won't mention: Describe palaeomagnetic stratigraphy and pole reversals.

[sharkman]

Funny, you'd think a major discovery like that would have been an ongoing topic of conversation, not forgotten.

It would be interesting to hear if this is the real deal, or ifa bunch of Chinese scam artists just took a bunch of aged timber from a Black Sea archeological site and put it in a cave on a mountain.

-k

It looks like I didn't dig into the story enough as there is much disagreement among experts and those involved as to whether the Chinese Turkish team found something authentic or not. At least a few finds have been made in the region, starting with a 300 cubit structure in the late '50's.

For each find, experts are quick to deny authenticity. Many scientists find the bible to be revolting so of course they will not look any deeper. I'd hope to find someone who is simply willing to bring an objective scientific approach and let the evidence lead them instead of their dogmas. It's hard to find such in these areas. But I find these subjects to be fascinating as I love history.

[BubberMiley]

Many scientists find the bible to be revolting so of course they will not look any deeper. I'd hope to find someone who is simply willing to bring an objective scientific approach and let the evidence lead them instead of their dogmas.

What are you saying? They should examine the "scientific evidence" found in the bible? Really? Seriously?

[betsy]

Here's one your wee articles won't mention: Describe palaeomagnetic stratigraphy and pole reversals.

But this article will:

Excerpt:

Fossil’ magnetism

Iron also occurs in many types of rocks, not usually in its metallic form, but as an oxide mineral called magnetite, which as the name suggests is magnetic. Just as all the molecules in the compass needle align themselves along the earth’s magnetic field, so do the molecules in the magnetite grains in rocks.

This will happen at the time a magnetite particle in a sediment or volcanic ash comes to rest, or in a lava (hot volcanic rock) as it cools to 500°C. Once the sediment layer is deposited and buried, or the lava flow has cooled below 500°C, the direction of the earth’s magnetic field as recorded by magnetite grains in these rocks cannot usually be changed by subsequent geological events (except for metamorphism—the process of changes to rock under the influence of elevated pressures and temperatures), even if the direction of the earth’s magnetic field has subsequently changed. This magnetism in the rocks is thus in essence ‘fossilised’, and so is usually called palaeomagnetism.

Magnetic Reversals

The existence of this palaeomagnetism in the rocks has claimed a lot of attention since the 1960s. At that time it was discovered that there were what appeared to be magnetic ‘stripes’ in the rocks on the ocean floor. The stripes represented sections in the rock of normal (the same as today) and reversed directions of the earth’s magnetic field, and this has been used as evidence for so-called sea-floor spreading and continental drift.1

Since their discovery, a lot of questions have been raised regarding the validity of these magnetic polarity (direction) reversals.

Indeed, Humphreys6 has recently reviewed the evidence for the validity of these ‘fossil’ magnetism studies and has found that fully half of all the 200,000-plus geological samples tested have a measurable magnetization whose direction (‘polarity’) is reversed with respect to the earth’s present magnetic field. He concluded that the variety, extent, continuity and consistency of the reversal data all strongly suggest that most of the data are valid, so that there is no option but to accept that reversals of the earth’s magnetic field must have occurred.

Geophysicists have now recognized a sequence of 26 such magnetic field reversals in rock extending from the ’Upper Miocene’ to the present, presumed to represent the past 5.5 million years of the evolutionist’s timescale. In the fossiliferous rock layers of the evolutionist’s past 600 million years, from the lowest metazoan (multi-celled) fossils of the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ to the present, there appear to have been recorded in a continuous sequence roughly 50 of these magnetic polarity reversals.

The Mechanism?

The problem with the interpretation of these magnetic data is the presumed mechanism for operation of the earth’s magnetic field, and thus the presumed multi-million year timescale for these reversals.

In any case, this operational mechanism preferred by most geophysicists, the so-called dynamo hypothesis, has many problems associated with it which have been well documented.10-13

However, creationists Dr. Thomas G. Barnes (Professor Emeritus of Physics, The University of Texas at El Paso) and Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (physicist at the Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, and Adjunct Professor of Physics at the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego) have argued convincingly for a viable alternative hypothesis to the dynamo. They propose freely decaying electric currents in the earth’s core.14-18

Found! A field test

A convincing test of Humphreys’ proposal, that reversals of the earth’s magnetic field must have taken only a matter of days or weeks within the time-frame of the year-long biblical Flood only 4,500 or so years ago, would be to look for evidence of such rapid reversals within rock layers that would have formed, or are known to have formed, that rapidly. Indeed, Humphreys has suggested this himself.21 He suggested that the best candidates for strata which clearly formed within a few weeks and yet contained a full reversal, would be distinct lava flows thin enough that they would have cooled below 500°C within a few weeks.

Coe and Prevot are respected palaeomagnetists, who for some years have been involved with a large group of geoscientists undertaking detailed investigations of magnetic polarity changes in the immense pile of lava flows at Steens Mountain in Oregon, near the California-Oregon border. These lava flows have been studied along two traverses up the mountain and are regarded as Miocene, with the reversal record ‘dating’ from 15.5 +/- 10.3 million years ago.

Coe and Prevot carefully sampled a relatively thin (1.9 metres) lava flow, designated as flow number B51, at a point where their team’s previous investigations had suggested a rapid transition (magnetic polarity change) was likely to have been recorded. A group of nine lava flows with similar magnetic polarity directions (essentially ‘reversed’ polarity),.....

An ‘astonishingly’ rapid reversal rate!

Coe and Prevot commented:

‘This period [of 15 days] is undoubtedly an overestimate…Nonetheless, even this conservative figure of 15 days corresponds to an astonishingly rapid rate of variation of the geomagnetic field direction of 3° per day.’28

They also estimated that the minimum change in magnetic field intensity was at an average rate of at least 300 gammas per day. This compares with typically measured rates of geomagnetic variation globally today of only a few degrees per century and about 150 gammas per year.29,30 No wonder Coe and Prevot found the calculated rate in lava flow B51 at Steens Mountain hard to believe:

‘The rapidity and large amplitude of geomagnetic variation that we infer from the remanence directions in flow B51, even when regarded as an impulse during a polarity transition, truly strains the imagination…’31

With due caution, Coe and Prevot thus felt prompted to search for alternative explanations. However, since other hypotheses required ‘special pleading’, they decided that the most straightforward interpretation explains the data best, that is, ‘the balance of evidence now in hand weighs in favor of rapid geomagnetic field variation.’32 They concluded:

‘We think that the most probable explanation of the anomalous remanence directions of flow B51 is the occurrence of a large and extremely rapid change in the geomagnetic field during cooling of the flow, and that this change most likely originated in the [earth’s] core. This interpretation must remain tentative until our investigation is completely finished, but, if true, it has important implications for the reversal process and the state of the earth’s interior.’33

However, so significant is this discovery, Coe and Prevot’s paper was highlighted and commented upon in the international weekly journal Nature. 34 In that report, the author was cautiously favourable to Coe and Prevot’s interpretation of the palaeomagnetic data, being unable to challenge the data presented by Coe and Prevot, or the analysis by which they arrived at their conclusions.

However, quite predictably, the same author seemed reluctant to abandon his ingrained evolutionary view that thousands of years are necessary for a geomagnetic reversal. Instead, he appeared to be hoping that some alternative explanation will eventually emerge which would relieve him from the implications of the field data for reversals. But, he also admitted:

‘Palaeomagnetism has a history of giving shocks to the geological and geophysical community. Usually these are initially unpalatable, although they are later accepted.’35

Conclusions

So, as Humphreys says, if Coe and Prevot are correct, we can infer important facts about the earth at the time when this ‘Miocene’ lava was flowing at Steens Mountain, a time which many creationists would place during the latter part of the Flood year, or soon thereafter.36 Some physical process must have then been at work in the earth’s core which could produce very rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.

The magnetic field change found recorded in flow B51 at Steens Mountain was about 50,000 times faster than the 2,000 plus years previously thought to be the theoretical minimum time for geomagnetic reversals, and millions of times faster than the shortest reversals previously found recorded in geological strata, that is, according to the evolutionary time-scale. But these actual field data were found exactly as the creation scientist Humphreys, working within a young earth/Creation/Flood framework, predicted they would be. So if the magnetic reversals have occurred in days and weeks rather than thousands and millions of years, then the earth’s rock layers, in which there is a continuous sequence of these magnetic reversals, are by implication probably only thousands of years old. Thus these data are important new evidence for a young earth.

References

Ham, K.A., Snelling, A.A. and Wieland, C, 1990. What about continental drift? Have the continents really moved apart? The Answers Book, Creation Science Founda- tion, Brisbane, Australia, chapter 2, pp. 27- 41. Return to text

Doell, R. and Cox, A., 1967. Magnetization of rocks., In: Mining Geophysics, vol. II, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, p. 452. Return to text

Jacobs, J.A., 1967. The Earth’s Core and Geomagnetism, Pergamon Press, Oxford, p. 106. Return to text

McElhinny, M.W., 1973. Palaeomagnetism and Plate Tectonics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 108-111. Return to text

Jacobs, J.A., 1984. Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, Adam Hilger Ltd, Bristol, pp. 29-38. Return to text

Humphreys, D.R., 1988. Has the earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 25(3), pp. 130-137. Return to text

Jacobs, Ref. 5, pp. 13-18. Return to text

Merrill, R.T. and McElhinny, M.W., 1983. The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 209-263. Return to text

Opdyke, M.D., Kent, D.V. and Lowrie, W., 1973. Details of magnetic polarity transitions recorded in a high deposition rate deepsea core. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,vol. 20, pp. 315-324. Return to text

Barnes, T.G., 1972. Young age vs. geologic age for the earth’s magnetic field. Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 9(1), pp. 47-50. Return to text

James, R.W., Roberts, P.H.and Winch, D.E., 1980. The Cowling anti-dynamo theorem. Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, vol. 15, pp. 149-160. Return to text

Inglis, D.R., 1981. Dynamo theory of the earth’s varying magnetic field. Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 53(3), pp.481-496. Return to text

Humphreys, D.R., 1986. Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Vol. 2, pp. 113-126. Return to text

Barnes, Ref. 10. Return to text

Barnes, T.G., 1973. Electromagnetics of the earth’s field and evaluation of electric conductivity, current, and joule heating in the earth’s core. Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 9(4), pp. 222-230. Return to text

Barnes, T.G., 1983. Origin and destiny of the earth’s magnetic field. Institute for Creation Research Technical Monograph No. 4, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California. Return to text

Humphreys, D.R., 1983. The creation of the earth’s magnetic field. Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 20(2), pp. 89-94. Return to text

Humphreys, D.R., 1984. The creation of planetary magnetic fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 21(3), pp. 140-149. Return to text

Humphreys, Ref. 13. Return to text

Humphreys, D.R., 1990. Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Flood. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism,Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Vol. 2 (in press). Return to text

Humphreys, Ref. 13, pp. 121. Return to text

Bogue, S.W. and Coe, R.S., 1984. Transitional paleointensities from Kauai, Hawaii, and geomagnetic reversal models. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 89(B12), pp. 10341-10354. Return to text

Prevot, M. et al, 1985. How the geomagnetic field vector reverses polarity. Nature, vol. 316, pp. 230-234. Return to text

Humphreys, D.R., 1990. New evidence for rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 26(4), pp. 132-133. Return to text

Coe, R.S. and Prevot, M., 1989. Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol. 92, pp. 292- 298. Return to text

Jaeger, J.C., 1968. Cooling and solidification of igneous rocks. In: Basalts, H.H.Hcss and A. Poldervaart (eds), Interscience, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 503-536. Return to text

Shaw, H.R., Hamilton, M.S. and Peck, D.L., 1977. Numerical analysis of lava lake cooling models, I. Description of the method. American Journal of Science, vol. 277, pp. 384-414. Return to text

Coe and Prevot, Ref. 25, p. 296. Return to text

Langel, R.A. and Estes, R.H., 1985. The near-earth magnetic field at 1980 determined from Magsat data. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 90, pp. 2495-2509. Return to text

Langel, R.A., 1987. The main field. In: Geomagnetism, Vol. 1, J.A. Jacobs (ed), Academic Press, London, pp. 249-512. Return to text

Coe and Prevot, Ref. 25, p. 296. Return to text

Coe and Prevot, Ref. 25, p. 297. Return to text

Coe and Prevot, Ref. 25, p. 297. Return to text

Fuller, M., 1989. Fast changes in geomagnetism. Nature, vol. 339, pp. 582- 583. Return to text

Fuller, Ref. 34, p. 583. Return to text

Humphreys, Ref. 24, p. 133. Return to text

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Snelling, B.Sc(Hons), Ph.D., is a well-known speaker and writer on creation/evolution. He is involved in consultancy work for an Australian exploration and mining company, and is also editor of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and a director of Creation Science Foundation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i3/fossil.asp

As I've said before, young earth....old earth...doesn't matter to me! The way I understand the Bible, God is not telling us to believe the earth is young or old. He is telling us to believe that He created everything.

I've given this article (which happens to support young earth) - in support of my previous contentions about inaccuracies/misleading informations/irresponsible conclusions etc.. in the field of scienec - just so to show how some scientists are driven by their atheistic faith.

When someone raises a red flag, we should pay attention!

Edited May 31, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

As I've said before, young earth....old earth...doesn't matter to me! The way I understand the Bible, God is not telling us to believe the earth is young or old. He is telling us to believe that He created everything.

As I've said before, evolved earth....unevolved earth...doesn't matter to me! The way I understand the Bible, God is not telling us to believe the earth evolved or didn't evolve. He is telling us to believe that He created everything.

[DogOnPorch]

So...according to betsy and her snake oil salesmen, our Universe is under 10,000 years old and physics, astronomy, et al, are tricks of the Devil. Can't argue with that logic...lol.

[msj]

For each find, experts are quick to deny authenticity. Many scientists find the bible to be revolting so of course they will not look any deeper. I'd hope to find someone who is simply willing to bring an objective scientific approach and let the evidence lead them instead of their dogmas. It's hard to find such in these areas. But I find these subjects to be fascinating as I love history.

That's quite the claim.

Now, can you prove it?

[DogOnPorch]

According to the betsy-types out there, there was no such thing as a rhamphorhynchus or an archeopteryx. Nor does it equate that many predatory dinos with 'bird hips' had feathers. Or for that matter, that for a while post dinosaur, birds ruled the planet. It's much easier to not look through Galileo's telescope and not see Jupiter's moons orbiting something other than their precious, God created Earth.

[sharkman]

That's quite the claim.

Now, can you prove it?

To what end?

Surely you can agree that there are religious zealot scientists out there that deny global warming, evolution and many other things. But you suppose that the scientist who is against religion and lets his bias affect his work does not exist. Hey, believe whatever you like.

[BubberMiley]

But you suppose that the scientist who is against religion and lets his bias affect his work does not exist. Hey, believe whatever you like.

What do you mean by "letting bias affect their work"? Are you saying they should look to the bible for scientific evidence? Are they being biased by not doing so?

Please elaborate further. I feel like a good laugh.