That was an interesting article about the possible age of the earth. I am a Christian but still need some answers so I can feel comfortable about where I stand. So if I understand it correctly, there is scientifically proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, undeniable truth that the earth is much, much older than 10,000 years. We see things changing and evolving every day. A team of over 100 scientists and experts took over 15 years to prove that the skeletal remains found in Ethiopia (Ardipithicus) were in fact, homo-sapiens over 4.5 million years old. Not that we evolved from apes but that we are on the same evolutionary branch of the tree. If I believe in what the Bible says then I must discount all the scientific data that proves otherwise. Do I need to take the stories of magic and murder from the Bible and live my life by them? How can I have “blind faith” in a book and hold it against the truth? I am really leaning against changing my ways of thinking. I believe I will be more of a realist and quit using religion as a crutch and face the truth. If you have any insight then please reply.
It appears you are not really interested in a discussion. When my email system asked for verification that you were a real person (I used to get about 400 junk emails per day before I installed this system because my email address is publicly available), you responded to the simple request with anger:
I'm sorry to send you "trash" your holiness!! If you don't want correspondence on your account then remove your e-mail address at the bottom. I can tell from your reply that you are judgmental and close-minded - typical! Good luck & good bye!
But I will address your claims anyway.
Age of the Earth
While it is popular to claim the earth is billions of years old, it is incorrect to state that this age is "scientifically proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, undeniable truth." To be scientifically proven, one must be able to verify the results. This cannot be done because we cannot go back in time to calibrate our attempts at measurement. As pointed out in "How old is the world?" there are actually more measurements which indicate that the earth is relatively young (on the order of tens of thousands of years) than relatively old (on the order of billions of years). There are reasons why the ones on billions of years order are being selected and that has to do with the bias of those scientists who need large spans of time in order to justify evolution. The article "Is Science the Source of Truth?" explains this in greater detail. Other good articles are "Young Age for the Earth and the Moon" by Thomas G. Barnes and "The Young Earth" by Henry Morris.
Age of Skeletal Remains
If the ruler being used to measure isn't perfect, then anything measured against that ruler is in doubt as well. Skeletal remains are generally measured against the age of the soil surrounding the skeleton and against a calculated scale of human development. The calculated scale is not measured but estimated by expectations of how long things should develop if evolution is true.
Another problem that should be noted is that scientists are under pressure to compete for research dollars. Being able to claim to have the oldest find means more money. That is why each discovery is older than a prior one. The article "Is Science the Source of Truth" comments on this as well. See also "Scientists Back Off of Ardi Claims". Did you know that the pieces of Ardipithecus were found scattered over a one-mile area? ["Time Magazine's New Ape-Man" by James Perloff]. The evidence does not point to Ardipithecus to be Homosapien; it points to an extinct species of ape ["Did Humans Evolve from 'Ardi'?", by Brian Thomas].
If you have evidence of evolution taking place daily, I know a lot of scientists who would like to talk to you. What is usually touted as "evidence" is variation within a species. The existence of variation is not disputed. In fact, it is expected in a well-designed system because such variation gives the flexibility to handle changes in situations. But what isn't seen are changes between species. Most people realize that you can't see this on a daily basis -- that is why evolutionary scientists want millions of years in their timelines. They know that if such alterations could exist it would take a long time for them to develop.
So far there has been no evidence of such transformation between species, even when the fossil evidence has been scoured for over 150 years. See "Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology" by Henry Morris.
The only blind faith I see is the one you give to science. You claim to be a follower of Christ, a Christian, but you deny the statement of Christ in regard to the Bible, "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth" (John 17:17). You mock the miracles recorded therein, even though the evidence of those miracles established who Christ is. "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:30-31).
Jesus didn't believe in evolution. He taught that God made mankind. "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' ... ?" (Matthew 19:4). Jesus knew that the Genesis account was the truth. He used it as source material and, in this case, a foundation for his teaching on marriage.
The clear evidence is that you are not a Christian, but an unbeliever in disguise. I hope you will change. The evidence of God's existence and the accuracy of His Word is huge. But you have to be willing to look.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:18-21).
Thanks for all the information. I could send numerous links that prove my point, but I doubt if it would change your mind.
I no longer consider myself a Christian and am happy to say so. I am content in my life and enjoy complete peace of mind. I will raise my children to make their own free choices based on what they learn and feel in their hearts. I will encourage them to educate themselves spiritually, scientifically and yes, even religiously. Not just Christianity, but all religions of the world. There is a vast world out there that requires an open mind and an open heart to understand.
I read most of the articles you sent but see that they have a Christian bias. Sorry, but I don't buy it. There's too much evidence to disprove what is written in the Bible. I just finished a good book by Richard Dawkins called "The God Delusion," you should give it a read.
Anyway, good luck and take care.
So did Noah take the dinosaurs on the ark?
Though I called your bluff, it should be noted that at the beginning you did not say you once were a Christian. You claimed to be a Christian. Thus you demonstrate that your ethical system doesn't prevent you from lying. Such inconsistency is further shown in your claims of wanting your children educated in all religious beliefs but rejecting articles for your own reading because they demonstrate too strong of a Christian bias. Hmm, open-minded?
In regards to Richard Dawkins, perhaps you will be interested in The God Delusion Debate.
I guess this closes the discussion since you disagree though bring no further points or evidence regarding your claims. In answer to your question, the answer is "yes, Noah brought dinosaurs on the ark" since Job, a book written after the flood, describes two animals which we now call dinosaurs. See "Did dinosaurs really exist?" for more details.