Creationism or Evolutionism.

[Striped Leopard]

No. I am saying that there are a multitude of examples of things that can be perceived that way, and yet we know God does not lie/deceive, so these things must be interpreted some other way.

I feel like you are just saying that to provoke me, but I will respond, nevertheless.

Carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. It is used to date once-living things that had (or still have traces of) organic material. Obviously, carbon is what classifies material as "organic," so traces of carbon are what scientists test for when they utilize Carbon-14 dating. The idea is, once an organism dies, the carbon begins to decay/escape. Therefore, when we find a once-living fossil, we should be able to determine its age based on the amount of carbon left, if any.

In order to make this judgment, two things must be known: 1. How fast does C-14 decay? and 2. What was the starting amount of C-14 in the creature when it died? Both of these things come with an abundance of assumptions. In the majority of cases, no one was present when the organism died, so we can never be entirely sure about how much carbon the creature started out with at its death. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing what factors may have sped up or slowed down the decay over the period of time since the organism's death.

There is also a factor for which we must account that deals with the amount of C-12 in the earth's atmosphere, but this consideration is on a very high academic level and even I don't fully understand it. I would encourage you to read this article by AiG if you want more information: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -the-bible

The bottom line is, there are several things we can't know for sure. And if we believe in the biblical account of a global flood, we must believe that at some point in Earth's history there were major changes in the amounts of carbon in both the earth's atmosphere and in fossilized organisms that were buried during the flood. Several processes would have been greatly accelerated during the flood and therefore would have skewed several dating methods.

If you come to carbon dating with the assumption that the earth must be millions/billions of years old, then of course you're going to see a contradiction between it and the Bible. But if you come to the same dating methods with the assumption that the Bible accurately gives us the general age of the earth, as well as the account of the worldwide flood, then it isn't difficult to see how today's dating methods can fit in with that interpretation.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Even given the margin or error claimed in the article the earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old. There is no way to get under tens of thousands of years old, unless you start with that assumption and twist the science.

[NateVONgreat]

ouch,, that has got to hurt! 11th, the only ones twisting the science are the evolutionists trying to fit thier stupid theory onto our lives to push God away. It was invented to replace God. I don't wanna be part of that.

[Eleventh Doctor]

The Creationist are the ones twisting or ignoring science. Scientist looked at the data and came to a conclusion, Creationist came to a conclusion and then decided to throw out the data.

[NateVONgreat]

you are saying it as if there are no scientists that believe in a 6 day creation, and that a creation is a religious way of looking at it, and Evolution s fact and science, they are both unproven, and a religion. Thus, also christian (and jewish) scientists have looked at the evidence and found that it can also be interpreted as a literal 6 day creation, or just that the Bible is right. (www.answersingenesis.org)

[Eleventh Doctor]

Christian and Jewish scientists, philosophers, and theologians have also looked at the evidence and found that it can be interpreted as non-literal six day creation and that like other parts of the Bible Genesis isn't meant to be read literally. And of course creation is a religious way of looking at the world and there's nothing wrong with that, I believe that God created everything out of nothing. But I don't think Genesis was ever meant to be a scientific text book so I don't use it as such, that just wasn't the context it was written in. Evolution is currently the best model we have, if new evidence comes to light that could change but no matter what evidence is found you will never change. Also I hear this charge a lot that science is religion, what? Where does that even come from? Religion is defined as organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality. If you have a different definition please share.

[John Henry]

I believe that many "scientific" ideas are false - when it comes to evolution. Evolution is false entirely. There is no proof that it ever happened - only imaginations. As for the bones of cave-men, they were all found out to be either hoaxes or mistakes. Did you know that Charles Darwin later admitted his mistake?

[Eleventh Doctor]

When did Darwin admit his mistake?

[John Henry]

Near the end of his life.

[TigerShadow]

Sources?

[John Henry]

Someone told me. Also, I heard it from my science teacher as well. Also, TigerShadow one-word posts are SPAM.

[TigerShadow]

Well, since I'm an uppity little woman who wears pants (short pants, even!) and wears jewelry, you shouldn't be surprised that I'm not following the rules to the letter.

Until you can provide some good, reputable, encyclopaedic/biographical sources for your information, we have no reason to believe you. Your words are nothing more than hearsay, which isn't any more admissible in a debate than it is in a court of law.

[Metal15]

I grew up with thinking that he recanted his theory as well, but after some research(a bunch of googling) I don't think that's the case.

[John Henry]

Who is Ken Ham?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Ken Hamm is the founder of Answers In Genesis

[John Henry]

Max Younce speaks against Ken Ham. Is there something wrong with him?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Who is Max Younce? I disagree with Ken Hamm but probably not for the same reasons you or Max do, I'm not a Young Earth Creationist.

[John Henry]

I have no idea about Ken Ham, and what to think of him. Personally, I don't follow Max.

[Doll]

Someone told me. Also, I heard it from my science teacher as well. Also, TigerShadow one-word posts are SPAM.

If I may interject, the rule applies to one-word posts that don't contribute to the conversation. Since she was asking a question that continued the conversation, it was fine.

*steps out*

[Wodfamchocsod]

What do you guys believe? I know some Christians believe in evolution and God.
I believe that God created the universe.