No Dalm, every one of your points is easily refuted by science. There's just no reason to go over any of it with someone that sets the standard of "if it doesn't match the bible then they're obviously making it up."
You have no business acting like the ball is in my court anyway. You still seem to have no concept of exponential decay. I said that even if there was uncertainty in decay rate, we'd still be dealing with an exponential curve, which would still result in millions of years to get to the state we observe in fossils. I guess you can add to your cheeky list "well if there was a flood, it would've taken out all the carbon." Who cares if that statement has any coherence whatsoever, it's biblical!
If you go in with the attitude that the earth is young, you will inevitably pick and choose and skew and misrepresent data as much as possible to support your position. But if you go in with the humble attitude that you want to know the truth at all costs, you get an entirely different conclusion.
The first 30 seconds of
this clip certainly come to mind.
Now there are unanswered questions in science, but you haven't touched on any of them. Even if you did, you're in no position to talk. Science has unanswered questions because, unlike you, science can tell the difference between what it knows and doesn't know, and is very humble about it. You, on the other hand, claim to know without any evidence or reason. Again, such a person cannot be reasoned with.
Quote:
Ephesians 4:17–19
17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
|
One of the main things that drove me to escape the religious way of thinking was when I learned just how far off their evaluation of the non-religious was.
Uncleanliness and greediness? Seriously? You think that's my motive? What a colossally ignorant and condescending statement. I set aside all personal biases to learn the truth, and you do not.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this. I've been warned that creationists tend to think there's
more at stake than there really is.