The concept of Creation as presented in Scripture is very easy to comprehend. God spoke and His word created everything that ever was and ever will be, the Alpha and Omega. When He created He had to create a "mature" universe to support the life that was to be created. A universe that was in the process of "evolving" would not allow for the support of life. Man was created "mature" and then procreated via the natural laws that God created. Why would it even seem like a "leap of faith" to conclude that the entire universe was created as such? As I said, I know this because I base my truth on that which is professed by God to be truth, the Holy Bible(John 17:17). This truth is as professed grounded only in the personal faith of hope, as a person of faith I must admit this, and I do. Why is it that we are still projected as people having nothing to base their faith upon? And as I said, I do not attack anyone on a personal basis, I simply defend the truth that was presented to me by the God of the universe in His self professed Book of Truth...I.E. The Holy Bible. Some want to subvert what is spoken as to be true by discounting it by mere "speculation", and as I said, Speculation is still only a Guess, no matter how educated that guess is, it does not become fact until it is proven. And I hold all truth to be self evident, that is, if it can support itself on the reality of what it claims without being propped up by speculation then it is "truth actual".

Man has long fooled himself into thinking that He can accurately determine the truth by simple cognation to reason, and then present on the other hand that all truth is only relative to one's "INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION".....which is it? Can we define truth by cognation to reason, or is truth relative? Man can not even define what he thinks truth is. While the scriptures present truth as transcending by the authority that is revealed in God's word.

Some call this quest for truth "Science". "Knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method." --Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

Science is a way of thinking, and ERROR-CORRECTING process by which we figure out what is true and what is not.---Carl Sagan. This search as defined by Mr. Sagan often leads to some basic contradictions. Daily "new findings" are published from some study that contradicts the knowledge we previously had. As I said, some take the easy way out and declare that truth must be relative to that perceived by he that beholds it. Even when Jesus was brought before Pilate and questioned, Pilate asked "What is truth?" (John 18:3. He did not think this question had an answer. But the Bible claims otherwise. Sometimes Science does conflict with Biblical teachings. When this happens many make the claim that Science is more accurate than the Bible because it bases its truth upon its own writings. We are told that Science is based upon the observation of facts, while Religion is just based on faith in the "unobservable" and the untrue. To many people have allowed their faith to be defined by others and simply accept these lies and profess that it is the Christian thing to do. But if we are to believe and practice what we believe that the Bible is truth, we must apply this to our "daily" lives.

We must put to example and practice what we know to be truth, As we know by some of the most educated in the field of Science that it(science) does not hold all truth. "Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are framed so they are capable of being disproved...Science gropes and staggers towards understanding."--Carl Sagan. Apparently what Mr. Sagan is saying is, Science doesn't have the truth right now and will not in the future, but we are getting closer all the time. As I said earlier, the Bible teaches about people such as this---always learning, but never arriving at the truth (2Tim.3:7). Mr. Sagan goes on to say that a scientist has no more trust of science and authority than he does of religion, government, or superstition. Science teaches a distrust of authority and distrust of your own hypothesis.....Carl Sagan. DOES IT NOT SEEM STRANGE THAT WE ARE REQUESTED TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN ONLY ON THE WORDS OF PEOPLE THAT DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE IT THEMSELVES? (R)

Well, if you ask me, simply believing something is the truth without questioning that conclusion-regardless if such supposed truth is stated in the Bible or a science book-is a "cop out," for lack of a better phrase. Perhaps doing so might give some people a sense of purpose or ease their insecure feelings about the human condition, in general. But, this way of thinking is not for me. I'm a skeptic, and I know it.

Have you every questioned The Bible, Ralph? If you haven't, then why haven't you? Wouldn't you be just as guilty of believing in something that hasn't been "proven" if you haven't searched for your own answers and if you have simply accepted what other people have said as being "the truth?" At least with science, as apposed to religion, questioning supposed truths is a way of life, so to speak. But the same approach isn't taken in the realm of religion. And some just call supposed truths as "faith" and simply accept such "faith" as "the truth."

In my opinion, "Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom." And, to borrow and refine a statement from the late great trumpeter Louis Armstrong, "If you’ve got to ask (what the truth is), you aren’t ever going to know (what the truth is).”

How is it a "cop out" to put evidence to the test of truth? No one is suggesting that "Science Actual" is wrong in its "true knowledge"---that which is found to be "reproducible and observable"---as this is a scientific fact defined, is it not? Have you not ever noticed that the Bible says the world is about 6000 years old, but science tries to prove the world to be billions of years old? The first thing to take note of is that which presents the earth to be of a very old age has never been proven, only speculated. Why must they speculate the earth to be so old? They simply do not want to believe in a creator, I.E. God. Therefore they must try to explain how this world "COULD" come about without being created (which in itself is an absurd conclusion, as EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE, when taken to the extreme of conclusion---the very beginning, something must have been a product of creation, because mass/matter simply cannot be a product found to exist before it was created). They want to produce evidence that everything was a product of self evolution based on random happenstance. They must start from the very first speculation with a bias leaning toward random happenstance instead of "intelligent design". This is proven by the very theories presented, all of them must contain an extremely long period for the existence of the universe to allow enough time for this random chance to overcome the astronomical odds of having any validity to their claims. Thus the person/s that present this evidence do not believe in God in the first place or they simply would take the word of God in the faith that they hold. They have no faith, other than in their own cognation of reason, that which is commonly known as "materialism".

There are in fact many valid theories that consider the age of the earth based in scientific methodology that point to a very young age of the earth. But it is always the ones that gives the longest answers that are trumpeted as "the only empirical theories"---this simply is not true, as shown in retort. There is no "empirical evidence" offered in any "THEORY" if it were so, the theory would be a scientific law---would it not? Many have even gone to extremes to "label" ideas as to their importance, and what they are based upon, talk about "semantics". This would not be needed if what is presented would simply be capable of being proved----thus we are asked to simply believe what is speculated until the "truth" can be found.

Even when that truth points in another direction, the "Darwinian cultists" try to circumvent "facts" with speculation and project that speculation to be superior to the evidence that is actually found. Example, THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION. All macro-biological life evidence ends where this age begins. Yet, try to get an evolutionist to admit to the fact that mirco-biological life fossils can be found prior to this but no marcolife to drawn upon to present ancestral lineage to allow for the continued belief in this unproven theory. Speculation abounds, as way macrolife could hide while microlife is very observable in the fossil record. THIS IS WHAT I OBJECT TO, anyone trying to lead the evidence to present their theory as correct despite evidence to the contrary. Lets see how many, what ifs, it must so, it could have, perhaps, will follow in trying to overcome this fact of "science actual". This can even be evidenced by the presentation of what is "supposed" to be based in facts. Notice how the authors of this web link must "caution" the reader that we have not considered "all" the evidence of that era yet, and when it it is, it most assuredly will point to "evolution". Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(R)

Ralph,

If the Earth is only about 6000 years old, then why are there dinosaur fossils in undisturbed rock in, say, Egypt that are many feet below the surface in a region where, historical speaking, humankind has witnessed no living dinosaurs? Humans have been in Egypt for thousands of years. We have written records and other evidences that attest to this fact. One would think that if such creatures lived sometime during the past 6000 years, if the Earth is truely only 6000 years old, there would be some surviving human recordings of such creatures living alongside man somewhere amongst the many millions of artifacts that are in our possession. Yet, there is no written record or other evidences in existence from that region that describes any such creatures as being alive during the time period and in that region. And the same goes for other regions of the world, such as Mesopotamia, India, and China. So, how do you explain these facts...yet still adhere to the notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old? (Did God put those fossils there? And, if so, is this act documented in The Bible?) And, how do you honestly expect a scientist, someone who is supposed to be objective in their practice, to accept the conclusion that the Earth is only 6000 years old to be true when this conclusion fails to take into consideration these facts?

The thing is, science's goal isn't to attack anyone's religion. Science's goal is the search for truth within the natural world. But, if a religious document-like The Bible-states something that contradicts what scientists discover, how do you expect a scientist to act? Do you expect him or her to refrain from being objective just so someone's faith in some written text isn't shaken? And, wouldn't you, yourself, be trying to "lead the evidence to present (your) theory as correct despite evidence to the contrary," referring in particular to the existence of dinosaur fossils existing on a supposedly 6000-year-old Earth?

In addition, I notice that you appear to want scientists to be held to a high standard of objectivity regarding what they state as being truth. Yet, you don't appear to want to hold yourself to the same high standard of objectivity regarding what you state as being truth, at least in reference to what you say is true in The Bible. What's the reason for this apparent inconsistency? I mean, if The Bible is true, then why don't you demonstrate it as being true just like you want scientists to demonstrate their understandings to be true?

Well my pappy said it best, "When I am gone, placed in the ground and buried, I hope that the people that may dig me up in several thousand years do not think that I am as old as the the dirt that I am buried in." It does place a whole new meaning upon the phrase "old as dirt" does it not? Maybe you should look at just how accurate the "absolute" methodology that is claimed, actually is...Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the Earth

One last thing for you "ponder". Science is defined as finding the truth by observing that which is reproducible in nature, is it not? The "pseudo intellectual" claims that it can prove that life come about by natural methodology, correct? Why can the "pseudo scientist" not take an example of life, either in animal or plant, dismantle it, retain all the parts, and simply "REPRODUCE" that which is surely observed in nature? LIFE. (R)

Well, here is a critique of Dr. David Plaisted's comments concerning the supposed unreliability of radiometric dating:

Comments on "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1

It's about 4.5 billion years old

Oh I see you can choose what parts of the bible are real and what are just some ancient parochical trying to make sense of what we hitherto didn;t understand

does God know you pick and choose what is real and what is metaphor???

why is there no humor in the bible?? I am not the only one who thinks the lack of humor is the weirdest thing in literary history btw. Didn't God create everything and thus humor and the ability to laugh would be part of the things he created??? SO why did he leave it out of his book could it be because the writers and the first Council of Nicaea, where trying to make God so freakin scary so no-one would ever go against it..although the Jonah and Noah stories are funny because its clearly crap but the humor is unintentional..as is the entire book of revelation..somone took LSD the day that crap was written..its like reading Hunter S Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (again however the humor of it is unintentional)

You can safely assume you created God in your own image when it turns out he hates/dislikes the exact same people as you do..whacky how that works isn't it

The radio metric dating game is just that, "a game" played by the 'pseudo intellectuals" while they ignore other scientific facts that preclude the earth from being 4.5 billion years of age. 1.) The life span of comets, if they were in fact created along with the earth and are a result of "leftover" unformed fragments, they would also have to be billions of years old, why are they still around and not expired, as they lose a part of their mass upon each orbit around the sun? The "theorized" second belt of comets that is "theorized" only to exist outside the solar system has never been observed nor confirmed, yet presented as a factual gestation of other comets. 2.) The Sun itself is theorized to be 4.5 billion years of age or over half decayed and in a state of shrinking some 2-3 feet per year. Extrapolate from the beginning and determine the actual size of the sun, if it indeed were 4.5 billion years of age, just how did life begin on the earth if it were so much larger and hotter, and what about the so called "ice ball" earth that is theorized in our ancient history, with the Sun several million miles closer to the earth. On the other hand if the Sun were inducing to life at that time, some 3.5 billion years ago, were would we be now at a constant rate of solar decay, life upon earth should have expired years ago. 3.)The decay of the earth magnetic field as been recored as decaying some 6% in the last few centuries, at a constant rate of decay such as that which is "observable", the magnetic field of the earth would be intolerable to life less than 15000 years ago. 4,) The moon, has only a few inches of dust on it, if it came into existence several billion years ago the dust that layers the moon would be extrapolated to be 375 feet deep instead of mere inches. Also the moon records high levels of uranium 236 and Thorius-230, this would have decayed billions of years ago. Also the rate of decay of the moons orbit, it loses about 2in every year, and gets farther away from the earth, think of the results of the Gravitational effects upon the earth even one billion years ago, with the moon so much closer.

The list goes on and on that contradicts the estimated age of the earth provided by the "pseudos", whose only real concern is to disprove creation. (R)

All of these claims that you have numerically listed here have been thoroughly analyzed and, well, shown to be the nonsense that they are:

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'

(I notice that you still stick to believing the Young-Earth claims concerning radiometric dating...even though those claims have been shown to be nonsense as well. Something tells me you have no real intention of ever changing your mind regardless if any or all of the Young-Earth claims are shown to be untrue. I guess that's why they call such stances "faith," aye Ralph?)