No he doesn't. His "references" are not the actual citations for the examples he promotes. He cherrypicks comments from papers where scientists comment on the accuracy of their studies and point out any problems that there may be. If you are assuming that all science must be 100% infallible to be valid, then you know nothing of science. Do you have no thoughts of your own? The author just makes these statements out of the blue. There is no citation, no author, no study cited for these statements. He also ignores that radiometric dating relies on the use of uncontaminated samples, which are often quite hard to obtain. Sometimes you don't realize the sample is contaminated until you get erroneous results. Such results also teach us. The main problem is that he takes a few of these erroneous results (assuming that he didn't just invent them) and tries to make the preposterous case that ALL radiometric dating must also be in error. Such is not the case. There are literally millions of successful and proven radiometric dating results.
ah, so you believe it, even though you do not know it to be true. i see. what do you think are the odds you are right? why would you believe what you do in favor of anything else i can invent?
Well, I hope I'm right! :hihi: Not sure i can put a % on it. As for why I believe what I do, I've had personal experiences of the Lord working in my life that I can point to. Of course, a cynic would never believe such a thing, but ultimately any religion isn't rooted in empirical thought. Rather, empirical thought can enhance (or in some cases undermine) what one believes spiritually.
well, i guess you got me there. i guess i cant argue that you didnt see magic anymore than i can prove to a child they didnt see a monster. thats because they are all lies and legends. you can accept ignorance about the uiniverse. it wont kill you. you dont have to invent things to believe. give it a try.
I believe God omnipotent. So yes, He could have created the universe in six days, and could have used a large fish to transport Johah. But what I am saying is that the evidence is that He did not. As for genetics, actually the evidence is that subsequent generations are genetically superior to earlier ones. For example, longitivity has increased over time. As for possible incest between the siblings of Cain and Able, I am not sure where you got that from, but it was not from Genesis
Actually, people in the Old Testament are believed to have lived for hundreds of years. This is attributed to one, Gods will for them to live longer in order to populate the earth, and two, due to their bodies being superior to ours. Have you ever heard the saying, "Old as Methuselah"? Longitivity has increased just in fairly recent times. Prior to that it was on a steady decline. No there isn't a direct quote in our Bible. My pastor can explain it a whole lot better than I can. I will ask him to point out the verses again that he uses to validate this. Since there were only Adam and Eve to begin with, then there can be no other way. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church has declared that this could not have happened. They don't give an explanation of how the world was populated, they just say that it could not have been this way. I forget which Pope proclaimed this. I'll look that up again also. If I remember right you said you were Catholic. Just so you know, I'm Baptist. Doesn't the Catholic Church teach something along the lines of evolution with God beginning the process?
I've always believed the same thing as salty about the literacy of the Bible and that the earth was created in a literal 6 days. I also believe that before the fall, adam and eve eating the "apple", that man was genetically perfect and that as a result of them sinning they were no longer genetically perfect and as a result genetic defects started to pile up. Now, since Cain was only the 2nd generation of humans, as were his sisters, his DNA wouldn't have contained all of the defects that we do now and therefore would've been able to copulate with his sister and the offspring not come out deformed like would happen now. As to the Catholic church's position on scripture, I'm pretty sure that they allegorize pretty much everything and believe in a sort of God-driven evolution. Don't quote me on that though.
Yea, it's crazy, huh? 700 years for some of the early people in the Bible! I read up on this about 2 months ago, and I seem to recall that the average age started to drop a lot after Noah. I think that's right anyway...sometimes I'm disappointed in my ability to remember some stuff.
The Catholic Church has taken to leaving science to scientists. It does not rule out the possibility of literal creationism nor does it condone evoloution. Many Catholic theologians do not see the theories as mutually exclusive. The Church does teache that God created everything, including humans. It further teaches that sin entered the world because man was deceived by the devil and freely chose to sin. Whether the stories of creation are literal or figuratives is largely left up to the beleiver. What matters most is that we were created, by God, through some mechanism. There is no need to get into specifics. If God wants to send me to hell because I take the view that the old testament is a wide genre of literary works and not literal truth then I'll just start wailing and nashing my teeth.
:hihi: I hope it doesn't come to that. My pastor is also quick to point out that a lot of Baptist will be surprised when we get to Heaven and are greeted by a bunch of Catholics. I agree with him. I know a few Catholics that will be surprised to see me stroll through the gates smiling from ear to ear.