Replies

Well, it can be both, a test in faith, and God being amused, and not capriciously so...but not necessarily either is true. That old earth evidence is overwhelming can't be argued with me - I've been exposed to too much evidence. That said, you are STILL right.

Other than C14, the other chronometers rely on assumptions about past events that can't be refuted in a lab under any circumstances. Their assumptions are so reasonable that they can be accepted as gospel though...to a secularist.

So, as for proving dating methods, all have their shortcomings, including c14. However, many of the other methods are plausible too....and I don't use them professionally, so I can cop out of discussing them further.

As for an object that has no age....fair enough. But I submit to you very strongly the following. If the creation evidence were iffy enough to indicate a young earth, too many would be green lighted to pure discernment based living and given no incentive to sharpen their reason.

That is why I don't claim the "scientist" title, nor the theologn...but in professional circles I can pose as either with all the other posers and be taken seriously....

That's why I wrote to Zulu about my objections to agreeing to the secularists demands that "science and religion" are seperate.

>the other chronometers rely on assumptions about past events that can't be refuted [and it follows, cannot be PROVED!] in a lab under any circumstances

and at that point the discussion has moved out of the realm of Science (big S because I invoke the technical and classical definition of the word!) and into that of Philosophy (at least) or even Religion. Actually, such beliefs are in the realm of science, but only in the Hypothesis stage of the process. But as you say, it will be hard to move into the experiment/observe step, won't it? So, people pick their Religion -- an assertion I think you would agree with! Since such things can't be proved, why not just give God the glory? Here's the chain: you believe in Jesus, I know. All we really know about Him is in "The Bible". He clearly thoroughly believed the Old Testament scriptures (and as God, He was there when those were written!). Genesis has some poetry, but is not essentially a poetic book. Jesus clearly accepted Genesis as history. If it's good enough for Him, it should be good enough for me. This leaves a huge task relating the relatively small amount of natural history in the Scriptures to what we can observe now. My main point is that if our physical observations are led by and subject to our faith, we will come to different conclusions than if not. There are quite a few very credible scientists in the creation camp.

gobucks: sincere thanks for your thoughtful reply!