Replies

[So God might have created the world in six days, but in his creation he would have left dinosaur fossils that were already aged a great deal?]
God did create the world in six days.

Then why does the world give every indication that it took far, far longer to form?

I'm not a scientist,but if I were,I would probably look at the various methods used for dating.

For... what?

There is definately a way to reconcile it to the biblical account of creation.

So you've assumed your desired conclusion and then just sit back certain in your belief that there must be "definately [sic] a way" to support it, but no need to actually do so? How is that different from what we see liberals do all too often?

It just has not been done.

Because the evidence points to the contrary, actually.

As it stands now,it may never be.The antagonism is too great.

Is that the excuse you're going to go with for why your belief hasn't been supported by the evidence, and for why the evidence points to a different conclusion?

Isn't this what liberals do when they postulate a big conspiracy or something in order to "explain" why their beliefs about things aren't being confirmed on a daily basis?

Earlier you wrote:

The truth I accept is based on scripture.Any truth outside of that is a lie,conjecture or opinion unless supported by scripture.

But isn't your own belief about *which* "scripture" might be "the" scripture something that is "outside of that [scripture]"? After all, all scriptures, present and past, claim to be "the" (or at least "a") scripture. But the problem is that their self-proclamations are entirely circular, just like the letter from Hank.

In any case, because "scriptures" can be corrupted by man, or well-meaning scribings of ancient oral myths originating from simple storytelling (or deluded "revelations"), or self-serving missives by self-appointed "prophets" (as you probably believe about the Koran, for example), it seems to me that the only truly reliable source for information about the Universe is the Universe *itself* (including, of course, the Earth and what is in/on it).

So my own personal epistemology is closer to:

The truth I accept is based on reality. Any truth outside of that may just be a lie, conjecture, or opinion unless supported by reality.

"Evidence", of course, is just another word for "reality" -- it's what we have found by examining the real world. And the scientific method is, in a nutshell, just a collection of methods for doing reality-checks on ideas, by comparing them against the real world and seeing if they hold up when measured against reality.

I'm not a scientist,but if I were,I would probably look at the various methods used for dating.

For... what?

Companionship, possibly leading to a committed, long-term relationship. Many scientists had problems with dating during their earlier days...

Oh...that dating. "Never mind" ;-)

Christmas decoration placemarker