Science and Religion are not incompatible, the only folks that find them incompatible are the folks who subscribe to literal reading of every line of the old testament, particularly the pre-history parts, which of course flies in the face of all serious Theology.
The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old is not supported by any basis, theological or scientific, its nonsense.
This very article is a bit silly, the evidence suggest tissue was found in the fossil, great, the supposition by the young earth theory is the fossile can’t possibly be millions of years old because of this, without any real evidence to support that, other than a theory, the opposite proposition is that soft tissue under the right circumstances could indeed survive millions of years.
Its not suprising the young earth theory folks are arguing a non bending proposal, and the sceintific folks are arguing hmmm perhaps there are things we don’t quite know... Yet, the “religious” and I do use that term very loosely here, are claiming that the other side is being unyeilding and absolute.
According to first mover theory, change in and of itself is proof of God’s existance, yet there are so many incredibly ignorant folks claiming that theories around change are an attack or affront to God that its nonsense.
ANyone so utterly ignorant of theological teachings, then trying to argue someone else’s theories are an affront to them is foolhearty on both fronts.
The Holes in the “Young Earth” theory are massive, let alone the very idea that the bible tells the age of the earth to begin with, which when read literally or figuratively it clearly makes no such offering.
This is true, but not only that they conveniently forget definitions, like day being "one rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun"/"the time it takes the sun to return to the same position in the sky" -- in the first few days of creation there is no sun (or Earth on the first day) -- the Hebrew word for 'day' there can mean "some period of time", which we even have in English for the meaning of 'day' (e.s. "back in my day", "in the days of King David" etc).
The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old is not supported by any basis, theological or scientific, its nonsense.
This is untrue, if God is omnipotent and superior to creation then he could run through the creation-events in seconds rather than days/millennia -- that is to say that he could have spread out the universe after "the big bang" (creation of light) faster than light's own speed [like blowing up a balloon increases the distance between points on the surface] -- so there's no reason to dismiss a literal 24-hrs out of hand.
Another interesting possibility is the time between the creation and the fall -- if there is no death before the fall, then would man have aged? It therefore makes some sense to start counting Adam's age as being from the fall & expulsion from Eden rather than his creation-date; granted, that's non-literal and a bit of a leap, but not unreasonable.
The Holes in the “Young Earth” theory are massive, let alone the very idea that the bible tells the age of the earth to begin with, which when read literally or figuratively it clearly makes no such offering.
There are problems with the old earth theories too, maybe not as many but they are there: Helium, IIRC, shouldn't be on this planet at all if it's millions of years old because at the rate of loss that we have now it would have all run out.
When it gets down to the nitty-gritty of daily living it must be asked: does it matter? And I've got to say 'no' -- it doesn't matter if the 'day' is literal or figurative because it's not about 'days', it's about God creating & how that impacts the human-God relationship.
Science and Religion are very compatible, the only folks that find them to be otherwise are the folks who subscribe to the outdated and unproven Darwinianism.
The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old has more evidence than evolution has, yet the flat earth evolutionists refuse to even consider the facts.
The backlash from the flat earthers becomes a bit silly after awhile. The evidence proves of the presence of soft tissue in a dinosaur was found in the fossil. Which proves that dinosaurs are not as old as the flat earth evolution society suggests. We have more evidence to prove the earth is not billions of years old, than the flat earth evolution society has that the earth is billions of years old.
Other than a theory, evolution has never ever been proven as fact. Its not surprising that the evolutionists and their old age theory folks argue a non bending proposal.
Evolutionists argue that perhaps there are things we don’t quite know, and that is why they continue to cling to their pie in the sky belief that has never ever been proven.
Yet, because Christians dare to show the evidence that disproves evolution and their billion year old earth theory, they will go out of their way to even attack Christians for daring to call themselves scientists.
What really gets me is the way they claim that theological scholars are ignorant of what the Scriptures tell us. Anyone so utterly ignorant of theological facts who try to argue someone else’s theories are an affront to both God and Science.
The Holes in the theory of evolution are so massive, that you could literally put the whose universe into them. The idea that they dare to claim that the Scriptures agree with them is actually Blasphemous. Those who claim such an idea, do not even have a cursory understanding of either Hebrew or Greek. So for them to claim they know what the Scriptures say is not just ludicrous, but ignorant!
Actually it is science that has much to answer for, by picking and choosing which facts to make known and which to sweep under the rug...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html