Please, sir, stuff such as this really ruins the reputation of those of us who are educated in science and also consider ourselves to be believing Christians. That the world is older than the biblical history of it does not impinge at all on the things contained within.
Please take your stories to Coast-to-Coast.
Maybe you should reconsider your considerations.
I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M.
I’m gainfully employed.
I’ve done overseas missionary work with a major Christian missions agency.
I lead a small group Bible study in my local church, and I disciple my several children, and have been faithfully married for over 20 years.
I have not published in the creationist literature, but I’m on a first name basis with at least three other PhDs (earned degree holders from major PUBLIC universities) who are creationist authors.
If soft-tissue discoveries in dinosaurs presents a logical or rational dilemma, I welcome that.
I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is God-breathed…). If you do call yourself a Christian (as opposed to Mormon or JW) and hold that there are inaccuracies in the Bible, then where do you begin and end? The Bible becomes a buffet table, where you choose what you like and leave what you don't like. This has happened in my country, where you have The United Church of Canada. This ‘church’ has performed homosexual marriages for years, has as its Moderator (head of the church), a homosexual who has been ‘in a committed relationship’ for 30 years with his ‘partner’. It is a ‘church’ which has maintained that the word ‘marriage’ in the Bible, actually means ‘a loving relationship’, whether sanctioned as a ‘marriage’ or not.
The Tanakh (Old Testament) was well established by the time of Jesus' Ministry . Several of the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1946-1956, and dated to the time of Jesus, or slightly earlier, confirm this. Included in the discoveries are portions of the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible. Sadly, I am not aware of any commentaries as to the Jewish belief for a date of creation from the time of Jesus. The closest that I am aware of is the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, which dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC. The later Seder Olam Zutta dates it to 4339 BC and the Hebrew Calendar has traditionally, since the 4th century AD by Hillel II, dated the creation to 3761 BC. As there is no record of an internal Jewish debate concerning the date of creation (young earth versus old earth), I will assume that this was the prevalent view in Jesus' time.
If a young earth assumption by the Rabbis of His time was incorrect and IF you accept Jesus as the God-man who is omniscient (Proverbs 3:19-20, Hebrews 4:13), would He not be fully aware of all errors in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and would He not correct such misinterpretations? He SURE corrected the Pharisees in what they taught!
As far as being ‘educated in science’, you must be familiar with the ‘abiogenic petroleum origin’ (APO) hypothesis? Almost 20 years ago, the University of Calgary was the only North American university that taught this hypothesis, alongside the fossil fuel theory. Russia has been qiute successful in drilling using this, rather than the latter hypothesis. Could they have just been ‘lucky’? Perhaps, but as I unstand it, percentage wise, there is no difference in drilling success rates versus the West. They do not claim this as proof of the age of the earth but the APO hypothesis does not require millions of years, as the fossil fuel hypothesis requires.
At the end of the day, it boils down to Faith. God provides us with glimpses of His Presence and Magnificence in all His creation. Satan has had several thousand years to spread doubt and spread faulty ‘reason’, to allow doubt to grow. Remember Peter walking on the water? When he looked away from Jesus, he sank (Matthew 14:22-33). Our doubts cause us to fall. If one part of the Bible is incorrect, then for me, it ALL has to be thrown out! If Darwin and his disciples are correct, then there should not be any soft tissue surviving. According to this theory, the Triceratops should be about 65 million years of age, as with the ‘biofilm’. Would not the ‘biofilm’ have evolved up, perhaps becoming small mammals or Democrats? The problem is that any observable evolution (by definition, micro-evolution) involves the LOSS of genetic diversity, not the GAIN! In other words, mutations!
We are to live by faith, not by sight. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:17-18, “And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” If you require proof of all things to believe them then where is the faith? In the end, you will get your proof… either at your death or at the end of the Age! At that time, it will be too late because we are saved by FAITH, not by having proof of each and every thing!