Replies

I have yet to have found one rigorous, sound, mathematical argument to show that any dating method can prove these things might not have only been created less than 10000 yrs ago.

I understand the arguments presented regarding carbon dating, half-life assumptions, and fossil lineage, but not once have I ever seen nor even observed a rigorous attempt to show systemically how it is not possible for the same justifications might not be functionals over time, whereby an absolute dating method is non-gauged, not normalized, and at best a mere sequencing.

Such a fundamental basis begs an explanation and rigourous justification. It is the 'evolutionist' who makes the incredible leap of faith to disregard institutions, which at least indicate otherwise. The 'evolutionist' bears the burden of proof.

This absence of even a well formed theory simply displays gross ignorance on the behalf of "evolutionists". The article well articulates one consistent trait of 'evolutionists'.....namely an incredible intellectual arrogance which journeys to ignore truth and logic, all the while claiming authority over institutions of belief.

The professor states he will only write recommendations for those who have been 'invited' to attend his seminar,...yet in the same policy recognizes he lacks the ability to know all persons who attend his classes of 500+ students and even refuses to acknowledge those with surpassing grades inthose classes. Would it be any surprise at all if the same professor would refuse association with any person based upon any prejudice?

The policy merely assasinates the character of its author. All medical schools would be well advised to use any recommendation from this professor as ample justification to reject ANY applicant from future competition and screening.

As for clinical use of 'evolution', I'd far rather MDs would have advanced knowledge in biochemistry, chemistry, mathematics, logic, and anatomy than infatuation with 'evolution' and pseudo-statistics.

I have yet to have found one rigorous, sound, mathematical argument to show that any dating method can prove these things might not have only been created less than 10000 yrs ago.

Cvengr, here's something I thought up in the shower a few mornings ago (sorry if that's too much information for folks :) to explain why the universe must be older than this - It's good 'cause it relies directly on what we can see. Check it out:

We can see, either with the naked eye or with telescopes, light from stars and other celestial objects that are more than 10,000 light years away.

Even if God created those objects at that distance and moving in such a way as to fool us into extrapolating the Big Bang, we would not see their light yet, unless we are prepared to challenge the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is a fixed 299,792,458 m/sec.

Granted, this does not address the issue of fossil dating, which I'm not going to get into right now, since others are already covering that, but I hope everyone can see that this makes a reasonable case for the world being more than ~10,000 years old :)

Again, the core principles of Christianity remain untouched.

Thanks for reading,

DFS