Okay, here comes the evolutionist to point out that these mutations and such, even just the extremely rare beneficial ones, are “reproducible”, or at least observable, and that given enough time they could have been behind all the varied species. Of course, this is not the same as reproducing what is claimed to have taken place, but heck, it sounds fantastic so we’ll go with it anyway. And next week when we stumble upon a problematic area, we’ll just throw a few more billion years in and be all set, never mind that it contradicts the “very reliable” dating methods; people somehow just don’t even think to ask about, when we “discover” that the earth is older, how that could possibly be since the dates were already established by rock solid dating methods. That even disregards the more obvious problem that the earth just got older for no other reason than that the data couldn’t be squeezed in the “solid” theory.

Assume the model is wrong?

“NO!!! It’s rock solid!!! As are the dating methods!!! We were just a little off on the dates; only a few billion years. It’s not a problem.”

Aye. With work like that nothing ever will be a problem, either.

The only “science” in evolution is science-fiction.

I’d love for science to keep marching on, and it will regardless, but the problem as it pertains to this scientific topic is that it does not oblige me the freedom to do the same. Do you now agree that this “theory”, so called, does in fact put God and creation out of the realm of possibility? It does – or attempts to – and by so doing forcibly disrupts my ability to “leave the religious instruction to Sunday school”.

One day a week the kids are taught the truth and then are filled with lies the other six. Who wouldn’t like odds like that in order to get people to think what they want?

I’m all for science when it is real science and it adheres to the true scientific method. Unfortunately, evolution fails miserably here.

Yes, we’re arrogant enough to think that we might have some idea what we’re doing after a few centuries of using the scientific method.

Stop telling scientists how to do their job. Go and annoy car mechanics or computer repair people instead. Why don’t you tell them that they should be putting God into their work. In fact tell me what your job is and I’ll come around to your workplace and tell you that you’re arrogant to think you know how to do your job.

Again, all we want is to let science teachers teach science. Let’s leave the religious instruction to Sunday school shall we?

There’s a guy with your first name who, like me, is a born-again Christian, but he’s also a professional geologist — Brent G. Dalrymple. See if you can find his article “Finding the Age of the Earth — By Physics or by Faith?” If it’s not on the web somewhere you can find it in the collection of essays, Is God a Creationist?

Thanks for that. I’ll look up this info. I have no problem, or fear, looking at what these guys say. I’ve looked a fairly descent amount and am still quite confident that somewhere along the line there always must be a calibration, and that calibration must make assumptions that aren’t verifiable.

And, again, how could we possible know whether God didn’t just “do it that way”? I know that sounds like a cop out that I can fall back to on any point you or anyone could possibly make, but it is nonetheless a fact that if the universe and everything in it was indeed created that God had to do it some way, right? How could we possibly know?

I think it’s funny because the scientists and those who taut the “scientific evidence” yell that God cannot enter into the equation because He/She/It is not possibly scientifically quantifiable. Well, duh! That’s exactly correct, and the very reason why scientists have no standing whatsoever when they attempt to say that the universe wasn’t created in such and such a way. They admit on the one hand they couldn’t know, but on the other that they definitely know. Oh …, I feel the “H” word coming on again.

So, the scientific community thinks they have adequately brushed God aside by saying that He/She/It cannot enter into the discussion, but in so saying they are admitting that they wouldn’t be able to know whether or not God did anything. They unwittingly admit their ignorance, as well as astounding arrogance. Scientists think that there is literally nothing bigger than science. Oh, how wrong.

If “God did it” was a legitimate answer, there would be some supporting evidence. Where is the supporting evidence? Can you point to a single instance where “God did it” is the simplest and most legitimate answer. Can you pray and stop gravity working and say “God did it”

Note; evidence that someone else is wrong, does not make your evidence right. You actually have to provide evidence to back up your claims.

If everything was created in a magic burst of noodliness last Thursday whilst the Flying Spaghetti monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn did battle mightily… Why does the evidence suggest the universe is much older, and keep in mind that the evidence is supported by multiple sources. Not just a single point.

For you to be right, virtually all of science has to be wrong. Which is more likely do you think?