Dr. Hovind and the Age of the Earth
Aug 17th, 2006 by Amanda
I’ve been going through a seminar series with my Bible study group about Creation Science. It’s fascinating stuff. So I want to share with everyone what I’ve been learning and how evolution really doesn’t hold up as science when you really look at it. This post will only cover the first half of Dr. Hovind’s The Age of the Earth video.
Our textbooks start teaching our children in 1st grade that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 1st graders will believe anything you tell them! Dr. Hovind gives a humorous account of how he wouldn’t eat bananas for 3 years because his brothers told him when he was 6 that they were moldy spider legs. Then the textbooks keep reinforcing this idea that the earth is billions of years old. You’ll find that science textbooks for each grade teach this idea.
Now evolutionists believe in 6 different kinds of evolution:
1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter. This is the big bang.
2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. (If the Big Bang produced hydrogen and some helium, how did we get the others?
3. Stellar and planetary Evolution - the origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form. What you see is a spot getting brighter and you assume a star is forming. It could be the dust is clearing and there’s a star behind it. No one has ever proven the formation of a single star. Yet it’s estimated that there are enough stars for every person on earth to own 2 trillion stars.)
4. Organic Evolution - the origin of life. Somehow life has to get started from non-living material. (But spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago.)
5. Macro Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Big or small it’s still a dog. Dog, wolf, and coyote may have had a common ancestor, but they’re still the same kind of animal.)
6. Micro Evolution - Variations within kinds (big dogs and little dogs). Only this one has been observed.
Science is things that you can observe, test, demonstrate, study, etc.
For example: The 1st law of Thermodynamics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Now everything is made out of matter–so then how did the world get here? There are two options:
1. Somebody made the world (In the beginning God…)
2. The world made itself.
Those are the only two options. If the world made itself, how did it get here?
Big Bang Theory: An actual textbook (Holt Science Book, 1992) says, “18-20 million years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than the period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded.” Another textbook (HBJ Science, 1989) says, “Nothing really means nothing,” and “From this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion.”
So…nothing exploded and here we all are. And they call this science!
In Discover Magazine, April 2002, we read, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.”
Well in Scientific American Magazine, Alan Guth said, “…the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”
So…we all came from a dot and the dot came from nothing. This is what they teach in schools. All of the dirt in the universe was in the little dot and it started spinning faster and faster until one day it exploded. The pieces became galaxies and stars.
Where did the dirt come from? The scientists can’t tell you that. So if I tell you that I believe that 6000 years ago God created everything, you’ll probably ask me where God came from. I don’t know. But the scientists say 20 million years ago the dirt came together and there was a big bang.
I believe In the beginning God… (Gen. 1:1)
You believe In the beginning dirt…
Don’t tell me my theory is religion and yours is science. They’re both religious. The difference is that evolution is tax supported!
Just to be clear: I believe that 6000 years ago God created the heaven and the earth. 4400 years ago there was a flood. 2000 years ago Jesus was born.
So where did the laws come from? Gravity, centrifugal force, intertia, etc.
Where did the energy come from? It takes energy to make something move.
And what about the conservation of angular momentum? That means that if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (like the big bang) the pieces that fly off are going to spin in the same direction as the original object because the outside is moving faster than the inside. If the universe began as a spinning dot, shouldn’t everything be spinning the same way? Venus and Uranus spin in different directions than the other planets. 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Some galaxies spin backwards.
That’s kind of hard on the big bang theory, isn’t it?
Dr. Hovind believes things are spinning backwards because God created everything and He did it on purpose to make the big bang theory look stupid. Also, if the big bang theory were true, the matter would be evenly distributed. Instead, it is “lumpy.” There are clusters of stars then great voids.
So what about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Everything tends to disorder. If you leave something alone long enough it will rot, rust, die, or fall apart. Nothing gets better by itself. But the textbooks say we’re getting better! From HBJ Earth Science, 1989, “Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago.” Evolutionists say that you can overcome the 2nd law by adding energy. They say the earth is an open system; it receives energy from the sun.
There are several problems with that. By definition, the universe is a closed system. And adding energy is destructive without a complex mechanism to harness the energy. The Japanese added lots of energy to Pearl Harbor in 1941 and nothing organized itself! We added lots of energy to Japan to end WWII and did not organize anything! Adding energy is destructive unless there’s something to use it. The sun adds energy to your roof all day every day. It will destroy your roof if you don’t do anything to fix it. It will destroy the roof of your car or the paint job on your car. There’s only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy–chlorophyll. And chlorophyll is a very complex molecule.
Clearly, the sun’s energy does not overcome the 2nd law.
The schools are teaching our children that they’re animals! No wonder they act that way!
In Holt Earth Science, 1989 there’s a picture of a fossil starfish. The book says that it is 3.4 billion years old and is the remains of the early ancestors of human beings. HBJ General Science says, “About 30 million years ago, larger primates…evolved. The earliest fossil apes that may be ancestral to both humans and modern apes date from about 15-20 million years ago.”
Holt’s Biology: Visualizing Life, 1994 states, “You’re an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms.”
In the 50’s, textbooks had very little to say about evolution. On average there was about 2000-3000 words on the subject. Then in 1957 the Russians beat us in the space race when they launched Sputnik. Americans panicked. Someone said the reason the Russians were ahead in science was because they taught evolution in their schools. (What does evolution have to do with putting a satellite in space?) 1959 was the 100 year anniversary of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. So Congress was lobbied to get more evolution into the textbooks. The first time the government got involved with textbooks was during this time. The number of words teaching about evolution jumped from 2000-3000 to 33,000 in just a few years (from 1959-1963).
By 1963 prayer was taken out of schools. Since 1963 STD’s among 10-14 year olds has skyrocketed. Unwed pregnancies went up. Premarital sex rates went up. Divorce rates went up. Violent crimes have gone up 1000%! SAT scores have plummeted since 1963. In 1995 they had to dumb down the SATs so the scores would be higher. Teen suicide rates have skyrocketed.
Now, if I told you that you could kiss a frog and get a prince you’d tell me that’s a fairy tale. But that’s what the textbooks are teaching! You start off as an amoeba, slowly evolve into a frog, and very slowly become a prince. The only difference is that if the frog turns into a prince quickly, it’s a fairy tale and if the frog turns into a prince slowly, it’s modern science. Billions of years ago…
So the next time someone says “Millions of years ago…” ask them if they were there. Is it something they know? Or believe? Is it really science? They will undoubtedly ask you if you were there when God created the earth 6000 years ago. Of course not. But I already admit mine is a religion. Why don’t you admit yours is a religion?
On August 31, 1998, the Washington Times reported that slightly more than half (55%) of US natural scientists believe in Darwinian evolution. But just because most scientists believe something doesn’t make it truth. Scientists used to teach that the planets revolved around the earth. They taught that a big rock falls faster than a small rock. They taught that for 2000 years. But it isn’t true. They used to teach that if you were sick you had bad blood. We know that isn’t true either.
If you went scuba diving and found a treasure chest full of coins, could you tell me when the boat sank? First you’d look at the date on the coins. If there’s a coin in there from 1750 you know the boat had to have sunk after 1750. That’s called a limiting factor.
So how old is the earth? There are some factors that limit the age of the earth. Dr. Hovind goes into this in more detail in the next session, so I’ll write about it then.
If you find a dinosaur bone there are two things you should notice immediately.
1. It does not talk.
2. There is no date stamped on it.
So how would you tell the age of a fossil? How would you tell the age of the earth? The only way to find out for sure how old something is is to ask the guy who made it.
The Bible says God created the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1). In Matt. 19:4 it says that he made them (Adam and Eve) in the beginning, made them male and female. And again in Mark 10:6. Well if that was the beginning, we can figure out the age of the earth. You can go through the Bible and add up the dates.
The Bible says that death came by sin and sin by one man (Romans 5:12). Adam brought death into this world. There was no death before Adam sinned. Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45) and his wife, Eve, was the mother of all living things (Gen. 3:20). Adam was 130 when he had his son Seth, Seth was 105 when he had Enos, and Enos was 90 when he had his son (Gen 5:3-9). If you look through the Bible you can add up everything and make a graph like this one. If you add up the dates it comes out to roughly 4000 BC.
The textbooks say the earth is billions of years old. Jesus said Adam was the beginning. Was Jesus lying? Did he not understand modern science? Or was he right?
I encourage your comments and will be posting more in this series.
Blogs who link here: Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Cat
Tags: Christianity, Evolution, Creation Science, God, Darwin, Dr. Hovind
Thanks for the post! A few comments:
i) I’d want to tighten up the definition of science you have here - “Science is things that you can observe, test, demonstrate, study, etc.” For example, you mentioned the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: does that fit into the definition? Can you observe it? Test it? Demonstrate it?
ii) No, the idea of nothing exploding, is a non-scientific conclusion, that - as the man said - one might be tempted to make.
iii)”By 1963 prayer was taken out of schools…” I don’t see how this has any relevance to the argument.
iv)I was pleased to note that you didn’t say that the Bible says the earth was created 6000 years ago.
Hi, and this is a great and long post. I’m not gonna comment on everything, just the things that I like to think I know something about.
4. Organic Evolution - the origin of life. Somehow life has to get started from non-living material.
There is atleast one place on earth where scientist can see this happening. There are extremely harsch livingconditions along the mid-atlantic ridge, among volcanoes deep under sea level. Here new forms of micro-organisms get life from non-living materials. Atleast that is the way I have understood it.
So how would you tell the age of a fossil? How would you tell the age of the earth? The only way to find out for sure how old something is is to ask the guy who made it.
Atoms, molecules and chemical elements are strange things. Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be a incredibly accurate dating method, atleast to things that are not older than 60 000 years. I don’t need more proof than that to be able to say that the earth is older than your 6000 years.
Radiometric age dating gives earth an age of atleast 4.4 billion years. This age have scientific evidence. The age of the universe can still be discussed, and the scientific methods dating it, but those numbers are based on methods that earth and atoms themselves gave us. These numbers are not guesses.
Scientists used to teach that the planets revolved around the earth. They taught that a big rock falls faster than a small rock. They taught that for 2000 years
And if the Catholic Church would have gotten it the way they wanted, we would still be taught that in schools. Thank those stubborn scientists that it isn’t so.
Amanda…..get your facts straight. I am not going to even bother to emply sarcasm and whatever method I would love to use right now….just stop trying to play deconstruct science playset without all the pieces…..really….
For example as elianara said, the church are the ones who forced people to believe the Earth was the center of the universe. The guy who said otherwise was kept under surveillance and they tried to prevent his knowledge from escaping into the world? Brains amanda, “god” gave them to you for a reason, get your facts straight and stop creating truthiness you believe are facts. Opps, said I wouldn’t say something like that. (insert evil laughter here)
Elianara, living penguins have been radiocarbon dated as 8,000 years old. Also, scientists have been monitoring the C14 levels in the atmosphere - they’re increasing! That means that organisms living thousands of years ago would have had less C14 in them to begin with than living organisms now. This would make the radiocarbon dates inacurate.
Reaper, “the guy who said otherwise” was Galileo Galilei, who was Catholic. He was the first to study the stars with a telescope and learn that the sun did not revolve around the earth. Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian. Christopher Columbus was a Christian. Even Albert Einstein was a devout Jew. These were all people who were deeply religious, but also fueled change in the physical/scientific world.
There are so many errors in this entry that I honestly don’t know where to start.
How about with this?
Reaper, “the guy who said otherwise” was Galileo Galilei, who was Catholic.
I’m glad you brought up Galileo. He was put under house arrest by CHRISTIANS for daring to promote science.
Bad example, my friend.
Amanda wrote: By 1963 prayer was taken out of schools. Since 1963 STD’s among 10-14 year olds has skyrocketed. Unwed pregnancies went up. Premarital sex rates went up. Divorce rates went up. Violent crimes have gone up 1000%! SAT scores have plummeted since 1963. In 1995 they had to dumb down the SATs so the scores would be higher. Teen suicide rates have skyrocketed.
I am not sure what the above has to do with the evolution vs. creationism argument, but since you brought it up…
From the Times, September 27,2005:
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
Read the entire article here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
science is actually the study….
you could make a science of studying religions.
the banana example can be used against religion in the same way you just used it against science
6000 years ago God created the heaven and the earth. 4400 years ago there was a flood. 2000 years ago Jesus was born.
There evidence all over for the earth being far older. there are cultures the world over that at least 4400 years old. Ancient China, India, Egypt jsut to name a few. and there is all sorts of evidence for ancient humans prior to them.
Beyond the human record, Dinosaur bones can be dated by their context also, where they are in the ground, other plants and animals buried with them,and the fact that have completey fossilized.
Actually, the sun’s energy can be used several ways. Ever used a magnifying glass outside? you can cook food with sunlight. Solar cells are gaingin in effectiveness and practicality. your own body requires sunlight to make its own vitamin D.
also, don’t forget that Evolution is presented as a theory, which means that scientists are willing to make revisions and corrections to the basic premise
Dear girl, you’re so confused that you actually think that airing all this YEC nonsense makes your point, when, in fact, it does exactly the opposite.
“The 1st law of Thermodynamics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Now everything is made out of matter–so then how did the world get here? There are two options:
1. Somebody made the world (In the beginning God…) 2. The world made itself.”
And, by your logic then, who made your gawd- isn’t It part of everything?
“So where did the laws come from? Gravity, centrifugal force, intertia, etc. Where did the energy come from? It takes energy to make something move. And what about the conservation of angular momentum? That means that if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (like the big bang) the pieces that fly off are going to spin in the same direction as the original object because the outside is moving faster than the inside. If the universe began as a spinning dot, shouldn’t everything be spinning the same way? Venus and Uranus spin in different directions than the other planets. 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Some galaxies spin backwards.”
Everything that spins does not do so because of the big bang. Celestial bodies spin in the direction they spin due to massive impacts in their formation, due to asymmetrical cores under the influence of gravity. Initially, yes, everything was probably spinning in sync. Now, not so much. Next point?
“Dr. Hovind believes things are spinning backwards because God created everything and He did it on purpose to make the big bang theory look stupid. Also, if the big bang theory were true, the matter would be evenly distributed. Instead, it is “lumpy.” There are clusters of stars then great voids.”
Um, duh, gravity.
“Someone said the reason the Russians were ahead in science was because they taught evolution in their schools.”
Who? It’s established that Soviet State science was completely strangled by Lysenkoism- i.e., experimentation only in Marxist approved fields, results only accepted if they fit the Communist Manifesto. Kind of like what the ID or Creationism movements of today are attempting.
“Scientists used to teach that the planets revolved around the earth. They taught that a big rock falls faster than a small rock. They taught that for 2000 years. But it isn’t true. They used to teach that if you were sick you had bad blood. We know that isn’t true either.”
And religion used to teach us that gods dragged the sun across the sky in chariots. And, actually, the Ancient Greeks had already proven that the earth was not the center of the solar system but the Church’s Dark Ages successfully kept that information out of the peoples’ hands until Copernicus and Galileo came along. Jeebus, you people play fast and loose with facts.
Your bible- and likewise all cultural creation myths came about from people with inquiring minds but little actual information. They did a fine job for the times in which they wrote but you really ought not be dependent on them for your factual information. It’s logically right up there with reading chicken entrails or judging character based on the bumps on one’s head. Anytime you use an argument from your bible- or from your gawd- you’re appealing to an authority that hasn’t been proven to even exist- much less to hold authority, and is therefore invalid.
Personally, I’m an atheist but the most intelligent Xians that I know- PhDs, that sort of thing, see Darwinian Evolution as scientific fact and in no way a threat to their personal faith. I’m sorry, Amanda, but bibblical inerrancy, Hovind, Ham, and creationism in general are the modern day equivalent of the flat earth theory. Grow up- as in, evolve a brain or something.
ontheedgeofmyseat said:
Elianara, living penguins have been radiocarbon dated as 8,000 years old.
Really? Where was that published? A discovery of this magnitude would surely have made big waves in both the physics and biology disciplines, yet a Google search turns up nothing but forum quotes and creationist websites, none of which provide a citation or any other kind of proof of the validity of these findings.
Ah, I found it.
http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/lacs/radiocarbon.htm
Reading through that page, it seems that scientists who actually study radiocarbon dating know why penguins date much older than they are; it’s because they consume much less C-14 than is typical for most organisms on this planet. And notice, that these penguins date 1000-1300 years old, not 8000, and even the smaller date is well understood, and is corrected for when dating objects
Wow. Just wow. The blind ignorance displayed in your post is stunning. Using Hovind as a basis for anything is just plain bad ju ju. He is a known liar and fraud and his messages are no better.
I think you need to spend a LONG time here.
I see no point in attacking the factual points in an emotional arguement. The “facts” you cite are either not facts, or misunderstandings of popular representaion of current (not terribly current, in some cases) scientific thought.
There are also some obviously fallacious arguements, such as the idea that there is some causual link between increase in “immorality” and the banning of school prayer.
But if that were the case, the evident results of immorality would be documented in nations where religous expression is much lower - note the study cited above.
Now, as I think these lapses are obvious enough that any honest person would catch them, and yet you strike me as honestly, if emotionally persuaded by your own argument, we must ask what leads you to want to belive such silly things? What would be the alternative?
I can assure you, there is nothing in scence that holds any promise in disproving the existence of god, and the only respetable answer to what caused the big bang is “frankly, I have’t the faintest idea.”
Therfore, “God” is as good an hypothosis as any.
It seems to me that you are not defending the existence of God, but rather a particular set of religious conditions placed upon their creativity and imagination.
There is a classic religous work, which resided in my church library as a child. IT’s called “Your God Is Too Small.”
Martian Anthropologist,
Regarding Galileo-I was point out a flaw in Reaper’s argument, not trying to use him as any argument for creation or against evolution.
Scary,
The sun’s energy, as far as the way you described it, is still destructive. Using a magnifying glass to cook food denatures the amino acids in the food. If that had happened to early molecules, they would have died. Also, solar cells are a man-made device, so you can’t add them into the solar evolutionary equation.
Raindogzilla,
No, our God isn’t subject to the laws of physics-he made the laws. He can also change them. For instance, a parent can make house rules that the children must obey, but the parent himself is not subject to them.
As far as why heavenly bodies spin the way they do, impact with foreign bodies can’t be the answer for all of these. Pluto is smaller than our own moon. If it were hit by an object large enough to reverse its orbit, it would have been destroyed.
Gravity isn’t a good answer for the clusters of mass, either. If an explosion happens, the pieces continually get farther and farther away from each other. Gravity wouldn’t have been strong enough to attract the debris.
Excellentarcher,
I have the source at home to back up the penguins statement, but I’m at work. So, let’s look at your findings. The amount of C14 consumed by an organism makes a difference in the results of a radiocarbon test. If that’s the case, then the fact that the C14 levels are still rising make it very likely that organisms now are consuming more C14 than they were years ago. This makes the testing unreliable.
But you forget that parents are not always right, and children can rebel, and the parents themselves are subject to many many many rules in the real world.
And Amanda, don’t feel bad or mad at me when you get offended by me. You don’t know just how much I love to poke fun at the blind (in this case you). If you were actually making a good argument I would act in a more respectable manner, but with something like this it’s like trying to argue to you that the sun is in the sky during the day time. I would love to help you, but to you I am a false phrophet/heretic/idiot/whatever, and to me you are a blind sheep who follows its shepherd, being led by the crook wherever it wants you to go whether it’s the river or the slaughter house.
I might act a little nicer if I thought what I had to offer might help you, but nothing I say will change you as nothing you say will change me because we are set in our ways and unwilling to change. The only difference is that I was once like you making this very same type of argument holding the very same beliefs you do, and then my eyes opened to what it really was. I actually changed on an extreme scale which is something that to my knowledge you have never known, and not being Christian and becoming one does not count as people do that every day. I had a complete renovation to the way I thought, the way I saw things, and much much more.
Just find a physicist and present your arguments, talk to a biologist and present your arguments, talk to a geologist/geophysicist and present your arguments. They’ll most likely laugh in your face…
If that doesn’t satisfy you, try going to some classes or something, I mean at least try and get both sides. Your points aren’t worthy of being associated with sides on a debate, you point out imaginery holes in solid FACTS and claim you win by default!
Your intellectually lazy arguments astound even this 16 year old :/
Einstein was a devout Jew? Heh, I guess you can be Jewish without believing in a personal god or an afterlife:
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AEinstein.htm
You don’t have to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ. But please be somewhat ashamed of your scientific knowledge. At least be somewhat ashamed, reserved, and honest when it comes to that.
Anonymous, if she didn’t want to see viewpoints from another side, she wouldn’t have intived athiests/evolutionists onto her blog. Also, don’t get so mad about someone stating what they believe in. Whether you agree or disagree, she has a right to say whatever she wants on her blog. If you don’t like it, start your own blog. You have that right.
Sobex, Einstein was a Jew, then became a Messianic. Yes, some Jews (most actually) don’t believe in an afterlife. In Jesus’ time, the entire Sadducean sect didn’t believe in an afterlife.
Amanda, I loved your post. But people who do not want to believe in a creator are not going to believe in anything that points to it regardless of how much sense it makes and how ridiculous the theories to the contrary are. (THose from Martian’s site are especially vicious and antagoinistic towards Christ.)
That is why it states in Psalms that the fool has said in his heart there is no GOd. He says it in his heart, not his head. He believes it because his heart wants to believe it, not from thinking logically in his head. Of course it makes absolutely no sense to believe that all of creation, with all of its complexities, got here by chance. You don’t even need all of the scientific explanations to see the absurdity in that.
Anyway, keep up the good work and I have bookmarked you and will come back and visit.
Martian, his point was that Galileo was a believer and still used his brains, something that atheists don’t feel Christians have the ability to do. Many men in the Church have done evil in the name of God; many men have done evil in the name of nothing. The only difference is that there is no reference to “nothing” in the newspapers when reporting the latter.
Secondly, anyone who received better than a “C” in Statistics 101 would not have referenced the study — a second-hand account, by the way — without actually looking at it. So I offer here the site of someone who did: http://magicstatistics.com/2005/09/27/from-our-bulging-how-not-to-do-statistics-file/
Whatever his final conclusion, he at least READ the study.
The rest of you: Amanda invited you to her blog in the spirit of hearing your feedback. Instead, most of you chose to mock her, vilify her, attempt to degrade her, and make her feel inferior to you. You should all be proud of yourselves as shining beacons of what can happen with the absence of God.
My best friends are atheists, one with a PhD and the other a sociology professor, and never have I heard either of them utter such drivel.
Amanda, I may not agree with your post, and I certainly advise you to seek other sources than Hovind, but I admire your steadfastness and your sincere desire to spread the Good News. You are swimming with sharks, dear girl, whose only goals in life appear to be spreading the Dismal News.
Leave their negative company and find “challenge” somewhere else.
Your sister in Christ,
Maureen
Kim dearest, I say nothing in my heart. When I tell the world proudly that I believe that there is no such thing as god I do so having considered the matter using my BRAIN. All a persons heart does is pump blood. I don’t mean to poke fun but to believe in god, well it just seems wrong. I was very young when I first began doubting my catholic upbringing. I remember thinking that this religion thing bore many similarities to fairy tales and fantasy. Science may have its limitations, but at least when something can’t be proved beyond doubt then it is labelled as a THEORY. Perhaps if religion were called a theory I might have more respect for it, but the certainty with which people cling to their beliefs and the arrogance with which they push their “Good News” down the throats of others turns my stomach.
As for the argument presented in this blog, it doesn’t at all surprise me. I recently met with a missionary who praised this Dr Hovind person, who I hadn’t heard of at the time, and tried to alter my perceptions of faith… unsuccessfully.
Um, yeah… ever hear of something called carbon dating?? That’s as close as you get to stamping a date on something.
Amanda, I’ve done my best to try to see where you’re coming from and to not immediately dismiss your ideas. But to think that the earth is only 6000 years old??? You’ve got to be out of your mind. I’m hoping that I misread that part the dozen times I read it, but I don’t think I did. Sad. Really sad.
Great Post!
Be encouraged. As the Apostle Paul said, “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:18-23
Mick
Romans 15:4 Project