First of all, science has never claimed it has the gospel truth. Only religion does that. Science says that it has the best explanation given the most current evidence. When new evidence comes in that contradicts an idea, science changes. The church, however, has had to be drug kicking and screaming through every major paradigm shift since just about the beginning of recorded history.

Second of all, let me get this straight: you somehow think that the date of multicellular life on this planet being pushed back from 600,000 years to 2.1 billion proof that someday science may agree with creationism? Is that about right? Cause if so, that's pretty ridiculous. Yes, scientific ideas can change and often do, and this means that yes, the estimated age of life, Earth, and the universe has shifted many times. But let me tell you something 1oldminer. Never once has the age of the universe gotten younger with new data. Never once has the age of our planet or the life on it gotten younger with the new data.

Science keeps pushing the age of the universe back and back, and every time they do it, some creationist says, "Aha! They changed their dates, that means they could someday agree with our six thousand year old model." This is a ridiculous assertion. I fully concede that science has the capacity for wrongness, and that some of our instruments may not be the most accurate.

But if you really expect me to believe that we've accidentally misinterpreted every single piece of data that points to the earth being 4.5 billion years old, and every single piece of data that shows that life has been on this planet for at least 3.8 billion years, then you've got something else coming. Because the number of pieces of evidence that support both those claims, the age of the universe, evolution, and everything else you creationists must deny or believe in in spite of the evidence has such overwhelming amounts of data in favour of it, that it is nothing short of fact.

The day science uncovers a piece of evidence that destroys evolution and supports creation, I will eat my television.

A) I'm not a Creationist.

B) I'm not 1Oldminer.

C) I do not believe the earth nor the universe nor the majority of life on earth are only 6,000 years old.

That being said, given that science 'has never being about truth', I do not feel intellectually required to subscribe to it's current flavor of "the best explanation given the most current evidence (TM)".

So you're just against science on general principle?

Translation: "I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and go 'Lalalalalalala'"
kidding.

I'm not an anti-science person.

I'm more of an anti-"the scientific method is the ultimate source of knowledge and the guiding light of all mankind and woe to those who think there could be more than what can be falsifiable", you could say.

To quote Moonman's quote of Obi-Wan: "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view".

Eyewitness to me is more conclusive than reconstruction of evidence. And from my point of view, eyewitness is available.

I wouldn't say it's the ultimate source of knowledge. Like anything else man has come up with, it is subject to egos, politics, etc. But I think it tends to find the steepest slope to finding the right answers compared to any other knowledge seeking approach mankind has come up with. Of course, if you think we have already been given the answers to everything in the "ultimate reference book," then...

My apologies. I must have mixed up who I was quoting.

While we're on the subject of misquotes though, I didn't say that science has "never been about the truth". I said it's never CLAIMED to have the gospel truth. Science knows it has errors, and it knows that mistakes (and occasionally hoaxes) are made. The difference between it and religion is that it A. admits that those mistakes are already there, and B. corrects them whenever possible.

No, I don't think we've been given the answers to everything in the Scriptures. Only the most important ones. The ones needed to make sense of the everyday problems of human misery, and of even bigger issues than the human condition.

But believing in the existence of the Creator does not limit scientific thought, just as knowing who the author of a great painting is does not take away from the pleasure and awe of analysing how the painting was made and what materials and techniques were used.

What the Bible teaches is that it was God who made us so inquisitive, so eager to find out how things happened. In fact, He named the first human being His top zoologist, giving him the assignment of studying all the animals and giving them names.

It also tells us that once the most important issues have been dealt with, humans will have all the time to ask and find the answers to all these other interesting matters.

And yet it does seem to limit you from scientific investigation in certain directions. Because you don't seem to want to accept what is being learned in those directions.

At this point you'll probably reach for the parent/child analogy and say we're not ready to understand those things.

I've lost count of the amount of times I have explained that yet here we are. Despite what the scientifically illiterate and dishonest claim, RC14 is highly accurate. It is easy to account for problems and it has become even more accurate with the advent of AMS.


Uranium-Lead is most likely. Argon-Argon is another possibility. I have posted these dates before but they require repetition.

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon = 100,000BP and older
Radiocarbon-14 (including AMS) = 50-60,000BP max
Uranium-Lead = 1 million to 5 billion years
Uranium-Thorium = 500,000BP max
OSL (Optically stimulated luminescence) = Varies. Must be closely calibrated but typically up to 100,000BP
Thermoluminescence = Varies. Must be closely calibrated