God didn't hide the truth. (We've been down this road before.) Scientists ignore the truth of the scriptures, make up their own assumptions built on the philosophy of Materialism and build their fantastic case for evolution on that dung pile.

Boxcar

You have told me numerous times God makes the Universe appear old but it is really quite young. Do you deny posting that?

But I have also said that Catastrophism (opposed to the assumption of Uniformatariansim) could very have well played a huge role in the earth appearing as old it is. There is scriptural evidence that would support this supposition.

Boxcar

Actually science does accept what you call "Catastrophism' One of the most dramatic events happened millions of years ago and wiped out dinosaurs. Hate to tell you this but The Flood did not.

Which "truths of the scriptures" would you like to see scientists embrace, Boxcar?

The talking bushes, the conniving snakes, the resurrections of the dead...and the levitating Saints?

Let's not talk something as complex as evolution right now. Just tell me how radio isotope dating is a bad scientific technique. If that is too tough, how about why the speed of light cannot be used by astronomers to tell us some light has been traveling for billions of years from many cosmic bodies to reach us here on earth?

And if those are too difficult why a simple a technique as measuring geologic layers in the earth in terms of overall depth and thickness can not be used to gauge the age of the earth? Let's put it this way, no proper analysis of oil fields would be possible, or use of oil practical if the scientific techniques behind geology were erroneous.

How about it Toxi?

Big words...Little brains
 

Used almost exclusively by creationists. Most often spelled correctly.

This word is even bigger and used often by science fiction writers, since it's one of their major underlying assumptions to make their fables seem plausbile: Uniformitarianism.

Boxcar

How about the truth of the universe's real beginnings -- for starters (good pun intended). :D

Boxcar

I don't believe the Flood did either. Read the Book of Job sometime.

Btw, since Job came to mind, I just want to share something before I forget it. Very few people realize this (even many Christians) -- but nonetheless cavemen existed in Job's day and prior to his day (cf. Job 30:1ff.). However, unlike what so many scientists believe, these people weren't just up a notch or two from the apes on the evolutionary chain, but from what the writer of Job says they lived in caves because they were societal outcasts in their day, who were "scourged from the land". In other words, living in dark caves or even underground wasn't part of some evolutionary process. It was a penalty imposed upon these cave-dwellers by their fellow man for their, apparently, hostile and anti-social behavior. In fact, Job even refers to these people in a bbilcially derogatory manner, using the term "fools" -- a term that consistently throughout the bible denotes serious moral/spiritual deficiency.

What is even more fascinating is the picture this conjures up, which is that of morally depraved human beings -- so depraved, so wicked, apparently, that they were exiled, as it were, into remote parts of the earth to live apart from their fellow man up in the rocks and caves, etc.. Other "less depraved" human beings wanted to separate themselves from them. Now, let's fast forward to the book of Revelation wherein it talks about how when Christ returns in all his majesty, glory and power (very unlike his first advent), modern men will hide themselves in the rocks and caves (figuratively speaking) in order to separate themselves from the glory of Christ (Rev 6:15-17). They will not be able to bear His magnificent Presence, anymore than many people in Job's day could bear the presence of these depraved people. (It wouldn't surprise me either, if it was the godly people of Job's day who drove the wicked out from among them. The text makes it clear that Job certainly wanted nothing to do with them!)

What also makes this passage interesting is that it that it nicely harmonizes with a large body of scripture that teaches that God created man as a mature, moral, highly intelligent being with all his faculties intact.

Also, it demonstrates that real science can harmonize quite nicely with scripture. Science agrees with the bible that these cave dwellers existed, but of course, once again. the science community's conclusions (for the most part) for why they lived that lifestyle are false because their underlying assumptions have never escaped the deep darkness of their own "inner" cave (to borrow a Hcap term). :D

Boxcar

Did not
 

The proof is in the mirror. Take a look.

Mr. Hcap: Why do you pose these questions to me since your mind us already made up? And mine is, also? Your god is science. My God is God. I'm not going to engage in unproductive debate with you. There are plenty of websites out there that present plausible alternative explanations.

But I will very briefly say something about radio isotope dating. If the Uniformatarian assumption is wrong, and all the natural processes have not remained constant since the beginning, then this could explain dating problems and apparent contradictions between science and the bible..

Scripture tells us that prior to the Flood, it never rained upon the earth. (But we do know how that has changed, don't we?) (Scripture also says that when God created that he separated the waters in space and put an expanse in their midst, which means prior to the Flood the earth was encircled with a large volume of water in the upper atmosphere. But that, too, changed, and after the Flood that large "envelope" of water was gone, which would further mean that the planet lost a great deal of its sun radiation protection. This loss of protection had a deeply profound impact upon the entire environment and, therefore, upon all life on the earth. We know changes took place because if we're to believe scripture, people's lifespans started to become shorter. Men were dying sooner than previously. Another change we see in scripture is that man can no longer inter-breed with family members, as was recorded back in ancient times. Incest, for example, is not only a sexual taboo today but a moral one, and it probably become the latter over time when it was discovered that incest no longer works, and if tried will produce disastrous results. Even as late as in Abraham's day, men could successfully inter-breed; for Sarah was Abraham's half sister (same daddy, different mother), etc.

So, if Catastrophism is the correct assumption, then during this entire postdiluvian age, the whole planet has been heavily bombarded with radiation from the sun, which I would think throw some scientists' clocks off a tad.

Now, as to the other "clock" -- the starlight problem, I'm attaching a link that is a long read, but if you want you can skip toward the bottom and you'll see that this speed of light problem applies with equal force to the proponents of the Big Bang Theory. Therefore, using starlight as an argument against a young universe is self-defeating because it's self-refuting!
But, of course, this doesn't stop unbelieving scientists. When they run into a brick wall, all they do is build a "workaround" by calling Dial-a-Theory. :rolleyes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...tarlight-prove

Boxcar

Oh...I know I'm made in God's image? What is your excuse, again?

Boxcar

Wait...WHAT? Did you just criticize scientists for building a "workaround" Dial-a-Theory?

After what you just posted concerning radioisotope dating?

Ballsy.... :lol: