I sure wish I had more time to respond to posts here as I believe with good explanations of the questions that are raised, more would benefit from the information posted.
Nevertheless, here are a few responses...
Egan, some interesting points here. Thank you. Yes, it's good to have a discussion where someone does not end up quotinvg their scripture at you as a way of justifying what they say -- though this must be difficult for a lot of religious people, because they do and think what their scripture tells them, and go no further in their thoughts than, "This is what God says, so it is so."
To clarify...
I cannot speak for others, but the reason I post scripture is not to justify what I say. I clearly realize that in posting to non-believers, scripture means nothing, so how would it justify what I say? I know better than that.
My personal motivation for doing so is this.
There is a mechanism in some people who will recognize the truth in scripture when they see it. This will cause them to investigate further. This may eventually lead them to finding the same thing that I found in scripture that has been the pinnacle of my life. I wish this same blessing and benefit to others who can find it. This is the reason I post these scriptures.
As for the second part of your statement, yes some people do what God scripture says without questioning that, and if this is by their free will, far be it from me to blame them.
As for me, I have questioned scripture many times (I am a very skeptical person at heart) and because I persisted in researching the scriptural things that I originally took issue with, I grew as a person and found
in each case the scripture was accurate and correct and I was wrong in my preconceived ideas.
This process is a humbling experience (when you find out that someone knows more than you do) but it does enable you to grow as a person to those who allow it to.
Again, it is my wish that all could find a real, living relationship with the God of the Bible (Yahweh) who guides, guards, and directs their lives so they can experience the peace, power, and love that so many starve for today. Those who do two things: (1) search the scripture, and (2) persist (very important), will find it and will never regret the time they invested in their search.
This is my wish and reason for posting scripture.
Bex, there are some genetic differences between us and chimps, but they are small. It only takes a few small alterations in the genetic code to produce large physical differences. We're learning more about this all the time. Why are we actually different from chimps? Because we evolved from a common ancestor.
To say that these genetic differences between chimps and humans are small is really very misleading (Please know that I'm not blaming you for being misleading. I realize you're simply repeating something you heard somewhere else). This is a type of subtle "context change" debate tactic. Let me demonstrate.
In a certain context, you could say that .001 gram of mercury is a small amount of mercury, and this would be true in the context of comparing it in mass to other elements that you weigh on a butcher's scale. However, .001 gram of mercury is an enormous amount of mercury in the context of human toxicity.
In the same way,
if the difference between the genetics of chimps and humans is, let's say, 5%, on its face, that sounds like only a small difference. However, taken in its proper context that is an enormous difference in terms of actual information.
Why?
Because genes contain such enormous amounts of information. To be intellectually honest, you have to consider that 5% of this information is a huge amount of data. Furthermore, to say that this data improved in design over time is missing equally important statistical factor.
If you play roulette, there is, let's say, a 50% chance that you'll hit red. The next time you play, the chance of hitting red does not increase. It stays exactly the same. This means that the chance that you'll hit red two times in a row diminishes 75%.
When you consider the enormous amounts of highly-organized DNA that is different between humans and chimps (even if it is only 5%), and you consider the statistical probability that those DNA would organize into symmetrical representations performing all of the highly-detailed changes through the "natural" processes we know affect them, the chances of getting something other than a blob of nondescript cancer through change is like playing red on a roulette wheel with 1 red and 1,000,000,000,000 black, and this is a very conservative figure. It does not matter how much time you add to the equation. This time is added to confuse the issue to those who don't understand how this works.
To make this model more physical, consider the changes in the lengths of the bones in the fingers; they would all have to be changed, and the corresponding ligaments and tendons would have to change accordingly. The lubricative cartilage would also have to change correctly in proportion to each change in the bone. You also have to consider that the other side of the body would have to symmetrical in all of its changes to make a human. You then have to consider the ratio of harmful change as compared to beneficial, which bends the curve even further towards impossible.
When you really begin to consider all of the implications of these "small" changes, you find that it becomes statistically impossible for all of these changes to take place and therefore, chimps cannot change into humans no matter how much time you water the equation with. Again, time is added to confuse. The real analysis is the probability of the number of mutations and the ration of beneficial to harmful. Properly understood, no person would play this kind of roulette.
As I always say, at the core, people don't believe in evolution because there is evidence or probability to support it. There is not (and what little there appears to be is based on outright deceptions). People believe in evolution because they do not want to believe the alternative: That a large, concerted effort is underway to promote evolutionary myths because those funding its promotion are profiting wildly from it.
So do creationists just lump all archaeologists together and say they're part of some vast conspiracy? I've been interested in archaeology all my life. My husband and I know archaeologists. They are intelligent people who love to learn and discover, they are not part of some massive movement to delude everyone.
Which leads us to the next logical step in this discussion;
Conspiracy.
Doctors or Dentist are not the original perpetrators of the mercury cover up. They are only the pawns that are spoon fed information that is funded by those who profit from mercury. Doctors are the first-level victims of this cover up. Patients are next in line.
Archaeologists are also not the perpetrators of the evolution myth. They are victims as well of misinformation that leads them to reach wrong conclusions. Again, study will pan this out. I speak boldly on this issue because I have done mine.
Thousands of years ago, the Bible predicted a global conspiracy that would culminate in nearly all people on Earth accepting a symbol on their body without which they could not "buy or sell". The prophecy said that those who accept this "mark" will have no hope of salvation. According to the research I've done, I personally believe this prophecy will be completely fulfilled in our lifetimes.
I hope that those who read this will take this very seriously and do their homework, for the will to do homework—as I call it—is the evidence that you care about truth. Those who form opinions without research or who's research is severely colored by their own desires do what the Bible calls "deluding" themselves.
The evolution myth not only steals the ability for many to receive the blessings of a relationship with a God who cares, it will indirectly cause many to receive a mark that eventually leads to a disaster. Of course, those do their homework will be tortured and beheaded by those who don't, and ironically, people often say that God is cruel or unreasonable.
Is radio carbon dating wrong then? How are we so grossly mistaken about the half-life of radioactive isotopes? This is a fact, same as the earth revolves around the sun. Is someone going to come here and claim that that isn't a fact either? It was the church that opposed Copernicus when he promoted the idea, because it threatened their comfortable idea of God's people being at the centre of the universe. Eventually they decided it was silly to oppose obvious fact, and they worked it into their belief system. I don't see anyone around today insisting the earth is flat and at the centre of the universe, because that's what their religion tells them and thus it must be so.
So much of this information above is flatly false. You're looking at these situations from a long distance not understanding the details and therefore not understanding the real truth.
(It takes so long to dispel lies and myths that are perpetrated by the media, but I'm trying to do my part.)
This idea about the church resisting these ideas is exactly like the 6000-year theory today. A certain part of the church resisted these ideas because it conflicted with their misconceptions of the Bible, when, in fact, the Bible does not conflict with these ideas, nor does it conflict with any science that I am aware of, and I've studied this subject. Misinformation like this comes from television, especially the Bible-bashing Discovery, History, and Bibliography channels.
About carbon dating...
I love science. Always have, always will.
The problem with people who believe that the Bible clashes with science is because they know neither or only one or the other. In order to make this determination, you need to know both.
What needs to be realized by those who have all these preconceived ideas about the Bible and evolution is that mainstream information is horrible inaccurate. You have to study for yourself.
An excellent example of this is vaccines.
We sell a 3-hour video (
Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny) that exposes that the effectiveness of vaccines are largely based on lies. And guess what. This conclusion is not from the imagination of some deranged doctor. This information is from peer-reviewed medical journals.
The same cover-up exists with mercury. Did you know that as soon as Dr. Haley discovered vital links between mercury and autism that all mercury-based funding was dropped by NIH.
Why? Just ask yourself why this would be.
I know. I've done my homework. (I'm not saying this with pride. I'm saying this to try to inspire others to get up and take a look at information source outside of textbooks and television. Pride is a waste of time.)
Mercury funding was dropped because, if the truth ever got out about mercury, the net effect is that many would recover from a myriad of illnesses and pharmaceutical profits would drop. So, who do you think stocks medical school boards and textbook manufacturer's boards with employees that get paid $200,000 per year by a pharmaceutical company for doing nothing more than taking an all expense paid trip to Fiji with their families once a year to go to a conference for three weeks?
It's time to wake up.
Now, how does this relate to carbon dating? It's the same situation. Nothing new. Nothing different. The misinformation is profitable, very profitable.
I'll give you a nugget and will have to stop because I've got so much work to do.
How long have we measured radioactive decay curves? 70 to 80 years.
How long is a radioactive decay curve. Well, depends on what element you're working with, but hopefully you get the punch line, thousands or millions of years in most cases. So, we have only measured a very, very small fraction of the curve. The idea that these curves are based on exponential curves is pure speculation. Take time to research how often these types of assumptions have been wrong in the past. You will discover: Many.
I love knowledge and I love science. The latter is the process of discovering the former. The problem I have with mercury myths, vaccines myths, evolutionary myths, and other so-called scientific ideas is that they are not based on science. They only try really hard to look like they are. The other reason I don't like these false ideas is because they hurt people. The reason many don't see the damage they do is because they don't take the time to connect the lines between the misinformation and the fallout.
Stepping Stones:
The Conspiracy ThreadHovind: Lies In The TextbooksNew Age Bible Versions 
