Originally Posted by Russ
Quote
We only have a standoff because you refuse to provide evidence for your assertions so I am placed in the position of continually asking for it. Hard to make progress that way.


We'll just have to let the reader be the judge.
I wasn't trying to convince you to change your mind about this issue. I just wanted you to support your statements.

Quote
Quote
Your position assumes the Bible is true which you cannot show. By your own standards you cannot be ethical and make that claim.


My position demonstrates that the Bible does not contradict true science.
How can you say this when you don't even know if the information in the Bible you own matches the information in the original scriptures? You don't know if the entire first part of the Bible has been changed by unscrupulous Levites in the early Israel priesthood just to cement their place in the halls of power. You are the one who said that it is unethical to claim truth in something that you cannot verify. How can you now claim the truth of the Bible without being unethical by your own standard? I would think that the best you can do is claim that you don't know if the Bible is true or not.

Quote
The Bible does contradict the "slime turns into human bodies in a couple billion years" religion (abiogenesis-evolution), but even common sense science contradicts this wildly eccentric religion.
Science has contradicted common sense so many times that it seems a little silly to make that kind of statement.

Common sense says that the sun goes around the Earth until it is investigated further using the structured techniques of science.

Quote
New findings also date samples as being much younger than older findings. Seems that some vast assumptions were made about potassium-argon decay that were, well, wrong.
Examples please! Preferably scientific papers showing the details of the sampling and dating procedure.

Quote
These types of assumptions always leave assumptive scientists with pie in their face.
Surprisingly, not one geologist without fundamentalist religious affiliation agrees with this statement.
Can you point to any quote by a geologist/physicist, either creationist or not, saying that the exponential shape of the radioactive decay curve is an assumption or is invalid?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke