On a previous thread I was asked to explain some of my comments on this topic and offered to at least raise some questions about why certain theories are taught as gospel-like fact within certain areas of science. Clem in particular asked me to "bring it"!

This is EXTREMELY LONG, so take the time if you are interested. If not, then move on along. To start I offer some rational and concepts that are important to the discussion, then followed by some issues/questions. Feel free to join the discussion.

Old Age of Earth/Evolutionist-Humanist vs. Young Age of Earth/Creationist

The very first thing that requires 100% agreement in any discussion is this: Everyone who studies geology, biology, paleontology, and archeology has the same facts and physical evidence/systems in front of them. No matter what opinions, world view or bias anyone has, we all have access to the same things. The difference comes in on how we interpret what we see�.what world view shapes how we see certain facts�what assumptions we make�what biases we have. No rational discussion can be had unless this key starting point is agreed upon.

Modern Science today has put forth that the earth is billions of years old, the geologic column are vast layers of sedimentary rock layers that span millions of years between the different sections in the column. Within these sedimentary rocks exist fossilized remains of organisms, animals, and plant life. Based on the assumption and starting idea that the so-called God of the Bible did not create the earth and its inhabitants as laid out in the Bible in Genesis, these atheist scientists developed their own explanation of creation called Evolution (in all its various changing forms and names) as well as physical creation explanations of how Earth came to exist such as the Big Bang Theory. These concepts were once theory but slowly over time the academic elite across the globe have pushed this as fact as members of the scientific community routinely shunned and black-balled scientists with opposing views. Today our schools, our universities, our textbooks teach these theories as fact.

That is my main and only point for even discussing this issue. We are all entitled to have our own beliefs and world views, even scientists and researchers. But what should never be allowed is the intellectual dishonesty and designed indoctrination of theory taught as fact. Teaching it as theory is very acceptable to me�as long as other theories including Creation by God is also taught. Our public institutions have been hijacked and it is wrong.

I say they have been hijacked because true science by definition has to be measurable, observable, testable and repeatable in order to prove a theory as fact or �law�. The principles of the Scientific Method should be required. Whenever we go back in time past the earliest written recorded observations of the natural world, we automatically step outside the requirements of true science. We enter the category of historical science. Sedimentary layers, fossils, ancient bones, ancient cultures�none were ever witnessed and recorded, not observable in the present, not testable in the present, not measurable in the present, not repeatable in the present�..all backward looking into the past. The Scientific Method cannot be deployed which by definition removes these areas from true science and positions them into an area of historical study.

Old Age/Evolution proponents will most likely say that they can figure out reality of today from looking at the past with enough certainty to fulfill the requirements of true science. They know in their hearts that God did not create what we see, so there must be a natural explanation. They have a faith in the long ages to such a degree that this naturalistic/humanistic worldview keeps them from acknowledging the vast evidences that refute their beliefs. They demand what they say is fact, in light of counter evidence. In all reality it is theory.

The skeptic can use this same argument against the Christian who is a creationist in worldview, and that is perfectly acceptable. For Christians know per the Biblical teachings that without God in your heart, the things of God will always remain a mystery to non-believers. However, the problem is that the pervasiveness of atheistic/evolutionary/humanistic thought has indoctrinated our culture so much that even Christians have compromised their own thinking. Many see the Bible as a good book of virtue but not the true Word of God, but claim to believe in God and be Christians. Others believe that the Bible is true except for Genesis�it must have been a fable because science has �proven� that the Bible account isn�t how it happened at all. It matters not that Jesus himself confirmed the Genesis account, they still say the Genesis record cannot be correct. So they combine secular with God�s account to make sense of it all. In essence they put trust in man more than in God�s protection of His Word. This has serious theological implications.

If the Genesis account of creation is false, then death-disease-destruction-chaos existed before Adam. That means that the fall of man as recorded in Genesis is also false. Which means that the need for law was false�which means that the need for Christ and His atoning death on the cross was never needed at all. If the foundation of the entire Bible and the foundation of the true Gospel message is mere fable and a great story with no truth�Then all of Christianity is pointless.

I�m here to proclaim that the Bible account of Creation is true and accurate as presented in the Bible. To do this I will admit I am proclaiming faith in something I cannot see and will have to admit that this is my theory because I cannot apply the scientific method to my cause. I do so without hesitation. But in doing so, I also demand that the historical sciences follow suite and admit that their so-called proven facts are simply unproved theories as they too do not meet the requirements of the scientific method.

I am also here to show the compromised Christian believer that there is indeed evidences that refute or at the least raises big questions on what �science� today tells us is proven fact. It is so vitally important that Christians understand that our fallen world is full of misinformation that is designed to keep us apart from God and His Truth. As our schools teach old age/evolution as proven fact many children in Christian homes are getting two conflicting messages. �Johnny, the Bible is true and is God�s Word to us...well except for all that stuff in Genesis.� Little Johnny learns one thing in school and another at church/home and as he grows he isn�t so sure of the Bible as a whole being true and worthy of following. Barna researchers have found that roughly 70% of kids walk away from the church or Christian teaching by the time they reach age 25. Years of indoctrination have taken its toll. Sadly today, many parents are conflicted and compromised in their thinking which only exacerbates the issue. Add in the number of churches and seminaries that are not teaching a literal Genesis account of Creation and we are seeing an entire culture turn its back on God�s ultimate story. It is far more complex that just creation vs. evolution, as we also see a tremendous rise in compromised thinking on other social issues like abortion, gay rights, globalism, big government socialism, etc� Fast forward another 50 years and imagine what our culture will be like as God is slowly sifted out of the mainstream of America.

Another important point that needs to be addressed is how these old age dates ever came into existence. The starting point is �old age� comes from a worldview that doesn�t have God as the Creator and does not agree with the Biblical record�it is impossible that man and animals were created just as they are (were), so there must be some other logical explanation. Enter evolutionary thought. Now the idea of evolution has been around for thousands of years as seen in various pagan people groups, but the modern thought of evolution had its downing with those who taught Darwin and then Darwin himself back in the 1800s. With his beloved book, this concept literally swept through the atheistic secular world culture, which by nature many �fact seeking� science minded individuals are drawn to because they cannot conceived of an Almighty God and have that kind of faith in something unseen. So if evolution is true, then what about all these fossil finds? Small simple fossils typically at lower levels in the geologic column and the higher you go up the more complex the fossils typically tend to be. The �ah ha!� moment for the evolutionist or Creation skeptic back then. So these historical scientists, outside of any scientific method remember, began putting evolutionary times to the fossils. Geologists began aging the sedimentary rock layers based on the fossils��������.does anyone else see the problem with this? Through manipulation of facts and faulty assumptions historical scientists borrowed techniques from real science to figure out ages. All the dating methods used (Carbon, Radiometric, etc�) are based on the known rate of decay today (accurate and measurable facts). To explain long ages these so-called scientists had to make some assumptions: assume that the rate of decay was constant through time and also assume the beginning amount of each measured element. Two major assumptions that are mere guesses because they are not observable, testable, measurable and repeatable. Common sense tells right here that anything produced based on these speculative assumptions are theories.

And theory was exactly what they were for a long time. But with most in the progressive-humanist movement, there was an agenda to this. Further the indoctrination through education beginning with the elite colleges and make its way toward main street USA elementary schools. Theory was simply changed to be called proven fact. Just look at the textbooks in schools. Without proof, ideas were transformed into proven facts by those in charge of academia and curriculum. �I mean come on people, it is so obvious God doesn�t really exist and He could not have created all of this, so we have to be right! So we are just going to PRONOUNCE our correctness and make the data available fit into our �science��ignoring all nonconformities or major questions or refuting evidence�we�ll research them in private but not talk about it in the mainstream because it will unravel our plans to finally take god out of the discussion of how we got here and our purpose on Earth�etc�� THAT IS THE MINDSET anyone with any ounce of intellectual integrity must admit has transpired. That is the Truth.

So long ages were assigned to fossils and rocks based on assumed facts and declared as proven and pushed forward as truth in the Progressive agenda machine. There are a growing number of trained and competent scientists who do not agree with the establishment. Some are Christians and some are not, but equally they are all disregarded as �hacks� by those in the historical sciences.

For any and all who profess to be Christian believes but who discount the Genesis record and put their trust in secular science as factual and proven�.to any non-believer who dos the same, I offer the following list of evidences that directly refute and/or questions the scientific community�s �proven facts�. The goal is for you to investigate these yourself, educate yourself, dwell on these things, and then armed with information make a decision. I�m not writing this to get into arguments and name calling�but to spark discussion that Glorifies my Lord and Savior. �He who has ears, let him hear.� I welcome all reasonable discussion.

Geology

1. Geologic Column. Remember that cool chart in school textbooks with all the layers named and assigned dates and sequences? All the fossil records starting here and ending there? All the thicknesses noted that were supposed to be fairly typical all over the earth (with understanding that some % of change was acceptable)? Guess what, it does not really exist in reality as described in the textbooks. That typical figure normally says there are ten layers superposed with a thickness of 100 miles up to 200 miles thick. In reality the % of area known to have all ten layers as suggested is 1% of the world. The thickest known column that has been studied is 16 miles thick. Local areas may or may not have all ten layers. This is point # 1 because it questions how things are taught in schools and why.
2. Lack of plant fossils in numerous sedimentary layers where abundant animal fossils are found: Where is the evidence of an ecosystem in these layers for the animal species found? These layers supposedly represent millions of years of slow sediment deposits, per the scientists. Examples: Morrison Formation in Montana and the Coconino sandstones in the Grand Canyon are almost devoid of plant life or evidence of ecosystems. Doesn�t the evidence show that a water catastrophe caused this rather than long ages of sediments, thus refuting the evolutionary claim?
3. Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon is a layer of bent sediment, supposedly representing millions of years because of their thickness, that shows no evidence of fracture or melting. Doesn�t this at least question the fact and potentially show that the layers were folded while they were pliable ( wet and soft), which is impossible for hardened rock to do after millions of years?
4. Polystrate tree trunk fossils in coal seams in many places across the globe and in the Yellowstone Fossilized Forests where vertical positioned trees are running through multiple feet and layers that supposedly represent millions of years to form over time. This is a practical impossibility; as the exposed tree would decay and rot, thus not leaving a fossil. Clear evidence of rapid burial, not millions of years?
5. CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) developed in a laboratory the ability to produce crude oil and natural gas from certain rocks under certain heat and pressures equal to the natural state of the earth in known oil deposits in 4 years. Not millions of years. If a lab can do it, then why not the earth in much less than millions of years?
6. Spirit Lake, Mount Saint Helens: After the eruption in 1980, this lake was filled with volcanic ash, mud, charred debris, root stumps and logs. Test in 1983 showed many of these tree stumps and logs were floating and resting vertically on the bottom and were being covered by sediment (polystrate). Coalification was already observed to be taking place in 1985, just 5 years after the eruption. Not millions of years as supposedly called for by �science�. How is this possible and the long ages argument be �fact�?
7. Coalification of tree bark and debris in sedimentary layers of volcanic ash deposits on the bottom and other sediments on the upper, (polystrate position) according to long age scientists as taking long ages to form, but these trees span these supposed long ages. Walloon Coal Measures in Australia; Boolaroo Sub-Group of the Newcastle Coal Measures, Australia; Mount Saint Helens, Yellowstone, and others. The tree debris and trunks show that some catastrophe occurred and rapidly buried them many in polystrate position in the coal seams and or the sedimentary layers. Is not this better explained with a global catastrophe of epic proportions and not millions/billions of years?
8. Australian Latrobe Valley Coal Measures, a huge coal basin. Under the brown coal seam is a layer of pure clay and the contact with the coal seam is like a knife edge...fine and without root penetration. There is no soil deposit under the coal. There are distinct ash layers in the seam, which would not be there if this was a swamp bog formation. Tons of broken trees in the seam, thick sorted pollen layers laid down by water, and on and on. This refutes the scientists� argument that this was just a slow formed swamp/peat bog coal seam. This is found in other coal basis as well globally. Is rapid formation and catastrophe clearly evident and this refutes the long ages as claimed?
9. The sheer existence of �fluidisation pipes� where molten material cut through bedded sedimentary layers until it reached a layer of water logged soft sediment, boiled it to fluid state which then cooled the lava flow and ran back down the pipe�showing a different setting that the layered stone. It was rapid formation, the implication when looking at the geological structures is that the process happened quickly during layering, thus refuting the long ages. Or not?
10. Ephemeral markings (rain drops, ripple marks, animal tracks) preserved on top of one sedimentary layer at boundary of the next layer. This shows that the upper layer was immediately laid down on top of the lower level. Even with the sand dune theories, isn�t this a plausible refute of the millions of years to lay down layers of sediment?
11. Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time (like 200 million years). Which also completely upsets the apple cart on fossil ages as now newer are below lower. Example: Redwall-Muav contact on the North Kaibab Trail at Grand Canyon and at Bass Canyon where 155 Million years is absent because of this term evolutionary geologists call an �unconformity�. These are well known areas, yet there is very little mention of this confounding issue in writings of geology. They ignore it and move on, even though it refutes many claims. Geologists insist there is a 155 million year time break between these two formations. Why? Because of the fossil record which have already been ASSIGNED an evolutionary age. The evolutionary establishment has it all figured out, but the evidence points otherwise. Evidence of rapid sedimentation of the rock layers, rapid erosion of the canyon itself, and missing chunks of time? The Grand Canyon is a wonderful evidence of another story opposite of long ages and millions of years? Cover up by long age theorists?
12. Green River Formation, Washington. Lake is said to be millions of years old based on thin sedimentary layers. However there are lots of fossilized catfish and shore birds in the lake bottom. Catfish had bones, skin and soft tissue in many cases; bird bones are notable hard to fossilize per scientists of all types. So very thin layers, the height of a fish or bird, would represent thousands of years of deposits�very thin layers remember. How would this be possible without decay or scavengers and predators eating the exposed carcasses? Doesn�t this question the long age date?
13. Lack of transitional fossils. There have never been any transitional fossils within the evolutionary system ever found. We see those photos in books from the ancient horse to modern horse, but we do not have a transitional form in the fossil record. Now sure there have been bones found that have been assigned, but isn�t that really just speculation? We have artists interpretations too. Evolutionists have even changed their theory with some saying low and slow gradual changes and others seeing the problem with this in the record are now saying that evolution is sudden and then hits equilibrium for a while and then has a sudden swing again. No facts, but that is their �proven� idea. No transition for mankind at all that has not been proven to be a hoax or really some ape creature. Doesn�t this make you question the �facts� at least a little?

Biology

14. The idea that from some primordial goo that a single cell magically appeared on its own and millions of years later here we are�.isn�t it just absurd?
15. Male and Female at the same time: For animals to evolve it would take a male and female independently being formed at the same time in the same place fully capable of reproduction at the very beginning for that to even be possible. Same with plats that take two or more plants to produce fruit or pollenate. Isn�t this simply outside of logic and points to a Creator God?
16. Complexity of Nature: The giraffe is specially equipped with valves in its neck so it can bend down to the ground and not create too high of a blood pressure. Without it, it would die. So how did that evolve in the first place? The human eye is so complex it has never been able to be recreated at present time�and if we believe that everything evolved, then the first ancient hominid humans millions of year ago would have what kind of eyesight necessary to survive? This list of complexities is endless. Doesn�t it raise questions of factualness of the evolution theory that BY DEFAULT INCLUDES MILLIONS OF YEARS AS A REQUIREMENT.
17. Mutations: We see many negative and harmful mutations in the natural world, but why are there so few �beneficial� mutations? Why aren�t they equal to some reasonable degree?
18. Gain of genetic information: There has never to date ever been found a gain in genetic information---only losses of information by way of mutation. Evolution takes us from simple to complex by definition thus requiring the gain of genetic information for the new form or new species to develop. The great evolutionary thinkers have never made such a discovery. Doesn�t this on face value refute evolution?
19. Geology is aged by the fossil record. The fossil record is created from biology. If the biology of evolution is not true then how can the ages of the geologic record be accurate�they are dependent on each other. Any problems seen with that?
20. Secular compromise for the Creationist who believes in long ages and/or evolution. Even with a creationist that believes God created all things long ages ago (various gap theories in Genesis ) or the Theistic evolutionist (God created and then let things evolve over long ages)�the above points rule that thinking as improbable or at least questionable doesn�t it? Isn�t more of an attempt to trust he Bible a little and trust man a little and combine the two to fit both worlds�secular humanism with its evolution and Christianity with the Bible?
21. Species. Species can only reproduce with their own kind. Human kind with human kind, Dog kind with dog kind, cat kind with cat kind, etc� Never has it been proven that one kind of species can reproduce with another species of a different kind. Speciation where some claim that a group of apes somehow had a genetic change of some sort and produced the common ancestor to humans through evolution is pure speculation and has never been observed in nature. Selection�absolutely, Variation�absolutely, Adaptation�absolutely, Microevolution (as in local changes in a population to adapt to variables)�absolutely. But nothing ever more than that has ever been recorded or observed in real science. Just a fact. Doesn�t this lead to questioning the idea that we evolved from some apelike common ancestor?
22. Australopithecine Sediba. Skinny, the Guvner, gave us the �skinny� on this find in South Africa. I�ve read over a dozen articles from both sides of the fence and there was zero consensus that is was a human ancestor or that it was even truly bi-pedal at all. Even evolutionists disagree about classification. But certain sides are pushing for that missing agreement�again trying to find a missing link at all costs. The find was very cool, but it isn�t proof of anything but old bones of some 1.3 meter tall ape-like, tree swinging creature that possibly walked around a little. All the talk about it being an ancestor comes from one root source: a world view that assumes humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Therefore any find that isn�t distinctively ape or distinctively human is looked at in that light. All that from partial bones. Now does that sound like true science? So why is it that what is taught today is that we DID descend from/evolve from ape-like human ancestors eons ago?

1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

23. These two laws of thermodynamics are thought to be the most basic fundamental laws in all of science, by the secular and the believer scientist. Both deal with Energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life. The 2nd Law describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves the transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear, but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. Stated in another way, everything deteriorates, breaks down, and becomes less ordered with time. This leads to some very interesting questions in both the physical world and the supernatural world. Recall that a Law does not change. If Energy is always conserved in #1, then how could the universe or Earth create itself? Decay or loss into chaos means that the universe cannot last forever. Secular science has no explanation for these natural laws�they transcend natural science. Doesn�t this point to a Creator? The 2nd law is that of loss or decay. We see inour natural world that materials, chemicals, �things� and life eventually wear out, break down, fall apart, crumble, weather, return to dust�the direction to away from order to disorder in every aspect of life. Period�fact of the 2nd Law. If that is the case, then how could life be evolutionary in nature? Naturalistic Evolution is from simple to complex with an alleged increase in information and order and development within the organism�so doesn�t this naturally stand in opposition to the 2nd Law and thus be untrue by default? If evolution is impossible under the 2nd Law, then the dates for evolutionary fossils are wrong which then means the dates for the geologic column are also wrong, wouldn�t it? The totalities of the questions raised by these two laws alone are staggering to me�.how about you? Enough to question so called �fact�? Info from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html


There are literally hundreds of other arguments and illustrations dealing with space, oceans, the sun, magnetic fields, development of language, people groups, migrations, etc� If we need to go there and discuss those, I�d be glad to do so.


Now I�m well aware that all of these points are refuted and called ridiculous by the old age crowd and evolution crowd. I would expect nothing different, because it means that their religion of evolution and old age might not be right. It is their religion because they believe in faith and base their world view on it. That is the foundation of their �house�. To me there exists a reasonable argument based on physical observations and scientific principles that there was a widespread catastrophe that was global in nature and was so violent with eruptions and upheavals and shifts that what is taken as fact for long ages is really questionable at least, if not completely refuted. Likewise with biology. Sometimes people believe so strongly in their worldview and assumptions that they fail to see the evidence and the implications of what they observe. The evidence seen in the geological column is what one would expect from a global water catastrophe as detailed in the Bible. The evidence seen in our natural world is what one would expect from a Creator and Designer, not random chance or some other distorted evolutionary view. If this is true, then it precludes the �fact� of millions/billions of years and thus precludes evolution.

If long ages and evolution can be so easily questioned, then why on God�s green earth is it taught as Fact and not theory?

God gave us His holy word for a reason�to read it, pray by it, find knowledge and understanding from it, trust it, develop Godly character, gain an insight into the very nature of God, find salvation through Jesus. If we profess to believe, then isn�t it a dangerous place to be when we compromise our worldview so that we let fallible man teach us how life began and when but trust the Bible in other areas? What if fallible mankind comes up with new theories that cast a shadow of doubt on Jesus, Heaven, or salvation that becomes �fact� in the secular world? Will we compromise there too?

So now we have a few issues to at least ponder on. Let the discussion begin, but please only get involved if you will actually discus with honest character and reasonableness. I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone or my reasoning...we are free to choose or ignore what we wish to believe on any given topic. I'm posing questions on the validity as fact of old age and evolution. I don't have all the answers myself.


Sources used for information in forming this story are too numerous to name, but items 1-23 can be found in research and works that include CARM, Creation Ministries Int'l magazine and website, Institue for Creation research, Science Magazine, Answers In Geneis, Writings of Henry Morris, John Morris, Andrew Snelling, info from rationalwiki.com, National Geographic, TalkOrigins archives, and various journals. All copy and paste items have been cited to my knowledge. If I missed something let me know.

And before anyone says I write too much, this article I wrote has another purpose than just Aldeer. It was good timing so I devoted several evenings to the project.

My first question would be. If we did indeed evolve from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys.

Evolutionists would say speciation..process where a group of apes separated and evolved into something else that ended up to be humans today...while the regular group of apes kept being apes.

There are many animals that defy that evolution is possible. You pointed out the giraffe. The "why" that a giraffe couldn't have evolved is very complex. The valves in the neck that keep the blood pressure from bursting the vessels in it's head when lowers it's head could not have been in place before it "evolved" a heart large enough to pump blood up to it's head when it's head is raised. The heart couldn't evolve larger without the valves, and the valves couldn't evolve without the heart. They would have to occur mutually from one generation to the next, or from one step to the other. The long neck that supposedly evolved in order for the giraffes to eat higher in the tree, couldn't evolve in the true sense of the word evolve. It would have to happen, with a larger heart and the specialized valves in it's neck from one generation to the next.

Darwin gathered developed his theory while in the Galapagos. He noticed that Finches on the island had a different look than the same Finches on the mainland. When a small breeding population of animals, birds, etc are isolated for generations what happens? They become INBRED and mutations occur. So we now have a theory of evolution that has become accepted as fact that was originally based on observations of inbred animals.

We are having the group, Answers in Genesis at our church in April. If anyone would like to hear more information regarding what straycat posted, let me know and I will get you the dates, times and directions to our church. It won't cost you anything but the time to come listen. There will be 2 or 3 morning sessions on a Sunday morning, then 2 sessions that night and 2 more sessions on Monday night.

I have asked this question for years

If we all came from the same slime and if evolution was true then why are there so many forms of life. Why did some become trees and plants? And which animals decided they would be eaten instead of eat other animals.

If the earth was created by a "big bang" in which it was a molten blob. Then why hasnt it cooled off in the core if its billions of years old. And if it was a molten blob then no life could have survived the intense heat. The earth would have been totally sterile.

That was a great read straycat. Thanks for taking the time to post it up.

That is enough to cause an evolutionist head to explode. Lots of great information, as usual. Thanks for taking the time to do this, straycat.

Can't get something from nothing. Takes alot more faith to believe evolution no doubt. Good read

AMEN!!!!

Well, that's all I needed to read.

Dang.

Where did he claim he it was his work?

not sure I understand exactly what Hawkins stood for

I watched a show about how Hawkins no longer believed in a prior theory he first championed and another scientist which argued against Hawkins in the early years now agreed with what Hawkins no longer believed.

how can carbon dating be absolute in millions and billions of years





http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mqr;c=mqr;c=mqrarchive;idno=act2080.0039.401;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mqrg

Thanks so much Straycat for taking the time to share this

X2

Ofwolfandman,

Welcome back from the shadows, glad you are here. Also thank you for taking the time to scour my post to find where I had messed up. Yes, I used a CARM article for a post. Surely no one here thinks that I hold such ability as to be able to interpret Greek. The article excerpt I posted I thought was pretty clear, but you are 100% correct, I should have sourced it.

Was that intellectually dishonest of me to not site the source? Well I guess it may have been in some eyes. I was trying to address the topic of baptism and salvation and how they were interconnected...trying to share information that may spark people to think about it. The CARM article was rich with insight and I used that to pass along to Aldeer. The substance was what ws important to me, not who wrote it. Never intended to be considered that I wrote that for my own glory. But in hindsight how could y'all know if I didn't source it? This is about God's Glory. I apologize to the Aldeer family for any misleading on my part in that Salvation/Religious question threads.

I read a lot of stuff and I often will copy/paste information on a thread. Often I will rewrite it in my own words. Sometimes I give a source, sometimes I combine insight I've gained from multiple sources and make my own original post. There are hundreds of threads on here over the 8 years I've been around this site where someone will copy a news article and post it without sourcing..but we all kind of figure out it was and Aldeer member just trying to pass along info. Honestly, that is all I was attempting to do. But I can see how some might take it the wrong way, so in the future I will be more careful to give proper recognition.

What is interesting though is that I can so clearly see your mind, which many of know is very sharp, get all happy because you had some ammunition on me that you could not wait to post. Now, you didn't see the need to refute the content of what I posted on the Salvation/Religious Question thread, just my lack of sourcing it. So it is not the message you have an issue with, just the messenger. That too is not surprising, as you and I have in reality very different belief systems. You might struggle arguing the content, but it is much easier to point out my faults.

My faults, they are so numerous I cannot list them all. I've never claimed to be above anyone, but I'm a wretch of epic status. I've stated over and over again on topics of faith, to not trust my word for it but to go to the Original Source, the Bible. I'll give my opinion and I'll show writing of learned men far greater than I for people to consider.

Now on to the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to in this current posting. Geology, biology, archeology, etc.. are real and true science and are needed in our world today. But when these scientific endeavors become uniformitarian in nature in dealing with the ancient past by means that do not model the scientific method yet still proclaim their ideas as proven fact and continue to disseminate them to the general public as such fact followed by subversion/ignoring physical evidence that questions there findings.......THAT IS THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY I WAS REFERRING TO CLEARLY.

And on Compromising: The Scriptures say one thing and secular science says another...so when professing believers decide to believe secular science over God's Word and try to make it all gel together nicely by coming up with theories of gaps in Genesis, various ideas on evolution and why an old earth fits within the Biblical time frame...well that is compromised thinking isn't it? Is it not compromising what God said with what secular science says. This has zero to do with my opinion on the matter. My Biblical stance is not compromised on the issue, but I'll be the first to admit that I sin and fall short often in other areas. My life and belief isn't compromised because of that, just my sin nature revealed. Christians will have differences of opinions on things, but the Word of God is unchanged and stands forever.

If my not sourcing an article equates to that, then what I did was unpardonable. The Aldeer family can decide that for themselves.

By not citing it properly that will be inferred. He was right, I should have given proper credit.

Thanks straycat! Great posts!!