Yes I will be discussing the "problems" with uniformitarianism, or at least with the simplified version that is taught in science classes today.
Oh dear. You're doing a disservice to Christianity.
I wasn't there when the earth and sun were made, so I can't say for sure that the sun was here before the earth. If the earth existed before the sun, it was miraculous.
Why would all of God's creation be revealing to us the impossibility of the Earth being created before Sun if that isn't the way it happened?
Science doesn't speak on the existence of God because it intends to explain nature without God. It's the same thing, for all practical purposes.
It intends to explain nature, period. It has nothing to say about a god that is outside of nature, its not "without God", there's no qualifier like that there.
The 'rules' end up with us being able to not have to include god, but it has no intention of excluding god. So it’s not the same. (albeit it being a minor, but very important difference)
God created nature, therefore God is supernatural. He has the ability to affect natural processes and has on many occasions. Those are "miracles."
Okay. And?
I don't doubt that man went to the moon,
Where you there?
but did man evolve from nothing?
Of course not. And there's never has been "nothing".
Evolution only explains the facts better than any other non-biblical theory.
So why aren't the scientist jumping on board?
Biblical apologetics does not yield "theories". It makes deductions from false premises that the Bible cannot be wrong.
Where was the false dating results of those rocks refuted? I'm pretty new to this subject and I'm not a science expert, so I don't know. Could you give me a link or a source?
I could probably spend a lot of my time explaining it in great detail to you. And all you'd have to do is fall back on to "I wasn't there", "It must have been a miracle", "I still assume the Bible can't be wrong"...
{If you build your faith upon such a weak foundation as the Biblical inerrancy, (please don't tell me you're one of the nutjobs who say they would denounce Jesus if even one error is pointed out in the Bible), then you're destined for either a catastrophic collapse, or misperceived (unless falsely assumed) support.}
... so I'm not gonna put a lot of effort into it.
Basically, they used a dating technique with a minimum detection that was greater than the age of the sample. Like measuring the width of a hair with a yardstick...
quote:
ZOMG! It measured to 0.01 yards! That's over 9 millimeters! What a bogus technique! This thing couldn't measure anything...
I spent all of a few minutes googling and found the AIG and ICR articles (lies) on the subject. I did find this one from the "other side":
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to
Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals
I haven't looked through it so I don't know how good it is. It certainly looks more thorough than my explanation, if you care to really see both sides of this issue. Perhaps others here would care more enough to give you something better.
Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"