Why Literal?

You're ranting now.You say you could go on for days about the evidence that contradicts evolution, but every snippet you have so far brought to the debate has been eviscerated.Studies of C14 dating and sea creatures have been done to demonstrate that C14 doesn't work with creatures that get their carbon directly or indirectly from sea water! This was what the studies were designed to demonstrate. It may surprise you to hear that scientists are very interested in the limitations of their methods.Your tone has really changed over the last few days. Methinks your back is against the wall and you know it.

I've found the snail study: Page not found | PhysicsAnd what do you know? Same reason it doesn't work for aquatic organisms - limestone.Can I point you to the salient sentence? [url]No webpage found at provided URL: This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified. This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified. []This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified. This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified.

You know, if St Paul had meant this to mean "Scripture is inerrant", wouldn't he have said so?He didn't.He asserts no more than that the Spirit of God works through Scripture and makes it, as he says, profitable ('useful' some translations say) for the purposes he lists.A far, far, cry from the inerrant dictation of God.

Erm....I think you're reading too much in.This psalm says that God's way is perfect. It's very specific - law, statutes, precepts, commands.All it is saying is that the commands for right living by God are perfect, right, sure etc.Why do you jump from this to "The Bible is.....". There is no support for your leap.