Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp

Again, just browse that site.

gospelmancan2 wrote:

I am very literal in my interpetation of the Bible and I have yet to find anything in it that contradicts anything I see in the natural world.

Do you believe the earth is around 6500 to 10,000 years old? According to scholars studying the Old Testament literally, the Old Testament dates the earth as being around 6500 years old, 10,000 years old at the oldest: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

So are you saying that science, which has determined the earth is at least millions and millions of years old is wrong?

I would say this is a very clear and direct conflict between something the Bible literally says and what science has concluded. Do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Yes or no?

It is gooblydegook because it argues that the earth is only 6000 years old because there was only 200 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 1.4 million years ago. Do you see the problem with the argument? I do.

Sorry I have been long time in answering. I have a problem where I have to take time out from posting because I have to work to support my time on the computer. (I'm sure I'm not the only one)
Anyway, I believe that the theory that the earth is millions of years old is incorrect. Conclusions that main stream teaching have used to back this up start with the premise that the earth must be millions of years old. This puts the cart before the horse or should I say the conclusions before the observations.
Take the grand canyon. Conventional wisdom would tell us that it was caused by erosion over millennia. I believe that run off from the flood mentioned in Genesis could have left this canyon. I do not disagree with the mechanism but with the time frame. Coal, we are taught, takes thousands of years to form. Coal has been made from wood in the laboratory in less than three weeks. In short, I believe that there is no evidence to prove the age of the earth as more than the Biblical limits of 4.000 to 10,000 years. Any so called evidence is only supposition and no amount of "accepted " teaching can change reality.

Quote, "Belief in the conclusions of the main stream theories of the age of the earth are faith based because no one who has written about these 4+ billion years was there." Jeeesh! You mean somebody must always be "there" as proof of something that happened before our lifetime? I guess we can throw out the bible too!

Ummmm, please show me where they said to ignore all other sciences....all they are saying is that all different types of sciences can yield different results and theories. Many can result in answers that support creation.

How do you know that the CO2 was at the level you claim? Where you there or is this just something you read somewhere and accepted because it backs up a bunch of other stuff you have read which backs up a bunch of other stuff you read and accepted?
Is there anyone out there that sees my point?

parados wrote:

It is gooblydegook because it argues that the earth is only 6000 years old because there was only 200 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 1.4 million years ago. Do you see the problem with the argument? I do.

How do you know that the CO2 was at the level you claim? Where you there or is this just something you read somewhere and accepted because it backs up a bunch of other stuff you have read which backs up a bunch of other stuff you read and accepted?
Is there anyone out there that sees my point?
Belief in the conclusions of the main stream theories of the age of the earth are faith based because no one who has written about these 4+ billion years was there.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "Belief in the conclusions of the main stream theories of the age of the earth are faith based because no one who has written about these 4+ billion years was there." Jeeesh! You mean somebody must always be "there" as proof of something that happened before our lifetime? I guess we can throw out the bible too!

I'm talking about before recorded history which funnily enough tends to run within the Biblical limits. Just because someone says a skull is millions of years old does not mean it is.

You are right. We don't accept it as being millions of years old just because someone says it is. We look at where the skull was found in the sedimentation layer. We look at any isotope dating that was done on the skull. We look at it compared to other items we have found and dated. We don't just accept it. We look at all the tests used to make that claim.

What tests do you use to date anything? Or do you just accept what you read?

You are right. We don't accept it as being millions of years old just because someone says it is. We look at where the skull was found in the sedimentation layer. We look at any isotope dating that was done on the skull. We look at it compared to other items we have found and dated. We don't just accept it. We look at all the tests used to make that claim.