response to comments

Addressing comments from previous post...


This link I believe shows that there is much we don't understand about the earth and the way it was thousands of years ago. Due to this the carbon dating could easily be skewed
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000308081611.htm

sorry my links got cut off...didn't realize that. whatever your analysis is there is entirely too much evidence supporting God's existence to say He isn't real.

Also, I think once you mentioned getting first hand accounts from people outside of Christianity proving things that happened then....do you want first hand accounts of people from the 1st century who were NOT converted? Is that part of the requirment? There are plenty of first hand accounts from people who were and subsequently converted. But I suppose if a person saw these things happen and reported them to the world yet did not convert, THEY would be more believable?

Also, what about first hand accounts from people alive today of things that have happened recently? Peoples first hand accounts of being raised from the dead, being healed. (of course since they don't want to get rich off of it it must not be true, since they refuse to be circus freaks on the media, or the media ignores their story) there are first hand accounts of people's food being multiplied, of God stopping and starting rain from prayer, I can go on and on...

i am no scientist...i know what I believe, and understand what I believe. i have to say I do not think you understand it at all, not trying to be mean, but if you read the Bible honestly trying to understand it and honestly trying to find out the truth, you would find it. from what I see that is not your intent.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ12.html#wp1619382

i am not sure the place I was intending to show here is the right link from the last comment.

Just because you have something in a scientific study that you desire to see correlation between does not make the science faulty. Are you saying that the evolution scientists must be more honest because they supposedly do not have any preconceived notions?! They don't have any moral basis for being honest so we could just as easily say they aren't honest. This is preposterous! They can and often do have just as many preconceived notions as anyone else! They use their personal disbelief as a starting point instead of their belief. Also, there are many scientists who have been converted based on the science they have studied alone.

Also, the link concerning Plimer addresses this topic of 4 legged animals that fly...under the topic on this page of "Biblical Blunders" the 4th blunder down...