You still haven't explained how carbon dating, evolution and all the other things proving the bible wrong, are themselves wrong.
Please do so some time.
<hr></blockquote> I'll give you your evolution explanation. How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The ONLY explanation you will find in PUBLIC school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859. If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? I can only think of two reasons:
1) The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable.”
2) The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts (Coincidentially similar to androza's case).
I can not help the first condition. This part does contain the majority of necessary information needed for everyone
~THE CREATION ACCOUNT~
In The Beginning: The Bible is not a science book. But it IS scientifically accurate. There has never been any scientific evidence that contradicts this. Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bible’s account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone.
SPECIAL NOTE: GENESIS 1 and 2: The Bible often restates important points. As an example, the first four books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biographies of Jesus. Scholars have learned over time that these four “views” of Jesus give us a better understanding of Him than we would have had if only one account had been recorded. The same is true of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 describes all the physical events of creation. Genesis 2 looks back at the creation of humans more closely. Genesis 2 may appear to be a little different from Genesis 1, leading some people to believe there is a mistake in there somewhere. This is a problem caused by translation from the original Hebrew into English. Careful attention to the verb tenses in Hebrew and to the purpose of each chapter removes any apparent contradictions between the two. For example, Genesis chapter 2, verse 19 (Gen 2:19) uses the perfect tense, indicating finished actions regarding the creation of the animals. That is, the animals brought to Adam were created earlier, not created in Adam’s presence. Chapter 2 is a “look back” at the last half of chapter 1. It is interesting that the formation of the earth proposed by noted astronomer (astrophysicist) Hugh Ross has the exact same order as the creation account given in Genesis chapter 1. 1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind.
Note: The preceding list assumes that the universe was the result of a “big bang” type event (an evolutionary cause). This is not in agreement with the Bible. For example, this list proposes that the appearance of light (item 2) and the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars (item 6) are results of the Earth’s atmospheric changes—not a result of the literal creation of the sun, moon, stars, or light. So, be aware that lists like the one above do not agree with the Bible’s stated cause for these events. Ionly include this list to illustrate that science agrees with the Bible’s order of creation events, OK? Good. Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the Bible because we can find some scientific proposals that agree with it. It means that science continues to uphold knowledge recorded in the Bible over three thousand years ago. Another significant event occurs in Genesis chapters 6 through 8—what can be referred to as “The Flood”. To save themselves, Noah and his family built a covered boat called an “ark.” It was a large, boxy craft that resembled a covered barge. Notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered large underwater springs [2], so it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. It has also been proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very temperate. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time—indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.
Although “off the subject,” this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas—some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.
Note: Genesis chapter 1, verse 7 states, “Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” Since the word firmament means an “expanse,” some people proposed that the firmament corresponds to Earth’s atmosphere, and use the verse to “prove” that a canopy of water existed above our atmosphere. However, we learn in Genesis chapter 1 verses 14-19 that the Sun and Moon are in the firmament. Therefore, the firmament corresponds to the Earth’s atmosphere and the heavens beyond. This does not mean the “canopy theory” is wrong, but that well-meaning people must not use the Bible to “prove” that it is true.
QUESTIONS SOMEONE ALWAYS ASKS ABOUT BIBLE'S CREATION ACCOUNT: Before we go on, Iwould like to answer some questions that always seem to come up. One involves how pairs of all the animals could have been collected by one family. Remember, if God is really God, he could have caused the flood, a supernatural event, to occur. Does it not also make sense that God could cause pairs of animals to migrate to the location of the ark? Notice the phrase in Genesis chapter 6, verse 20: "two of every kind will come to you." Also, Genesis chapter 7, verse 9 states the animals "went into the ark to Noah." The answer is simple, Noah did not go and get the animals, God did.
The next question is, how did all those animals fit on the ark? First, you should notice that different “kinds” of animals were brought onto the ark (Gen 6:20). Unlike the more recently introduced terms “genus,” “species,” and so forth [4], the Bible’s “kinds” can be thought of as what the “average person” would call an animal. For example, there may be many species of doves, but they are all still doves. Therefore, doves would be a “kind” of animal (bird, actually). Scientists have calculated the average size of the different kinds of animals (except for dinosaurs). It comes out to be about the size of a sheep. Based on this, we believe that all the “kinds” of animals would have taken up about one-third (1/3) of the room on the ark. That would leave plenty of room for Noah’s family and a year’s supply of food.
Now, what about dinosaurs, were they on the ark and could they fit? I believe dinosaurs were on the ark. The solution to getting the large ones on the ark is in using young dinosaurs. They take up less room, they eat less, and they have more of their reproductive life left for restarting the population.
What makes the flood important to our topic is all the evidence it left around. For one thing, pretty much everything that did not live in water would have been killed in a yearlong flood. This would have left an enormous layer of dead things that would later become coal and oil . . . and leave fossils. It is evident to everyone, as we view our dwindling energy resources, that a lot of material was left in the ground at one time. As this page develops, we will discuss why we believe these resources were left as the aftermath of a flood, rather than the result of accumulation of normal dying animals and plants over millions of years.
If you have flown on a plane, you probably noticed how different mountains look from the air than they do from the ground. They look more “wrinkled” than you would expect, and almost “artificial” in appearance. The canyons and rivers that flow out of them look different also—sort of like the seashore after the tide runs out and you see little “grooves” in the sand. This is especially noticeable if you are flying over a part of the world that does not have much vegetation to hide the shape of the land like Arizona, Nevada, and Utah in the United States. The next time you are in a plane and over such an area, look down and see if it makes sense that this appearance could have been caused about 4,000 years ago if everything had been covered with water for a year and then drained off in a short time. I do not claim this as proof, by the way—but this is one of many such observations that make one wonder.
THE EVIDENCE: As “evidence” to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. We spent a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a “circle of information,” with each document pointing to the next source as their “proof.” In college, we cynically called this procedure the “tower of babble.” (Yes, “babble” is the right word—this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends!
The following is a shock: Unfortunately it was found that the writings on evolution are the same. Nobody could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwin’s theoretical writings. If you think we are exaggerating, examine the documentation yourself. By the way, the web contains many online versions of Darwin’s book. Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution?
*GASP*...post again later...
But I am trying to learn some more about it.
You've just read it and said it's stupid. Just like everything else I've posted, nobody has produced quality evidence that another form of creation exists, just dissing divine Creation and making up stuff.