If the universe is <10,000 old....

[Jig]

Then you are turning a blind eye to the evidence. There is no evidence that disconnects the maturity of a tree from its age. There is no evidence that disconnects the maturity of an eroded valley from its age. Maturity IS evidence of age and your belief that God created a "mature" universe that is not an "aged" one IS belief that God endowed creation with an illusion of maturity/age.

Allow me to clarify my meaning of evidence. I am using The Free Dictionary's definition in my post:

Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

Notice how evidence is merely something that is used to form conclusions. It is dependent on something other than itself to have meaning. It does not intrinsically hold meaning.

You have completely missed my point. Maturity is only evidence for age when interpreted under a philosophy that requires such a conclusion. Maturity and age are not necessarily synonymous. Maturity defines development. Age defines length of existence.

I will once again reiterate that my position does not sustain the idea that the universe's maturity is an illusion. If God truly supernaturally created a fully grown man and woman (such as described in Genesis), then their adult anatomy is not an illusion. It is absolutely real. Also, it is not a deception because God plainly told us that He did it this way.

Now I grant you can consider that a miracle, like the miracle of the wine at Cana. But you cannot say it is based on the evidence or an interpretation of the evidence. You have to say that the evidence belies the conclusion, but that's ok because it was a miracle. So the evidence is illusory.

This is not what I am saying. Evidence does not hold intrinsic meaning, remember? What I am saying is that we use our philosophical worldviews to interpret the evidence. All evidence must be interpreted.

Other evidence, however, is not so easily disposed of. A "mature" but not "aged" planet doesn't need a geological history, much less one filled with fossils of species no human has ever seen. So why does evidence of that history exist? "Mature" but not "aged" stars don't need a history of past supernovas. So why do these exist? Any evidence of pre-human history has no place in a "mature" but not "aged" universe--so you are committed to believing all such evidence is about an illusory history that never happened.

Your problem is clear. You are touting your interpretation of the evidence AS the evidence. They are not the same thing!

That includes amazing concordances of age measured independently by different methods. Take the Hawaiian islands as an example. They are volcanic islands so their age is easily measured radiometrically and has been. Each island's age is different with the oldest on the east and the youngest on the west.

Independent of each other? Not if they are interpreted using the same philosophical assumptions.

After all, by your belief, the islands were created as they are, not as a history of plate movement over a hot spot. You have to believe this evidence is an illusion.

You have to believe the massive evidence of ice ages which scoured the rock from the Canadian shield, gouged valleys through the Alps, deposited hundreds of square miles of moraines along the southern borders of glaciers, all that history was an illusion. It never happened.

This is not true. My assumptions include more than just a supernatural creation. They include catastrophe's such as the Fall and a worldwide Flood.

As to the fall, there is no scriptural evidence that it fundamentally changed the nature of creation. There is no suggestion, for example, that thorns and thistles were not part of the original creation. Only that they had not been growing where humans were plowing and planting and so making it difficult to get a good harvest.

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will make your pregnancy very painful..."

What is your verdict of this divinely increased pain? Did God fundamentally change Eve's biological reaction to child birth?

There is no evidence of a global flood in the first place, so to take that into account is itself turning a blind eye to the evidence there is, much of which is incompatible with a global flood, so again, you have to turn a blind eye to actual evidence and hold that it is illusory.

No evidence? Depends on your how you interpret the evidence.

 

[Jig]

Nothing I know about evolution tells me to reject these teachings. So I stand by my original statement.

"Nothing of importance theologically, or even as far as human history is concerned, is destroyed or dismissed using other hermeneutical views of scripture."

Theological truth: The consequence of sin is death.

Darwinism: Death came before sin.

That is a big contradiction.

 

[Keachian]

The only reason I believe a supernatural "creation" occurred less than 12,000 years old is because a historical-grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures plainly teaches such.

Lets stop here and think about what you're saying, what I think you are saying is that ancient Israelites believed the universe was physically created 6000 years ago, this whole idea hinges not on 'yom', but on 'bara' (H1254) I contend that bara talks more about giving function to something (something is not unlsee it has function) in fact outside of where it is translated create it is translated cut, separate, divide, etc. We see God doing this sort of separating of things for their purposes in Genesis 1.

 

[Keachian]

Theological truth: The consequence of sin is death.

Darwinism: Death came before sin.

That is a big contradiction.

But Adam and Eve weren't immortal, so the consequence of sin can't be actual physical death, but rather death in the idea that exclusion from God brings about this deadness of spirit, after all when you're in the presence of God, you don't really want to leave it, in fact the whole idea of time for me at least when I'm in God's presence just disappears.

 

[Jonathan95]

Dinosaurs walked with humans. There are footprints of dinosaurs with footprints of humans nearby.

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

Prove it to yourself. Give me a single shred of scientific evidence that truthfully and factually supports any miracle of God in the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Jase]

Dinosaurs walked with humans. There are footprints of dinosaurs with footprints of humans nearby.

All are proven frauds. Do you seriously believe this stuff?

 

[shernren]

This may be a unique position, but I would not offer scientific evidence to solve such a problem as that would entail circular reasoning. Science already has built in assumptions of an ongoing process. This is the essence of uniformitarianism. Processes remaining static to the point that you can predict the future and discern the past, by observing the present.

Is it possible for a scientific theory (or strictly, practitioners of a scientific theory) to by itself identify a point where the very theory itself cannot be applied?

 

[Jonathan95]

All are proven frauds. Do you seriously believe this stuff?

Yes.


Did you know that most of worldwide Christianity actually believes that the universe and our own earth is billions of years old....... Why would we believe these lies when the bible tells us just about the exact opposite. The bible tells us that all of creation is only 6000 years old. That would include the universe, the earth, the angels, the dinosaurs and mankind too! If satan can get us to doubt the bible, now we have a serious problem growing in our heart! As we doubt, there is also an evil spirit of doubt that might try to live with us. This is why we must stick to the bible, trusting the bible no matter what scientists say!

where did GOD say the creation is only 6000 years old in the bible? ANSWER: We can add up the time from Adam being created to the flood, then we can add up the amount of years from today 2012 going back to the flood. The flood adds up to have happened about 4600 years ago which science is also verifying. So all we have to do is add up the 4600 years from the flood to today, plus the time from Adam to the flood to find out how old the earth is. It comes out to be about 6000 years. So by adding up the generations in the bible, we can see that all of creation is about 6000 years old.

Did you know that the oldest tree known on earth is about 4600 years old? Did you know that scientists say that the Sahara Dessert is about 4600 years old and on and on and on! Why is this important? Because the bible states that the flood happened about 4600 years ago. It builds up our faith and trust in GOD and the bible.......


Mike Hoggard, Man Walked with Dinosaurs - YouTube
Mike Hoggard proves through Scripture, backed by REAL science, that man and dinosaurs lived on this earth at the same time -- period! Did dinosaurs really evolve 248 million years ago, as Evolutionists want us to believe, and did man evolve much later never having to live with the dinosaurs on Planet Earth?

NO! God really did create this world in six (6) literal 24-hour days.

Reference: Psalms 51

 

[philadiddle]

hi phil,

Prove it to yourself. Give me a single shred of scientific evidence that truthfully and factually supports any miracle of God in the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

If Jesus turned water into wine 2,000 years ago then I wouldn't expect there to be any kind of evidence that we could find today to show that it happened. What kind of evidence could you expect for something like that?

If all of the species were created at the same time 6,000 years ago when earth was made then what kind of evidence could we expect for that? Unlike other miracles of the bible, we could actually expect to find lots of evidence, like how fossils are distributed, like what results phylogenetic trees would give us, like how different dating techniques would/wouldn't verify each other independently.

You seem to be presenting the following argument:

1. Jesus turning water into wine is a miracle
2. There is no evidence of #1
3. God creating the earth is a miracle
4. Since there is no evidence of #1, then we shouldn't expect evidence for #3

The argument simply doesn't work because it's not the act of creation that we are trying to find evidence for, it is the history of the earth we are trying to find evidence for. Fossils, genetics, geology and more provide evidence for the history of the earth, and everything very clearly says it is much older than 6,000 year. It's not even that it was made with the appearance of age (like how Adam wasn't a baby in the creation story) it actually has a history of billions of years.

What do you think it means that there is no sign of a 6,000 year old earth in any of the fields of science?

 

[gluadys]

Theological truth: The consequence of sin is death.

Darwinism: Death came before sin.

That is a big contradiction.

Theological truth: The consequence of Christ's atonement is life.
Historical truth: Abraham lived before Christ died.

Conclusion: Abraham cannot be redeemed by Christ's atonement for sin.


If you disagree with that conclusion, you must agree that chronology has little bearing on theological truth. So why would it matter if death was in the world before humans sinned? It would still be the consequence of sin.



You might also consider why John refers to Christ as the Lamb slain "from the foundation of the world". If the redemption was in effect prior to sin, why not the consequence as well?

And, in fact, as Paul says, there is no sin without law, yet the law was given by Moses. Yet those from Adam to Moses still died though sin could not be reckoned to them.

If it is no contradiction for redemption from sin to exist before sin, and for death (the consequence of sin) to exist before law (the definer of sin), it hardly seems likely that death could not exist before sin a well.

And since, in every case where sin and death are connected, it is human sin and human death, it seems irrelevant to plant and animal death anyway. One need not surmise a single human death before the first human sin.

 

[TasManOfGod]

What do you think it means that there is no sign of a 6,000 year old earth in any of the fields of science?

What do you think it means that there are no scientists with good eyesight

 

[PROPHECYKID]

If Jesus turned water into wine 2,000 years ago then I wouldn't expect there to be any kind of evidence that we could find today to show that it happened. What kind of evidence could you expect for something like that?

If all of the species were created at the same time 6,000 years ago when earth was made then what kind of evidence could we expect for that? Unlike other miracles of the bible, we could actually expect to find lots of evidence, like how fossils are distributed, like what results phylogenetic trees would give us, like how different dating techniques would/wouldn't verify each other independently.

You seem to be presenting the following argument:

1. Jesus turning water into wine is a miracle
2. There is no evidence of #1
3. God creating the earth is a miracle
4. Since there is no evidence of #1, then we shouldn't expect evidence for #3

The argument simply doesn't work because it's not the act of creation that we are trying to find evidence for, it is the history of the earth we are trying to find evidence for. Fossils, genetics, geology and more provide evidence for the history of the earth, and everything very clearly says it is much older than 6,000 year. It's not even that it was made with the appearance of age (like how Adam wasn't a baby in the creation story) it actually has a history of billions of years.

What do you think it means that there is no sign of a 6,000 year old earth in any of the fields of science?

I can show you some videos that shows that the fossil record does prove that the earth is indeed young as opposed to old. This presenter looks at the scientific discoveries and not biblical and draws logical conclusions. He himself was a former evolutionist and taught different sciences at a university level. Would you like to see it?

 

[gluadys]

Allow me to clarify my meaning of evidence. I am using The Free Dictionary's definition in my post:

Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

Notice how evidence is merely something that is used to form conclusions. It is dependent on something other than itself to have meaning. It does not intrinsically hold meaning.

Evidence is something observed. Any observation is potentially evidence. But to become evidence, it does have to be related to an explanation resolving a question about something.

A book of matches is something observed and may or may not have meaning. It may acquire meaning if it is observed at the scene of a crime or found in the pocket of a suspect. In that case it is evidence. It helps to form a conclusion about the suspect's guilt or innocence.

Since we are speaking of an interpretation of scripture, that is the context in which observations are relevant. Do they lead to a conclusion that the historical-grammatical interpretation is sound or unsound? If observations in nature help us form a judgment of the validity of historical-grammatical interpretation, then they are evidence as you have defined it.

You have completely missed my point. Maturity is only evidence for age when interpreted under a philosophy that requires such a conclusion. Maturity and age are not necessarily synonymous. Maturity defines development. Age defines length of existence.

Maturity is evidence for age. The two are so strongly connected in observable experience that the first almost always implies the other. So much so, that one would need additional evidence to show that in special cases maturity is decoupled from age.

A miracle, of course, is a special case.

I will once again reiterate that my position does not sustain the idea that the universe's maturity is an illusion.

Of course not. However, it does require that the apparent age of the mature universe be an illusion. And it does require that the history embedded in the mature universe be an illusion.

The latter is a more serious problem than the first.

If God truly supernaturally created a fully grown man and woman (such as described in Genesis), then their adult anatomy is not an illusion. It is absolutely real. Also, it is not a deception because God plainly told us that He did it this way.

No, the historical-grammatical interpretation says God did it this way. Don't confuse a fallible human interpretation with the voice of God.

And, in any case, their apparent age is still an illusion.

This is not what I am saying. Evidence does not hold intrinsic meaning, remember? What I am saying is that we use our philosophical worldviews to interpret the evidence. All evidence must be interpreted.

It is not really philosophical worldviews that interpret evidence. It is the specific theory that gives meaning to the evidence. Philosophical views themselves may be tested and falsified by observation if the philosophy predicts observations that must occur. If the contrary occurs, it puts the philosophy on shaky ground.


It is the relation between the observation and the question being posed that makes the observation meaningful (i.e. evidence). In this case the question is about the validity of the historical-grammatical method of interpreting scripture.

Your proposition is that if the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is sound, then we must assume the universe was created in a mature state.

To me, it follows then, that the age of said universe must be illusory. A mature state implies development over time, but there was no preceding time. So the age of the new but mature universe is apparent only, not a real age.

Are you proposing that two human beings who did not exist five minutes ago are REALLY 25 years old even if they appear so?

Your problem is clear. You are touting your interpretation of the evidence AS the evidence. They are not the same thing!

Your comment would have more force if you indicated what your alternative interpretation of these observations are.

If you don't have an alternative interpretation, then, as I said at the outset, your view of how scripture ought to be interpreted requires you to turn a blind eye to evidence like this.

Independent of each other? Not if they are interpreted using the same philosophical assumptions.

Tectonic movement has no effect that we know of on radiometric dating and uses no method of measurement in common with radiometry. Likewise radiometry (which was in use well before the movement of tectonic plates were discovered) has no effect we know of on tectonic movement and uses no method of measurement in common with rates of motion in tectonic plates. There is nothing philosophical here unless one counts the axiom of Euclid's geometry. If A=B and B=C then A=C

And again, your objection has no force unless you can show how your different world-view handles these observations.

Or does your world-view based on historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture demand that you not notice these things?

This is not true. My assumptions include more than just a supernatural creation. They include catastrophe's such as the Fall and a worldwide Flood.
Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will make your pregnancy very painful..."

What is your verdict of this divinely increased pain? Did God fundamentally change Eve's biological reaction to child birth?

A penalty of increased pain implies that even in Eden childbearing was painful, but now it will be increased. How is that a fundamental change? It is just more of the same.

No evidence? Depends on your how you interpret the evidence.

So, show me how to interpret the observation that the forests which gave rise to coal and oil fields contained no flowering plants. In a typical marshland one tends to find water-loving plants such as mosses, some ferns, cattails, duckweed, sometimes water-lilies and arum together. This is also true of upper levels of the geological column, where remnants of all these sorts of plants are found together. But at deeper levels one finds only mosses and ferns. Why would this be? And at still deeper levels, no plants at all: only algae.

Give me an interpretation of this evidence based on your world-view and your theory of a global flood.

Or is this another observation you choose not to observe?

 

[TasManOfGod]

When God created man (Adam and Eve) was it inappropriate that they were created of mature age or may that be construed as being deception by God by building in them maturity when no maturing actually took place

 

[miamited]

hey phil,

There are more miracles in the Scriptures than two. Pick another one and find the evidence for it. You are on the right track when you conclude that if there is no evidence for #1 then there won't be any evidence for #2, but I think that you'll find that the truth is that it's a lot more overwhelming than just #1 and #2. What you'll finally wind up having to say is, "Well so there's not evidence for #1 and #3 and #4 and #6 and #7,#8,#9,#10, #11, etc. etc. there can't be any evidence for #2." When you reach that conclusion, then yes, I'll agree as it is exactly my point.

As I have said here, if you're finding it difficult to find scientific, provable evidence that Jesus turned water into wine, then pick another miracle. There are certainly plenty more to choose from. Get back to me when you've got one that you can prove with scientific evidence.

Then you wrote: The argument simply doesn't work because it's not the act of creation that we are trying to find evidence for, it is the history of the earth we are trying to find evidence for.

Right! And it's not finding the evidence of the creation of the specific wine that Jesus made. After all, anyone can show you and demonstrate how to make water into wine. You take some concentrated grape juice and mix it with three canfuls of water as though you were making regular grape juice from concentrate, but after that you add some additional sugar and yeast and you allow it to ferment for an extended period of time, oh, a month or so. So, it's not the creation of the wine that's the miracle so much as it's the time and starting ingredients that Jesus used. Anybody can make wine!

You see, friend, any one who has made wine; even scientists who can explain the fermentation process will tell you that it is impossible to take a jug of water and within a matter of moments have wine. Therefore, Jesus could not have done it that way. Simple, right? Hopefully you see the correlation, but the design and scope are much grander and powerful and majestic in the creation.

Light travels at x speed. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have made the creation as it says. Hmmmmmm. Why does this sound familiar? Anyway, pick another one and let me know when you find just one for which you have scientifically provable evidence for how it was done.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[philadiddle]

I can show you some videos that shows that the fossil record does prove that the earth is indeed young as opposed to old. This presenter looks at the scientific discoveries and not biblical and draws logical conclusions. He himself was a former evolutionist and taught different sciences at a university level. Would you like to see it?

Sure

 

[Jig]

Maturity is evidence for age. The two are so strongly connected in observable experience that the first almost always implies the other. So much so, that one would need additional evidence to show that in special cases maturity is decoupled from age.

No. Maturity is only evidence for age when interpreted as such. Adam's maturity was not due to age, it was due to supernatural creation.

A miracle, of course, is a special case.

Exactly! My position argues that God supernatural created the universe.

Of course not. However, it does require that the apparent age of the mature universe be an illusion. And it does require that the history embedded in the mature universe be an illusion.

If a supernatural creation occurred, then it is your position that is distorting reality. Billions of years were not observed (age). What we observe is the quality of conditions (maturity). Our philosophical assumptions dictate how we interpret that piece of evidence.

It is not really philosophical worldviews that interpret evidence. It is the specific theory that gives meaning to the evidence. Philosophical views themselves may be tested and falsified by observation if the philosophy predicts observations that must occur. If the contrary occurs, it puts the philosophy on shaky ground.

Wow! You are actually on the right track.

You just admitted that evidence needs to be interpreted. That is step one. Evidence has no voice on its own!

Second, you admitted that evidence finds its voice when specific theories are applied to it. This is what I have been saying this whole time! Theories are assumptions. Assumptions are based on philosophy.

In fact, "theory" is synonymous with "philosophy".

It is the relation between the observation and the question being posed that makes the observation meaningful (i.e. evidence). In this case the question is about the validity of the historical-grammatical method of interpreting scripture.

Your proposition is that if the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is sound, then we must assume the universe was created in a mature state.

To me, it follows then, that the age of said universe must be illusory. A mature state implies development over time, but there was no preceding time. So the age of the new but mature universe is apparent only, not a real age.

No, it does not imply that. An illusion is a distortion of reality. If God - in reality - did supernaturally create the world, then there is no illusion!

Are you proposing that two human beings who did not exist five minutes ago are REALLY 25 years old even if they appear so?

Not at all! Adam and Eve were 5 minutes OLD five minutes after they were created. Their age had nothing to do with their maturity.

Your comment would have more force if you indicated what your alternative interpretation of these observations are.

I was making a point that did not require an alternative interpretation be given. It is a fact that the same philosophical assumptions are being used on each one of these "independent" tests. This allows for non-independent conclusions.

A penalty of increased pain implies that even in Eden childbearing was painful, but now it will be increased. How is that a fundamental change? It is just more of the same.

How do you explain the serpents physical change?

Or is this another observation you choose not to observe?

I'll be more than happy to address these issues. How about opening up a new thread and discuss just that one concern.

 

[gluadys]

No. Maturity is only evidence for age when interpreted as such. Adam's maturity was not due to age, it was due to supernatural creation.


Exactly! My position argues that God supernatural created the universe.

If a supernatural creation occurred, then it is your position that is distorting reality. Billions of years were not observed (age). What we observe is the quality of conditions (maturity). Our philosophical assumptions dictate how we interpret that piece of evidence.

There is no reason a supernatural creation could not take place billions of years ago. The question is what does observation of creation tell us about its age. Not about whether observation tells us it was supernatural.

It is only your philosophic assumption that scripture must be interpreted in a historical-grammatical fashion that requires that the supernatural creation of the universe happen a mere 6,000 years ago. And it is only the assumption of that "real" age that demands decoupling age from maturity.

And the only reason you have to decouple age from maturity, is because normal observation of creation tells you it is mature and therefore old.

IOW, because you are committed to a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture, you need to invoke not only a supernatural creation, but one that occurred recently and makes young things appear to be older than they are.

So what is the reason for adhering to an interpretation that demands an apparent age different from actual age?

And that is without even getting into evidence of history,

Second, you admitted that evidence finds its voice when specific theories are applied to it. This is what I have been saying this whole time! Theories are assumptions. Assumptions are based on philosophy.

In fact, "theory" is synonymous with "philosophy".

No, theories are not philosophy, though of course there is interaction. But since evidence is always evidence for (or against) a theory, naturally they are connected. Evidence is not just an observation; it is an observation pertinent to the issue at hand that helps us come to a judgment about that issue.

What observations support a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture? i.e. what evidence does this interpretation demand as we study nature? And how does that compare with what we actually observe?

No, it does not imply that. An illusion is a distortion of reality. If God - in reality - did supernaturally create the world, then there is no illusion!

I disagree with that definition. An illusion is the appearance of something that is not actually there. A mirage in the desert is an illusion, but it is not a distortion of reality. The reason we see a mirage is well understood from the physics of reflected light.

If the world is supernaturally created in a mature state, that means it is endowed with an illusion of age that it does not really possess. But it is no distortion of its reality. In itself that would not be deceptive.

OTOH, if the world is created with an embedded history of events that never occurred, (and scripture certainly says nothing about that), then that is more than illusory--that is deceptive--for it suggests not only that the Creator wanted a mature universe ready for its human inhabitants to enjoy, but that he purposed to let them think the world is just as old as its mature state suggests.

Not at all! Adam and Eve were 5 minutes OLD five minutes after they were created. Their age had nothing to do with their maturity.

And that is precisely why their age is illusory. It does not correspond to their mature state.

I was making a point that did not require an alternative interpretation be given. It is a fact that the same philosophical assumptions are being used on each one of these "independent" tests. This allows for non-independent conclusions.

On the contrary, your point is precisely that the evidence can be explained differently, given different philosophical assumptions. So, it is certainly incumbent on you to show that such a different interpretation actually exists. The observation is that two different and uncoupled forms of measuring the age of the Hawaiian islands yield the same age. It is an age that is not consistent with the world being created a few thousand years ago. Given YOUR assumptions, how do you account for both the measured age and the fact that two different and uncoupled systems yield the same age?

How do you explain the serpents physical change?

A miracle, no doubt. But I also note that only one creature out of millions was so affected. Hardly what one would call a fundamental change in creation as a whole.

I'll be more than happy to address these issues. How about opening up a new thread and discuss just that one concern.

I think a short comment will suffice for now. I really want to keep to the main topic: namely why hold to a historical-grammatical view of scripture.

After all, it is the view that this is the appropriate way to interpret scripture that determines (though it needn't) for you that the flood was a recent and global event, and you claim this event has evidence,

Or that geological evidence can be interpreted in favour of this view of history based on a historical-grammatical interpretation of scripture. IOW it's the same issue as earlier. Your claim is that a different philosophy allows the evidence to be interpreted differently. So, in a nutshell, what is that different interpretation of this evidence in particular?

To refresh your memory: please explain the observation that the forests which gave rise to coal and oil fields contained no flowering plants. In a typical marshland one tends to find water-loving plants such as mosses, some ferns, cattails, duckweed, sometimes water-lilies and arum together. This is also true of upper levels of the geological column, where remnants of all these sorts of plants are found together. But at deeper levels one finds only mosses and ferns. Why would this be? And at still deeper levels, no plants at all: only algae.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Sure

103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV

This one explores the fossil record and looks at what the scientific evidences prove. If you go to the following page, you can see other videos dealing with the Big Bang theory, Noah's flood and science, etc.
Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV