Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

[rangerrebew]

 Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation

Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4

http://www.icr.org/article/9937

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Oh please, tell me you don't believe in this young earth garbage?

[Smokin Joe]

Oh please, tell me you don't believe in this young earth garbage?

Radiocarbon (AKA Carbon 14) dating has its limits. There are Potassium Argon, and Uranium/Lead among other methods, all with a general age range in which they are most accurate.

Carbon 14 dating can't prove an 'old earth' under ideal circumstances, all assumptions of isotope ratios having been the same back when taken as a given. It is a limitation of the method. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

[Oceander]

Pathetic.

I am constantly amazed by the blasphemy of people whose tiny little imaginations cannot fathom that God did actually create the world in the wondrous ways we keep discovering.

It takes significantly longer than 50,000 years to form vast reserves of oil, to lay down hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock, to mineralize fossils, to ....

If you believe that God created the world in less than 50,000 years, then you are necessarily committed to the belief that God falsified all of these things to make them appear to be much older than they actually are, which means that you necessarily believe that God is a liar. 

So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.

Take your pick.

[bolobaby]

I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:

When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.

He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)

"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"

His answer? "Get out of my office."

Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.

Sigh.

[ABX]

Radiocarbon (AKA Carbon 14) dating has its limits. There are Potassium Argon, and Uranium/Lead among other methods, all with a general age range in which they are most accurate.

Carbon 14 dating can't prove an 'old earth' under ideal circumstances, all assumptions of isotope ratios having been the same back when taken as a given. It is a limitation of the method. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Thank you. You beat me to it. ICR has always played fast and loose with the truth to make its point. There are many forms of Radiometric Dating and in most cases, several are used in a test. Deceivers like ICR like to play on the public's lack of knowledge that there is just one 'carbon dating' because they hear that in movies and TV shows.

ICR claims to stand for 'Biblical Truth' but they seem almost to be purposefully deceiving a lot of people on both science and the Bible.  At least, I hope it isn't purposeful and just willful ignorance.

[roamer_1]

Pathetic.

I am constantly amazed by the blasphemy of people whose tiny little imaginations cannot fathom that God did actually create the world in the wondrous ways we keep discovering.

No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.

So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.

Take your pick.

You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.

The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.

[Cripplecreek]

Radiocarbondating.com where really senior people meet.

[mirraflake]

No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.

You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.

The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.

Carbon dating is justanother measurement. Sediment layers of soil just like tree rings tell us how old the Earth is and it aint young.

@roamer_1

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:

When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.

He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)

"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"

His answer? "Get out of my office."

Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.

Sigh.

That's a good point.
The truth is what it is no matter how much work we have to put into figuring it out. To a casual observer stuck in the great plains thousands of years ago the earth would appear to be flat without careful study to prove otherwise. There are plenty of counter intuitive things in this world.

I always figured God created old trees and animals, and it doesn't seem Adam was created as a baby. I guess it never really bothered me if God also made old rocks and stars. If He is God and can create everything He can create a trail of light photons emanating from the stars.

[Polly Ticks]

So, here's your choice: either the world really is remarkably old, notwithstanding your inability to imagine that, or else God is a liar who created a false world.

Take your pick.

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you.  I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.

YMMV

[roamer_1]

Carbon dating is justanother measurement. Sediment layers of soil just like tree rings tell us how old the Earth is and it aint young.

According to whom?

The problem with theories (and yours is a theory), is that no matter how elegant and self-evident it might seem, a single point of errata causes the whole of it to collapse.

Science, in it's hubris, ignores it's own errata.
I suggest you look there.

@mirraflake

[ABX]

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you.  I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.

YMMV

There is an old quote attributed often to C.S. Lewis.

The Bible teaches us why God created the universe.
Science shows us how.

[Oceander]

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you.  I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.

YMMV

Nope.  That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time.  If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do. 

There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Nope.  That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time.  If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do. 

There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.

How old was Adam when he was created. Was that also the work of a liar?

You can't hold God responsible for all the misconceptions about the nature of creation throughout history. At one time scientist thought the elements were earth water, air, and fire. Mankind still has much to learn.

[Polly Ticks]

Nope.  That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time.  If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do. 

There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.

You are in essence saying that God has to conform to your viewpoint or He is a liar.  I personally don't think it works that way. 


Edit to add:  Oops.  This was a discussion on the nature of radiocarbon dating, not the nature of God.  I apologize for side-tracking into a theology discussion, which I know the owner does not encourage.

[bolobaby]

How old was Adam when he was created. Was that also the work of a liar?

You can't hold God responsible for all the misconceptions about the nature of creation throughout history. At one time scientist thought the elements were earth water, air, and fire. Mankind still has much to learn.

@Idaho_Cowboy

Cowboy,

There is a world of difference between making a fully grown man and making a fully grown man complete with baby pictures from a childhood he never had.

When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Idaho_Cowboy

Cowboy,

There is a world of difference between making a fully grown man and making a fully grown man complete with baby pictures from a childhood he never had.

When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.

That's your interpretation. Could be right. All we really know is that there are a lot of light photons out there and last I checked the first thing God made was light. 

[roamer_1]

When we look at stars at a great distance, we are seeing the baby pictures of those stars. I'm pretty sure God isn't trying to trick me and that those stars really are millions of years old.

No, we think we are seeing....

[bolobaby]

No, we think we are seeing....

See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bolobaby, out.

[roamer_1]

See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bolobaby, out.

The evidence is not overwhelming... As I said before, quit looking at the theories, and look to the errata. That is what scientists are supposed to do - That has not been the case for decades.

[the_doc]

Good article.  (Ah, but it will be a lightning rod for TBR guys who are not well-informed about the topic.)

I knew Dr. Henry Morris personally.  He was a brilliant and scrupulously honest scientist, but he got trashed over and over and over by less objective scientists.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Good article.  (Ah, but it will be a lightning rod for TBR guys who are not well-informed about the topic.)

I knew Dr. Henry Morris personally.  He was a brilliant and scrupulously honest scientist, but he got trashed over and over and over by less objective scientists.

Dr. Morris has done a great job on the subject; I love his study Bible. Kent Hovind did excellent work on creationism as well before he got railroaded. If you haven't seen his tapes they are well worth the time.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.

You don't have to be an atheist to dispute the young earth stuff.

[driftdiver]

See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bolobaby, out.

@bolobaby @roamer_1
I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.

It takes significantly more belief inthe unprovable and unknown than it takes to believe in a creator.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@bolobaby @roamer_1
I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.

So all science is bad? Astrophysics should just quit?

[roamer_1]

So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.

Mortal men, inspired by the Spirit of the living God. Moses took dictation.

[driftdiver]

So all science is bad? Astrophysics should just quit?

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Boy that was a giant leap into the unknown there.

A true believer in science would have argued that the origins of the universe can be extrapolated through observations or something like that.    NOT jumped into emotional strawman.

[roamer_1]

I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.

It takes significantly more belief in the unprovable and unknown than it takes to believe in a creator.

That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.

[Polly Ticks]

So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.

You don't have to be an atheist to dispute the young earth stuff.

I think that God inspired the mortal men who put pen to paper, but I'm not sure I'm following you with respect to how that pertains to the current discussion.

In any case, I agree with you that you don't have to be an atheist to believe in a millennia-old earth.  I personally find more than one theory to be equally plausible and easy to reconcile with my faith in the Creator. 

[Polly Ticks]

That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.

There you go.  In the end, it's all theory -- not settled -- until or unless someone can reproduce the creation of the world. 

I'll wait here.

[driftdiver]

That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.

Hubbles Ultra Deep Field image is a great example.   They focused the Hubble on one tiny point for about 11 days.  A point that is equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. 

The resulting image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies.     To think that we can capture light from such a tiny infinitesimal sample of the sky and time and then conclude anything definitively is folly.   Can we make guess?  Yes   Is it really freekin interesting?   yes   Could any one of a quadrillion factors make any one of those guesses wrong?  yes

[roamer_1]

There you go.  In the end, it's all theory -- not settled -- until or unless someone can reproduce the creation of the world. 

I'll wait here.

 :thumbsup2:

[roamer_1]

Hubbles Ultra Deep Field image is a great example.   They focused the Hubble on one tiny point for about 11 days.  A point that is equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. 

The resulting image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies.     To think that we can capture light from such a tiny infinitesimal sample of the sky and time and then conclude anything definitively is folly.   Can we make guess?  Yes   Is it really freekin interesting?   yes   Could any one of a quadrillion factors make any one of those guesses wrong?  yes

Oh, but a feller don't even have to go that far. Just the idea that they can measure things right here is folly.
Declaring the oceans are rising by a quarter inch a year, or some such... There are literally a million factors involved, but they say it like it's gospel truth. We cannot accurately measure ocean volume, nor perfectly calculate how much sediment is getting washed down to make the bottom come up, nor even determine the resting level of the surface, not to mention land subsidence, and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The lion's share of it is mere conjecture.

[musiclady]

This isn't new information, is it? 

Radiocarbon dating has always been limited, and using it to prove the age of the earth a game that's played to fool the naïve.

Now I'm outta here before anyone calls me an idiot flat-earther, or something similar.....

[the_doc]

You are in essence saying that God has to conform to your viewpoint or He is a liar.  I personally don't think it works that way. 


Edit to add:  Oops.  This was a discussion on the nature of radiocarbon dating, not the nature of God.  I apologize for side-tracking into a theology discussion, which I know the owner does not encourage.

I do think it is appropriate to add that the inorganic radiometric dating methods are also scientifically dubious.  Furthermore, the starlight distances mean nothing in a relativistic universe if it was stretched out by a Creator.  If we get fooled by our smugness, it's not our Creator's fault.  (That's all I have to say in the theological side of things on this science thread.) 

[Sanguine]

I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:

When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.

He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)

"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"

His answer? "Get out of my office."

Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.

Sigh.

Good argument.

With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant."  Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.

[roamer_1]

Good argument.

With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant."  Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.

yeah... maybe not.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

[Sanguine]

yeah... maybe not.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?

[truth_seeker]

Oh, but a feller don't even have to go that far. Just the idea that they can measure things right here is folly.
Declaring the oceans are rising by a quarter inch a year, or some such... There are literally a million factors involved, but they say it like it's gospel truth. We cannot accurately measure ocean volume, nor perfectly calculate how much sediment is getting washed down to make the bottom come up, nor even determine the resting level of the surface, not to mention land subsidence, and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The lion's share of it is mere conjecture.

Yet we rely on measurement each and every day. We get into an automobile with an engine machined to carefully measured sizes, expecting it to run smoothly to our destination, and brakes measured to perform correctly.

We expect our drinking water and food to be free of contaminants, and it is tested with measurement equipment, and expert people.

We use observation, science, and various criteria to order our lives. We trust them. We sent people to the moon and back, based on science.

But are you saying when it comes to the curiosity about earth's origins and nature, forget about science?

If we are to some day witness a replacement for a human limb, I look to scientists, not Benny Hinn.

I don't say it that way to insult. But those rooms full of people to watch Benny Hinn, insult my intelligence.

[roamer_1]

Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?

It is not my claim that ANY science is settled.

[bolobaby]

Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?

@Sanguine

Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?

[driftdiver]

Good argument.

With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant."  Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.

@Sanguine
"To the best of our knowledge" meaning a sample size that is a million of a millionth that is being extrapolated out to the universe.

[roamer_1]

Yet we rely on measurement each and every day. We get into an automobile with an engine machined to carefully measured sizes, expecting it to run smoothly to our destination, and brakes measured to perform correctly.

There is no flight of fancy in machining.

We expect our drinking water and food to be free of contaminants, and it is tested with measurement equipment, and expert people.

I have no faith in city water whatsoever. Nor city food. In fact, I think it's killing a whole lot of folks and contributing to illness.

We use observation, science, and various criteria to order our lives. We trust them. We sent people to the moon and back, based on science.

No, YOU trust them. I do not. I think a good share of them are idiots.

But are you saying when it comes to the curiosity about earth's origins and nature, forget about science?

No, I am saying that science belongs in data and repeatable experimentation, not religion - Which it now, most certainly is.

If we are to some day witness a replacement for a human limb, I look to scientists, not Benny Hinn.
I don't say it that way to insult. But those rooms full of people to watch Benny Hinn, insult my intelligence.

Funny you should say that, because one of the true healings I have witnessed with my own two eyes was a short, withered limb grow and fill out... So much for Benny Hinn, eh?

[mirraflake]

Funny you should say that, because one of the true healings I have witnessed with my own two eyes was a short, withered limb grow and fill out... So much for Benny Hinn, eh?

I have never seen any amputated body part ever grow back but have seen or read about limb, face and even penis transplants performed by our wonderful medical staff and scientist.

You people who take the Bible literally how do you explain this?
You say  God designed us and is all knowing and perfect  yet there is aparantely flaws in his design.

Why do we have body parts that if removed do not affect our bodies function. i.e. tonsils, gall bladder, appendix, one kidney, hair removal, wisdom teeth, tail bone I am sure there is plenty more.

Why do men have nipples? if God knows us even before we are born if we are  a man or a woman why have nipples on men?

A person can believe in God yet also believe in old earth, evolution and other facts. As others have mentioned the Bible was translated numerous time sand written for a scientifically ignorant people of the time.



@roamer_1 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
"To the best of our knowledge" meaning a sample size that is a million of a millionth that is being extrapolated out to the universe.

Yes, and?  We can only do what we can do, and we are small, insignificant sparrows compared to our Maker and His Creation.

[Sanguine]

It is not my claim that ANY science is settled.

Exactly, but you were using that argument so it was a little confusing.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?

Science is used by us limited humans to measure and describe God's creation.  It's beautiful. 

[the_doc]

@Sanguine

Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?

I have been following the debate for 40 years, and it seems to me that old earth atheists and theistic evolutionists will discredit science when it doesn't support an old earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

(Even if I didn't care about the question  of Biblical authority, I think I would side with the young earth scientists.  Quite a few non-Christian scientists have switched from the evolutionary position to the young earth position after seriously examining the young earth evidence--which turns out to be a shockingly huge body of evidence that the mainstream scientists refuse to allow in their journals precisely because it doesn't fit their presuppositions.  [The whole mess reminds me of the way the C02 alarmists have tried to silence better scientists.])

[roamer_1]

I have never seen any amputated body part ever grow back but have seen or read about limb, face and even penis transplants performed by our wonderful medical staff and scientist.

False signs and wonders.

You people who take the Bible literally how do you explain this?
You say  God designed us and is all knowing and perfect  yet there is aparantely flaws in his design.

We are not seeing the original design.

Why do we have body parts that if removed do not affect our bodies function. i.e. tonsils, gall bladder, appendix, one kidney, hair removal, wisdom teeth, tail bone I am sure there is plenty more.

Actually, both tonsils and appendix now do have a purpose, according to your guys... So what else are they ignorant of that they will change their collective minds about in the future?

Why do men have nipples? if God knows us even before we are born if we are  a man or a woman why have nipples on men?

Injection mold points?  Beats me. Why is that a 'flaw'?

A person can believe in God yet also believe in old earth, evolution and other facts. As others have mentioned the Bible was translated numerous time sand written for a scientifically ignorant people of the time.

No, really, they can't. The thing in your way is the prophecy. To abuse the Bible in the sense that one would have to, destroys the very proofs he offers as to his existence and sovereignty.

@mirraflake