Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
There has been suggestions that those who believe in creation (or declare belief in) have found it hard to publish even if their field is unlinked. If true this would give rise to a bias in numbers of scientist who believe (or declare belief) in creation as a science.
I do have issues with a young earth and a literal 6x24 hour creation. The Hebrew word in Genesis for day (yom) can mean an extended period but does normally mean 24 hours. It was Arch Bish Ussher who calculated creation at 4004BC but his methods were not accurate as it used genealogies to work backwards from know dates. But the wording in the genealogies, son of/father of, could be translated (and in some cases should be) descendant of/ancestor of.
There is also a distinction to be made between micro-evolution (traits in a species) that is proven and macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) which isn't.
|
Carbon Dating also presents a challenge .. the technique is generally accepted as reasonable accurate (in relative terms) and so when applied to prehistoric dating e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioc..._Fossil_Forest, it presents a problem in the Young Earth chronology