Woah woah woah, aren't you contradicting yourself?
Yes, my whole point is that I'm contradicting myself. While I know that scripture is true and that therefore creation occured in six days, I also must to at least some degree take into account the observations mankind has made directly through our senses (which, after all, God has provided for us), and I find that the six-day account of creation is not scientifically credible.
This leaves me in a bit of a conundrum, which is why I reference Proverbs 3:5, Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33, and similar ideas which suggest that our own understanding, due to its limited nature, will sometimes be at odds with that of the Lord, who is able to understand things on a level beyond our ability to even contemplate.
That leaves two options.
One, the universe was created in the recent past, but God
created it in an
intermediate state. In other words, He created it exactly as it would have been if it had existed for billions of years, even though it hadn't. Since we know God is omnipotent, and we know that His ways are not our ways, there's no reason to suppose that this isn't entirely possible, although even under this scenario I suspect there may be difficulties in reconciliation with scripture, so I would not make this conclusion unless I found it to be consistent.
Or two, I admit what appears on the surface of things to be a contradiction, and simply accept that fact as a result of my own limited understanding in the face of God's vastly superior understanding. This is what I tend to go with. I don't see any reason why we humans think we need have to have an answer for everything, or know it all. Sometimes it's ok to admit, "I don't know."
Young Earth = Absurd, science conflicts with scripture, must accept science anyway.
Evidence says universe not created by God, science conflicts with scripture, must accept scripture.
I'm confused? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, but it seems like in one place you are refusing to accept scriptrue because of "science", but instead later choose to accept scripture despite "science". So are we picking and choosing now?
Ultimately, as stated in Proverbs 3:5, scripture supercedes science, since science is based on human perception, which is fallible. While I concede this, I don't concede the scientific credibility, on scientific grounds, of young-earth creationism. Which leads to what I've already discussed above.
Anyway, onto your most important statement.
lol
This goes through many of the scriptural claims old-earthers make.
Everything in the bible relies on Genesis being accurate.
As noted above, I affirm the accuracy of scripture, including Genesis.
The following is about radiometric dating.
Just some simple Young Earth evidences.
Evidence from Astronomy
I could put more, but as I was typing another challenge appeared elsewhere.
I didn't plan on getting too far into this. Hopefully I won't have to make too many posts, this stuff tends to attract unwanted attention.
The quotes didn't make it into the reply, so I'll try to address them in another post. As far as getting too far into it goes, you probably don't need to worry since my scientific position is based mainly on the fact that I believe I have good reason to accept the credibility of scientific experts, and that the young-earth creationist position has been scientifically refuted by professional scientists. Mainly this is because I am myself a student of science, just an initiaite at the moment as I am working on my bachelor's, so I have an idea of how science works and why it is credible, but I really haven't done much study of the specific issues which relate to this debate.
Of course I can predict your response to this, fallacy of argument from authority or something similar, but anyway I concede it and nonetheless believe the scientific method is fairly trustworthy, and so that's why I don't go with a young-earth position from a purely scientific perspective.
