Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?

Well, the candle parable is good, but there's another one that actually take into consideration one of the things that evolutionists use to date: the Grand Canyon.A class was taking a field trip through a small desert to learn about the Grand Canyon, a few miles away from the school. However, the bus broke down next to a smaller canyon, about fifty feet deep. Seeing this as an opportunity, the teacher stood up in front of the bus and said, "Class, do you see this canyon. How many years do you think it took that small stream to carve it out?"Nobody had a good answer, so he asked a passing man who happened to live nearby. "I'd say about three days," the man said."Three days," the teacher yelled. "That stream could only carve out that canyon in a minimum of two thousand years, at the rate it's going.""Well," said the man calmly, "three years ago a flash flood went through this area. That canyon was carved out by the runoff. I can tell you're smart, but there's one thing I have over you in this case. You weren't here when it happened."I think that the old age dates should be taught as an 'intelligent guess', not 'fact'. Nothing that happened before writings can be considered 'fact', and not even some writings. I think that kids should know that the best scientists could do is the 'couple million years' guess.

God made all things mature. Adam wasn't a baby. Maybe he made the earth mature, too!

But people walk around stating evolution as fact.

Yes, it may predict which is closer to which, but what about in-transition macro evolution? A horse has generally the same limb bones as a human, but they have hoofs. Where are the half-foot, half-hoofs now, if evolution existed/still exists? Where are the half-man, half-apes? How come we don't see things with three eyes (if eyes came from freckles). How come all things have eyes on their heads, when people get freckles on their arms. How come things don't have legs on their legs, when people get warts on their legs?

Yes, it is a widely accepted theory, but creationism is a widely accepted religion. Most, if not all, of the world's religions have creationism in it. Most, if not all, have a story of a world-wide flood. How is it that around the world, people get the same ideas when they had absolutely now way of communicating through the vast distances?I think that both evolution and creationism should be taught in school. Then, kids could choose which they wanted to believe. As for the evidence, it has the Bible (and any other ancient writings based on religion). Sure, it may be false, but people thought Homer's Iliad was false, until Troy was found.

Why do you suspect I'm not wanting answers? I'm open to opposition, but I will not deviate from my beliefs. Not to deviate, but I do want answers. Back to the topic...

I see what you mean. I guess I mis-interpreted the topic. Let me try again.No, the old age dating should not be taught in public schools AS A FACT. It should still be taught, but not as an undisputable fact. I think they should include the theory that maybe things haven't always been a constant. Over the possible billions of years, it is more likely that a total catastrophy happened than life popping up unexpectedly. Therefore, by the fact that too many variables exist, no, 'billion-year' teaching should not be taught as a fact, but as a possibility.

How about the meteors that wiped out lots of dinosaurs/prehumanic life? Those could change things. The ice age has the ability to alter the climate and to change how quickly C-14 leaves an organic form. Those two are accepted facts (I'm pretty sure) of evolutionists.

Yes, but in a sense, the isotope of carbon-14 is leaving. It is no longer there, changed into something else.The ice age could cause a sudden death in quite a bit of plants and animals, possibly making the intake of carbon-14 smaller. Therefore, fossils from that time era and after would have less carbon-14 to change. So, if we think that all objects have the same amount of carbon-14 when they die (ratio-wise), then we could be mistaken and poorly overjudge the age of ice-age and post ice-age material.In 1958 Hessel de Vries showed that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies with time and locality.Edited by Aquilegia753, : Recent research

Like I've said before, and I'll say it a thousand times, if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly.

Yes, I beilieve that if I came home and found my television gone, I would guess that somebody broke in. I would call the police, and they would do an investigation, and they probably would catch a criminal. However, you can hardly be 100% sure that the person is the one who stole your television. They have put innocent people in jail before. The justice system isn't perfect. And, possibly, neither is science.p.s. Please capitolize 'God' and I don't believe in the rapture.

Yes, I believe that we see evolution happening, micro evolution (the fact). Macro evolution, on which the theory of evolution is based on, isn't happening. We don't see any man-monkeys, or winged horses.

No. I'm saying that it could be that evidence is a lie. It might not. I believe that God did make the earth old, or that the earth was created with the universe (Gen. 1:1). But there is no distinction between 'God created the heavens and the earth' and 'the earth was formless and void...' (Gen. 1:2). Maybe in that time, the earth aged. Maybe, life was sprung up in the water, which died during creation week. I don't know. I wasn't there. I believe that when Jesus does come again, I'll know when I ask Him.

No, that would be considered lieing, and my God isn't a lier. He can make a young earth look old without lieing. These 'memories' you refer to were never created by God. I believe that the fossils, the records, everything, happened after creation.

Care to define evolution, microevolution and macroevolution so that we can see whether you really understand what these terms mean?Macro evolution-the physical change from one species to another (man to human). The distinctive visible 'evolution' with large effects. Webster's-major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxaMicro evolution-very small changes of plants and animals to adapt to new environments (ants are attacking a plant, so the plant grows special food for the ants, which in turn defend the plant against other predators. Soon, neither can live without the other. Plants developing pestacide on their leafs to ward off bugs, which develope and immunity to the pesticide. No species change at all). Webster's-Evolutionary change below the level of the species, resulting from relatively small genetic variations.(taken from Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com)Edited by Aquilegia753, : Lack of credit given.