For those lurkers who are not bots, and perhaps members who do not know of him, Daniel Wonderly was a christian geologist whose book "Neglect of data" was written to set out many lines of evidence to show that the Earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old with no evidence of a Noachian Flood in that time period. It is an easily understood book and available free by googling it. He doesn't need RM dating to prove his case. It is something Faith should read. Unfortunately Faith, like ICR et al., says any evidence that contradicts the Bible is false.
Wouldn't it depend on what a Christian actually is? And if a Christian is a person who believes that the Bible was inspired by God Himself and is therefore all true, and therefore believes what the Bible shows about the age of the earth, and the Bible clearly indicates a young earth, wouldn't a Christian be required to believe that any evidence that "proves" the earth is ancient is false?
I do not mind if he was a true Christian, pretend Christian, or Calathumpian, he seems to have regarded himself as a Christian; the rest is between him and his God. Regardless of his beliefs, the evidence he puts forward stands on its own feet, and is very persuasive.
But you recommended him to me, but I believe God inspired the Bible and that God Himself shows us that His earth is young; therefore I'm not going to be persuaded by someone who says otherwise, whether he calls himself a Christian or not. Yet you think I should consider it? You even seemed to suggest that BECAUSE he calls himself a Christian I'm supposed to be interested. That makes no sense if you understand what I'm telling you here.
I do not mind whether you read him or not, though your apparent refusal to accept evidence from anyone whose views do not tally with yours speaks volumes. I posted his information so that those who were actually interested in facts could follow it up. If anyone is able to refute him, apart from saying "It isn't in the Bible", I and many others would be keen to see it.
Wouldn't it depend on what a Christian actually is?
Sure. And you are not one of them.
You say you worship your god but in actuality it is your bible that you worship. You worship the literal words on the page rather than the ideas that inspired them. Your trinity has become bible, verse and the holy scripture. Instead of a golden calf your idol is a gold-gilded book. You have replaced the cross with a book stand.
But I've read a ton of stuff from people who don't agree with me, you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. You were specifically recommending that book to me BECAUSE he calls himself a "Christian," and I explained why that is no recommendation from my point of view. Surely you ought to be able to acknowledge that much.
I wasn't going to answer your amazingly nasty post but I guess I will say a few words. I would ask you, as I just asked Pollux on the other thread, why the snarkiness? I gave a very straightforward polite description of my beliefs. I could probably also show you that "Bible believer" is the traditional term for a Christian down the centuries too. We are Bible BELIEVERS, AZ, not Bible worshipers and the name itself ought to convey that. Why this need to say nasty things in a nasty tone of voice?
I did not mean that you would not read him. It is apparent that you only ACCEPT evidence from those who already agree with your point of view. Wonderly is worth reading because of the content of his book. The fact that he regarded himself as a Christian may be of interest to some others reading this. If it cuts no ice with you that is all right by me.
I may read science books if they are really good so I can think about reading this one. Yes, of course because I am a Bible believer I'll be looking for alternative explanations for the Old Earth argument.
Why this need to say nasty things in a nasty tone of voice?
The tone was not nasty, my dearest, but real. You have shown your devotion to the book and your worship of the printed page in almost every post you have ever made on this forum. You are a Biblican.
A believer of the bible believes in the message of the bible not the literal words.
When your bible says:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Is this to be taken as literal? There was no language to be spoken, there was yet no time in which to speak, there were no syllables to be uttered. There was no one and nothing to hear.
The literalist, the Biblican, would say, "yes," because the words are there on the page. The believer would forgo the literal and understand the message; that the timeless incorporeal creator, by its will, what Augustine called the Divine Wisdom, brought light into existence, the literal speaking of such sounds being absurd and thus metaphor.
The believer would understand the message of the flud story. The anguish of the creation gone wicked. The vow to destroy all then to change that for the light of one righteous man. What is the deeper meaning there, Faith? You are so steeped in your worship of the words that the meaning here escapes you, doesn't it.
The symbolism of the ark and its cargo floating gently on the turbulent waters of the storm. And why the 40 days and 40 nights, Faith? That is a recurring theme in the bible. Why is that? The Biblican cannot see the meanings of these for want of the literalism.
And when the flud was done god made a covenant and made the sign of that covenant. Literally? Do you literally believe that the sign had never been seen before on this planet? Or was it, again, the divine wisdom adopting a natural occurrence as the symbol of a promise assuring all peacefully whenever again the rains came.
To the believer, Faith, the whole flud story is symbolism of man's descent into wickedness, the saving grace of righteousness and the promise of the covenant. You claim you are a christian, Faith. What purpose does the covenant serve? What did it foretell?
You so worship the literal story, looking to the strata for a basis of belief, that the symbolism, the real meaning, eludes you.
You idolize the very words. And as a supposed christian this is your greatest sin. De Genesi ad litteram, my lady.