So far, your arguments seem to revolve around man's imperfect knowledge, and how science can not "prove" everything. For instance, earlier in the thread you said:
which is why you are not supposed to follow science, it cannot give the truth when you need it. it also isn't fair or just. you see that is what mkaes God and the ible so much better
But isn't this a false dichotomy? Can one not study science and follow God as well? You yourself claim to have scientific degrees, so I assume you agree with me. Certainly, if one believes that God authored the universe one would expect the empirical evidence not to be misleading, but to reveal exactly how God went about creation. If the evidence strongly suggests that the Earth is old, and the Bible appears to contradict it, isn't a true Christian going to trust the evidence that God put in the ground to not be misleading? Is it not far more likely that the relevant texts of the Bible have been misinterpreted, than that creation has been engineered to appear as it is not?
Could not a God-fearing scientist find truth through empirical study?
Now, back on topic:
being independent does not guarantee correctness nor support for other dating systems for each have their own vulnerabilities which come into play often
But the individual short-comings of different dating methods are not the point! The point is that they all agree, despite the different approaches the methods take. Carbon-dating agrees with dendrochronology for instance, yet the two methods of dating have nothing in common!
Let's try a different analogy: Say you're a detective attempting to solve a murder mystery. You have 10 independent witnesses claiming they saw the Butler did it. You find fingerprints on the crime scene implicating the Butler. You find DNA evidence implicating the Butler. You find a note implicating the Butler. Bloodstains on the Butler's fingers even turn out to be from the victim.
So obviously, beyond reasonable doubt, the Butler did it.
Now each of these pieces of evidence, by itself, may have short-comings. For example, the witnesses may have been threatened by the real killer, or they could all somehow be mistaken. The fingerprints may have been left on the crime scene at some other time. The DNA may have been contaminated somehow. Perhaps the note was forged.
But the agreement between all the entirely separate lines of evidence point toward the Butler, giving us near certainty of the killer's identity. It is the same thing with dating methods. Although different dating methods may have different levels of uncertainty, one would not expect all of them to point toward a specific age if they were all wrong.
I'll try to add more to this discussion later, but I'm out of time now. But before I go I'll just add that I too am a Christian. I too seek the truth about God and our origins, and I'd be happy to accept a recent creation if only the physical evidence supported it. Unfortunately, despite having read a lot of creationist literature, I have yet to find that evidence. I do not accept the scientific account of Earth's origins out of a desire to downplay the Bible, but because that's what I think the study of God's creation indicates.
but it depends. if one does science the secular way then they are not following God but the secular way which means omitting the supernatural and looking for natural answers. one cannot say they believe and follow God if they are following something not of Him.
So what's the difference between secular and godly science? Secular science omits God, while godly science includes him? So with meteorology then, should scientists insert God in the clouds to explain thunder? I realize that's a silly example, but I really don't see how just about any branch of science would benefit from including God in the equation. We don't use God to explain electricity, or nuclear power, or disease... Why change a winning formula just because we're dealing with the past?
but if the researcher attributes the empirical evidence to the wron g source then you have the problem faced today. it isn't a matter of what the empirical evidence says but how the researcher applies or interprets or attributes it.
"The source of nuclear power is the breaking up of atomic nuclei being barraged by neutrons". I just gave a natural explanation for the source of a natural phenomenon. Am I wrong because I did not include God in the picture?
now if you take a hard look at the big bang it resembles God's creative power thus the empirical evidence is pointing to God but since people do not want to believe or prove the the Bible correct, they attribute that evidence to some other source.
Agreed. The Big Bang was a pretty instantaneous event that appears to have brought our universe, as we know it, into existence. Maybe that is when God spoke the universe into existence. If we attribute the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, to God, are we then doing good science?
but we already know how God did it--hebrews 11-- God spoke and it was
But "the universe was formed at God's command" is not a detailed account of how it happened. I want to know how the universe works, and that means I also have to know what it's been doing up until now.
no. a true christian follows and trusts God first, because as i have shown how one reads the evidence determines the direction it is pointing and it takes people willing to be honest to read it right
When I read the evidence, I do my best to remain objective and honest, which is why I spend time going over creationist interpretations as well. I trust God not to have been trying to fool me when he left that evidence. After all, the physical world is God's first word and revelation for us.
age is meaningless here but evolutionists make it a vital aspect of their theory but as i have shown in my table example, age doesn't mean soemthing is not new. God put things into place and primed it to be ready for when allof creation was made.
The only reason he'd make tree rings for the past 50,000 years, is if he wanted to fool us. He didn't have to make a bunch of extra tree rings in order to "prime" the world.
i remember sitting through one evolutionist lecture, it has been years and he goes (describing the experiment and th eprediction) if evolution is true then such and such will happen. the weakness of that predicitonis evolution may not have been responsible for the result but gets attributed it because of the way the prediction is worded.
What was the specific prediction? Your anecdote isn't worth much unless you can provide the details. The ToE predicted feathered Dinos, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and much more of the fossil record. It also predicted genetic relationships between species, genuses (geni?), families, etc. The theory of evolution could easily be shown wrong if, for instance, a population of rabbits was found to have lived during the cambrian. Or if a mammal with cell walls were ever found.
Neitzske claimed God was dead and many independent people jumped on and agreed with him. does that mean God was dead--no. it just means that many people agreed on the statement because they wanted God to be dead and they wanted to be free from His morality.
But people are not objective! I don't base my beliefs based on popularity. I don't go about simply asking scientists "what do you believe?". I study the material. The objective facts. Dating methods don't bow to peer pressure. Dead trees don't care if their tree rings match the age given by C14 dating. How do you explain it if they do? How do you explain it if they always do, consistently?
when you look at things closely you see they are not as open and shut as you think.
You're right. The case is never closed. But the butler would still be my main suspect in the analogy I gave you. I would, for instance, not go assuming the Colonel did it when all the evidence points to the Butler, unless new evidence, implicating the Colonel and absolving the Butler could be found.
I don't mind that creationist groups like AiG or the Discovery Institute exist, so long as they're actually doing research. Because, who knows? They might actually discover something. Their track record isn't very good, but maybe. But I won't believe something merely because it "could be true". I want evidence that the Colonel did it before I charge him!
I would love to throw in a lot of Bible verse about deceivement but unless you accept the existence of the devil you will not accept those verses.
You don't need to bother with the Bible verses. I've read the Bible cover to cover probably more times than you have. The thing is, if the Devil is deceiving anybody I suspect it must be your side. How else could a handful of intelligent but dishonest people lead such a successful campaign against science?
But merely quoting the Bible and telling each-other that what we believe is deception is not going to get us anywhere in a scientific debate. I want to see some evidence. Where's your evidence that all dating methods are universally flawed? Where's your evidence for a young earth? Where's your evidence that the ToE is founded upon personal bias and deception?