For the last few years scientists and atheists have tried their best to explain away God from the equation of matter, most have been looking at evidence with a narrow vision in one way or another and it is with this narrow view of the evidence that they have drawn their conclusions. But what if they were to broaden their vision in order to reevaluate their conclusion?
Mankind suffers with a stumbling block and that stumbling block crosses nations and genders, it is a huge block that few are able to maneuver past correctly and that block is known as pride. Pride is ignorances best friend, marital partner, and pride will keep a man in ignorance far longer than unknowing does. When someone doesn’t know something they remain in ignorance only until they know, however pride will keep a person in ignorance far beyond knowing.
The oldest known tree is just over 5000 years old, human records do not exceed 6000 years and the only dating methods other than actual factual evidence is based on scientific theories that do not stand up to the tests of change. All dating methods we currently use to determine the date of matter are based on the theory using science as we know it today, but if the big bang and evolution was true then those theories would be obedient to other scientific laws that we could not determine 100% or even 50% which would lead us to assume that our assumed theories aren’t as reliable as we would like to believe.
If we have determined that carbon dating would rely on certain elements and rules to conclude a date then we would be naive to assume that over millions of years that those exact same chemical balance was constant but the theory of evolution itself determines that changes have been constant. In the theory that changes are constant we must then also assume that carbon dating can not be a reliable method to measure anything over and above a certain date, let us say for example 10,000 years as we could not assume that things have remained the same above those 10,000 years as we have not actual record supporting a date beyond 7,000 years, all else would be an assumption based on current evidence. If you took away even one element from the periodic table (not forgetting that elements have been discovered and added to it since its construction) then any dating method could also have changed if not all could have changed. Let us say for example that we grew a tree in a lab under conditions whereby we could slow down the usual annual tree growth just by taking away an element then the rings of the tree would not match the knowledge that a ring is created through its annual cycle as now the elements are different the ring is in place after a 3 year cycle. Now let us assume that either climate or elements have differed over 4 million years that would change the measurements of all dating methods yes even trees and in this case we would need to assume that because we are unaware of the true changes that occurred over 4 million years we could never ever guess correctly a dating method as reliable purely based on a modern scientific equation.
Another argument has been that the most reliable account of religious recording was the Bible based on scientific evidence that did not contradict its claims. The only real claim to disprove the Bible’s claims of a God was the dating methods used to determine that the earth could not possibly be only 7,000 years old because the dating method far surpassed that theory by billions of years. Firstly if the dating methods could be considered unreliable we would need to take such claims with a pinch of salt but let us say that there is a tree that is 10,000 years old even based on an annual cycle where rings are created by modern matter and elements that would still mean that we had 3,000 years of un-accountable history proving the Bible as untrustworthy but there would need to be an explanation for this that would not appear in the Bible but even in this situation there is no such issue. If you read the first book in the Bible it speaks of creation by a God and mentions that the God made trees and plants in their ready-made state if you will, not from seed which would mean that a theory that required answers for 3,000 missing years would be irrelevant as they came in a 3,000 year old state. But how could God go against science and make something that has a life cycle in the middle of that cycle? Well if the record of man (Adam) being constructed out of earth (modern science now discovered that man shares much of his genetics with earth) God did not make a baby He made a full-grown ready to go man.
This might sound absurd to modern science or even us modern thinking men but we must look at this logically, one we must assume that based on evolutions theory they accept that mater and the elements have changed because of the laws of evolution however we have no idea exactly how they might have changed and this leaves even scientific room for the story of Adam as 7,000+ years ago the environment might have been just right to do such a thing but also we must look at modern science and mankind itself today. We currently have an army of scientists all over the world making discoveries and making things in tubes and dishes that have never existed before ie Nanotechnology. They are mixing and taking matter and elements from all four corners of the globe and putting them together in different measures and mixtures to create new things out of many things that they discover when added together in the right amounts and conditions will actual produce something out of nothing if you like.
So we can see even in modern science that with the right knowledge and the right mixtures we can create something from nothing (tangible) which proves that the Bible would actually hold a valid and not crazy incorrect account of “The Beginning”.
What am I getting at? I am not some crazed Bible bashing nut or anti science, I am merely an open-minded person that does not accept something as fact just because others do. I am open-minded enough to ask questions that others might not and count nothing out until a factual argument can be amassed rather than a theoretical argument.
I’m sure that there might be some counter arguments to my ramblings which in turn would provoke further questions from myself given the chance to dialogue with those that have already predetermined truth where truth can not possibly be 100% determined.