the earth

[Arkanjel]

Sources?

What markers are you referring to?

I bet you thought I forgot, or didnt wanna answer!

Anyways here area a couple sources for your perusal. The first one regarding the number of Israelites in the Exodus.

(Num. 1:46) 603,550 This was just the males who were 20 years and older. The Levite males one month and older, who were counted separately, totaled 22,300, if the separate figures in Numbers 3:22,28,34 are added, but 22,000 according to Numbers 3:39. Of course, women and children probably tripled or even quadrupled these figures.

Having done a few quick calculations I come up with:
625,850 men above the age of 20
That alone is a huge number, but then you add in all the women and children and: 1,877,550 for 3x the amount of men; 2,503,400 for 4x the amount of men. So yeah I was shy 3million by about 500k, but hey whats a few hundred thousand?

As far as markers left in the desert go:
Exodus 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Obviously this was a LONG time ago and its not all still standing today, but there is a few things that are left behind. Check out Ron Wyatt's website. Regardless of what you think of Mr. Wyatt, he does have some compelling discoveries that are worth looking at.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I'll have to agree with DV even after half a year of my absence from this forum

Welcome back BTW.

Besides, the sun (not light, but the sun) was not created until the fourth "day", which could mean anything from 24 hours to two galactic cycles to two universal revolutions. Genesis 1:16 "God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."

When God said "let there be light", it doesn't necessarily mean the sun was created then. Light waves were created, or at least the very concept of "light", which is very ambiguous.

I personally fail to see why creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. God can create and guide evolution, or evolution can evolve by itself.

I never understood this either. Why couldn't God have sat back, snapped his fingers and instigated the Big Bang?

At the end of the day, it's rediculous, intellectually dishonest, and just plain wrong to say that there is no evidence for evolution.

Note that I ALWAYS have to ammend evolution statements by clarifying that I mean MICRO evolution and not MACRO. The verdict is still out on macro evolution, there's not enough evidence to make it anything other than a theory.

Christians tend to cringe however when "Theory" and "God" are used in conjuction though.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Are you serious?

I think I will need more than a few grains of salt to digest that site.

He claims to have found Noah's Ark, Mount Ararat, Sodom & Gommorah AND the Ark of the Covenant.

Honestly, how seriously do you take this guy?

I noticed you included "no matter what you think of this guy" in your post. Not the most ringing of endorsements

 

[Arkanjel]

Are you serious?

I think I will need more than a few grains of salt to digest that site.

He claims to have found Noah's Ark, Mount Ararat, Sodom & Gommorah AND the Ark of the Covenant.

Honestly, how seriously do you take this guy?

I noticed you included "no matter what you think of this guy" in your post. Not the most ringing of endorsements

Like I said, He does have some interesting finds. It is better than absolutely nothing at all, isnt it?

I have few things Id like to throw in here whilst we are talking about the sun. Firstly have you ever heard of the electric sun theory, or the electric universe theory? I dont have any links from this computer Im on now, but google it and check it out. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of the theory it does hold some water and answer some otherwise un-answerable questions.

Now the second part. This is pretty much something that I have concocted on my own and has absolutely no PHD backing at all. However I suspect once I go public somebody will plagerize me and take credit for figuring out all the answers to the universe and God with one theory....

Anyway, here goes.

Every particle in the known existence has some sort of frequency or vibration that it either responds to or its atoms and molecules vibrate at. Right? From my limited knowledge I dont think there is any true state of rest on the molecular level. With that in mind, we go to the next step. God SPOKE into existence creation, all of it. To us speaking is just moving air waves to create sound. But if there is no air to vibrate, then when he spoke creation into existence, he created all the molecules and there respective vibrations with His voice. God spoke light into existence because He spoke into existence the frequency of light. After that then He made the sun to duplicate in a limited scope what His voice already did. Anyways its just a sampling of my theory, and its rudimentary at that. However to me it makes sense. You can pick it apart if you want, but dont be to brutal on me, its just a thought.

 

[Shyfroggy]

I'd be interested in hearing more of you 'theory'....

And yeah, I agree, don't be brutal - we are afterall, just gathering here to discuss things on our head and in our heart....

 

[Dark Virtue]

Like I said, He does have some interesting finds. It is better than absolutely nothing at all, isnt it?

Are wrong answers better than no answers at all?

Are lies better than the truth?

I have few things Id like to throw in here whilst we are talking about the sun. Firstly have you ever heard of the electric sun theory, or the electric universe theory? I dont have any links from this computer Im on now, but google it and check it out. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of the theory it does hold some water and answer some otherwise un-answerable questions.

I'll have to check that out.

Before we get too far, it seems to me that you believe that science CAN explain, validate and prove the existence of God. Am I correct here? If you don't believe that, why bother with these topics?

Every particle in the known existence has some sort of frequency or vibration that it either responds to or its atoms and molecules vibrate at. Right? From my limited knowledge I dont think there is any true state of rest on the molecular level. With that in mind, we go to the next step. God SPOKE into existence creation, all of it. To us speaking is just moving air waves to create sound. But if there is no air to vibrate, then when he spoke creation into existence, he created all the molecules and there respective vibrations with His voice. God spoke light into existence because He spoke into existence the frequency of light. After that then He made the sun to duplicate in a limited scope what His voice already did. Anyways its just a sampling of my theory, and its rudimentary at that. However to me it makes sense. You can pick it apart if you want, but dont be to brutal on me, its just a thought.

I don't think you're being very scientific with your theory. First, you are assuming that God's voice, or the act of speaking was what caused things to pop into existence. You could just as easily say that God spoke a command and it was the Holy Spirit that caused the actual creation and his voice had nothing to do with it. By going down that road, I'm afraid you would soon paint yourself into a corner because you would have to sign on as a biblical literalist.

Secondly, the fact that material has a resonance doesn't do anything to attribute sound as a means of creation. Resonance is simply a quality of sound. That's like saying since we all have a smell, that God must have sneezed us into existence. Or that since everything around us reflects light, that God must have somehow created us with his brilliance. See what I mean?

 

[ChickenSoup]

Are wrong answers better than no answers at all?

Are lies better than the truth?

That contradicts your faith in carbon dating, my friend.

 

[Dark Virtue]

That contradicts your faith in carbon dating, my friend.

No, that is you twisting my words to make them mean something they weren't meant to.

Nice try.

 

[ChickenSoup]

No, that is you twisting my words to make them mean something they weren't meant to.

Nice try.

Eh? You said "are lies better than the truth?" and I figured that meant you'd really prefer solid truth, and you believe in carbon dating, which is NOT solid truth, I believe you once said something about accepting carbon dating even though it is flawed because its better than nothing at all, which is the alternative? I either am right (with my luck, probably not ) or made a mistake in reading what you said, so I didn't purposefully twist your words. I suppose that should count for something

 

[DarthDapor]

"nice try"? I think Schik hit right on the marker this time.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Eh? You said "are lies better than the truth?" and I figured that meant you'd really prefer solid truth, and you believe in carbon dating, which is NOT solid truth, I believe you once said something about accepting carbon dating even though it is flawed because its better than nothing at all, which is the alternative? I either am right (with my luck, probably not ) or made a mistake in reading what you said, so I didn't purposefully twist your words. I suppose that should count for something

Examine what I said, carefully.

Are WHAT better than the truth? LIES. What is a lie? A lie is an untrue statement with intent to deceive. Carbon dating has no intent to decieve. Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it reliable? Yes, in many circumstances.

That doesn't mean people can't use the results from carbon dating to create an untrue statement with the intent to decieve. But you are wholly erroneous in stating that a dating technique is akin to a lie.

I believe you have also hidden in the shadows and ignored my question about dating Christian texts and artifacts with such a "flawed" system. So step up to the plate and address the point.

 

[ChickenSoup]

Ok.... *steps up to the plate*

I don't believe in using carbon-dating at ALL. I never said that I thought using it to date, say, the "Gospel" of Judas was ok, I don't agree with it at ALL. What other people may do isn't my responsibility.

Is it reliable? Yes, in many circumstances.

Thats the funniest thing I've heard since I had a conversation in Americas Army with someone, but for the sake of not getting banned I won't repeat what was said here (no swearing or anything like that-just crude humor I s'pose)

And please, PLEASE don't say it only works on old stuff. How do you KNOW it only works on old stuff (like, say, dinosaurs) if you weren't even sure to begin with how old it was anyway?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Ok.... *steps up to the plate*

I don't believe in using carbon-dating at ALL. I never said that I thought using it to date, say, the "Gospel" of Judas was ok, I don't agree with it at ALL. What other people may do isn't my responsibility.

What you are doing is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

How then, do you know how old the bible is? How do you know the validity of any manuscript that claims to be an ancient text? How do you know which manuscript was written before which manuscript? You're opened up a huge can of worms.

How does Christian archaeology work without the ability to date any findings?

Thats the funniest thing I've heard since I had a conversation in Americas Army with someone, but for the sake of not getting banned I won't repeat what was said here (no swearing or anything like that-just crude humor I s'pose)

And please, PLEASE don't say it only works on old stuff. How do you KNOW it only works on old stuff (like, say, dinosaurs) if you weren't even sure to begin with how old it was anyway?

I didn't say it only works on old stuff, nor did I imply that.

I don't understand your argument here. Even with a faulty dating system we have some level of accuracy. SOME is better than NONE. You seem to be under the impression that once a scientist dates a specific item, that date becomes carved in stone and is considered faultless and perfect. Science doesn't work that way. Haven't you seen a statistical poll that shows a +/- discrepancy? The same holds true with dating.

You also seem to be under the impression that carbon dating is the only technique available. There are many kinds, some more useful than others depending on the material to be dated.

Example:

Radiocarbon (Carbon 14)
Useful for dating organic material
Potassium-Argon
Useful for dating old, archaeological items
Obsidian Hydration
Useful as a time marker
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Useful for measuring geologic time
Thermoluminescence dating
Useful for dating rock minerals and sediments

I understand you have a problem with carbon 14, but you need to realize that nothing in science is foolproof. You have to learn to live within the tolerances. You live with these tolerances every day, in every way.

No offense, but your argument is founded on ignorance. If you actually understood these techniques to a greater degree, I don't think you'd have a problem with them.

 

[ChickenSoup]

Yes, I would. In the beginning of my "Truth for Youth" New Testament, there's a section about carbon dating. It said a newly-killed seal was dating to be several thousand years old.

I didn't say it only works on old stuff, nor did I imply that.

No, but many people do.

I don't understand your argument here. Even with a faulty dating system we have some level of accuracy. SOME is better than NONE. You seem to be under the impression that once a scientist dates a specific item, that date becomes carved in stone and is considered faultless and perfect. Science doesn't work that way. Haven't you seen a statistical poll that shows a +/- discrepancy? The same holds true with dating

No, because that "SOME" is inaccurate. Also, I am NOT under that impression, but it seems scientists believe it anyway.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Yes, I would. In the beginning of my "Truth for Youth" New Testament, there's a section about carbon dating. It said a newly-killed seal was dating to be several thousand years old.

I see. Don't you think that information would be a BIT slanted coming from a Christian text?

Since you have the text in your possession, would you mind citing the exact example?

I also noticed that you totally blew off my other examples of dating. Why is that?

No, but many people do.

But "I" was the one you were accusing.

No, because that "SOME" is inaccurate. Also, I am NOT under that impression, but it seems scientists believe it anyway.

Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black again. Don't you think you're being just a wee bit negative? You are making blatantly false, blanket statements. Scientists do NOT believe carbon dating is 100% accurate. I challenge you to find a scientist that says that. As I have said, there is a margin of error inherant in all dating techniques. You are also incorrect in stating that there is absolutely no accuracy whatsoever in carbon dating. I think you need to pull your nose out of biased Christian texts and examine the FACTS.

 

[DarthDapor]

gee you'd think we could argue in Japanese, and still contradict ourselves!

 

[Arkanjel]

Are wrong answers better than no answers at all?

No wrong answers will lead you down the road with a dead end.

Are lies better than the truth?

The enemy would have you to believe that the lies are the truth. Thereby we have all these lovely "theories" floating around and skewing peoples worldview.

Before we get too far, it seems to me that you believe that science CAN explain, validate and prove the existence of God. Am I correct here? If you don't believe that, why bother with these topics?

Yes I do believe that you can see God's hand in creation and can see it in science and mathemtics. Science can NEVER explain God, because it is man's science and therefore it is man trying to explain God thru mans creation. Can you validate God with science? Well if we could recreate the creation, or recreate the formation of a star, or if we could recreate the formation of a living cell, then I guess you could call that validating God. But since Man cant do any of those things, well then you cant validate God or His methods used in creation. Can God's existence be proved through science? How about can God's existence be disproved through science? Can you show me proof that evolution in any form created the human eye? Why do we not see other forms of sentient life on this planet other than man? If it has to do with brain size, then why are there animals with much larger brains than ours, yet they still roam the plains and eat grass? There are some some things that science just cant explain away as a mere creation of chaos. The fact that science cant explain all things, leaves the God factor.

I don't think you're being very scientific with your theory. First, you are assuming that God's voice, or the act of speaking was what caused things to pop into existence. You could just as easily say that God spoke a command and it was the Holy Spirit that caused the actual creation and his voice had nothing to do with it. By going down that road, I'm afraid you would soon paint yourself into a corner because you would have to sign on as a biblical literalist.

It took you this long to figure that out? Well let me step back and say that there are things that meant to be taken allegorically in the bible, and when they are meant to be taken that way in the bible, then they are framed as such in the surrounding text, i.e...
Rev 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
Do i believe that a big burning mountain is gonna fall out of the sky and turn the sea to blood? NO, but I believe that John saw what to him he could only described as what looked like a big buring mountain, perhaps a comet? But regardless when it plumets through our atmostphere it will LOOK like a big burning mountain.

Secondly, the fact that material has a resonance doesn't do anything to attribute sound as a means of creation. Resonance is simply a quality of sound. That's like saying since we all have a smell, that God must have sneezed us into existence. Or that since everything around us reflects light, that God must have somehow created us with his brilliance. See what I mean?

If you re-read my statement , I said that to US speaking is a means of vibrating air. I didnt say that God spoke creation into air and it was all sound, I said:

But if there is no air to vibrate, then when he spoke creation into existence, he created all the molecules and there respective vibrations with His voice. God spoke light into existence because He spoke into existence the frequency of light.

Its all about the wavelength man! Its all about the mathematics man! Chaos is a result of sin. That is why you will not find any THING becoming more complex over time, everything is breaking down. The human body is a great example. Look at what we are subjected to today. Cancer, deformities, virus, infections, arthritis, osteoperosis, the list is long. Has it all been around since the begining, well we dont have medical records from 6000 years ago, but Im gonna guess that NO, cancer was not as prevalent then as it is today. Has anybody ever actually documented the creation of a new star? Not to my knowledge, they have only witnessed the death of stars, but never one actually be created. You gotta think downward spiral here, the longer it goes the tighter the spiral gets.

You also seem to be under the impression that carbon dating is the only technique available. There are many kinds, some more useful than others depending on the material to be dated.

Example:

Potassium-Argon
Useful for dating old, archaeological items

The Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating method is the measurement of the accumulation of argon in a mineral. In contrast to a dating method such as C14 dating which measures the disappearance of a substance, K-Ar dating measure the accumulation of argon in a substance from the decomposition of potassium.

This is relatively easy because argon, being an inert gas, usually does not leech out of a mineral and is easy to measure in small samples. The actual date is comprised of the time it has been formed from molten/heated minerals. This method, therefore, is not very useful when dating the time a human bone has been in the ground, but it does help in giving the time of many of the artifacts that are often times found alongside burials.

If you were to take a piece of everyday rock, the K-Ar method would give you the date that piece of rock was "reset" by the changing of it's chemical structure. Many things can and do change the structure of rocks. Heating, weathering and many kinds of alterations will reset this time. Therefore, archaeologists can determine relatively accurately how long ago a heat treated projectile point was made, or a piece of pottery was last used to cook food. Source: Link

So that is pointless for dating anything other than pottery, even then it could be altered by say a forest fire.

Obsidian Hydration
Useful as a time marker

Developed in 1960, Obsidian Hydration Analysis (OHA) is an inexpensive technique archaeologists and geoarchaeologists use to find the age of a site they have excavated. This method is most often used as a means of relative dating , but an absolute date may also be estimated in some circumstances.Source: Link

Really only useful if the area being excavated is near a volcano.

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Useful for measuring geologic time

Therefore, an archaeomagnetic date depends not only on the collected sample and curve summary, but also on the set of independently dated pole positions that go into making the curve.
Magnetic information is also recorded in ferromagnetic elements in baked clay which have kept their position on cooling from the last firing of the clay. This means that baked clay, used for thousands of years in the construction of hearths, ovens and kilns, contains a weak but permanent magnetization which can be measured to determine the magnetic intensity and declination at the time of its last cooling. The thermoremnent magnetism (TRM) of baked clay is gained from the magnetic properties of magnetite and hematite, iron-oxides that make up on the average of 6-8% of the earth's crust. In raw clay magnetic particles of these minerals are aligned to form magnetic domains, or crystals. Source: Link

Another dating method only really realiable on burnt stuff. Not useful for dating fossils that are claimed to be millions of years old.

Thermoluminescence dating
Useful for dating rock minerals and sediments

Thermoluminescence dating is in its developmental stages. Except for doing simple authenticity tests of art objects, thermoluminescence dating is not generally accurate enough for archaeological standards. Source: Link

That very first sentance alone makes this type of dating irrelevant.
So I guess there really is not 100% accurate way to date anything. You can get into dating fossils by the strata in which they lie, but then you would also date the strata by which fossils are in it. And you end up in one big circle. Most artifacts that are found and can be biblically related, i.e. temples and fortresses can be pretty accurately dated because of the records that were kept. Plus there are almost always more than one source that can verify its existence.
While Ron Wyatt may have gone about his finds in the wrong way, that does not contradict that fact that these things are out there in the desert to be seen. Getting the okay from the local governments is the hard part, mainly because they are all muslim and dont want to allow any proof of jewish roots to be found on thier watch.

 

[ChickenSoup]

I see. Don't you think that information would be a BIT slanted coming from a Christian text?

And none of your sources have ever been slanted coming from an atheist or evolutionist text?

And I'm sorry you think I accused only you. What I meant when I said "please, please don't say it only works on old stuff" is that I've heard it so many times it gets rather old.

I think you need to pull your nose out of biased Christian texts and examine the FACTS.

And your texts are never biased, I'm sure. And they do present the facts, please prove them wrong before you write them off as false.

Here's what my source said:

For instance, using Carbon-14, a newly killed seal was dated as having been dead for 1,300 years! Sill-livin gsnail shells were dated to be 26,000 years old, and, 200 year old Hawaiian rocks have been potassium-argon dated at 22 million years old.

And anyway, once I "pull my nose" out of these "biased Christian texts", where should I look? Wikipedia, that is edited by evolutionists? A book written by an evolutionist? Do you have a suggestion for a book that isn't biased to any particular side?

 

[Dark Virtue]

No wrong answers will lead you down the road with a dead end.

You're taking that out of context. The point is to GET the answers, right or wrong. If they're wrong, you figure out why and move on. If you never ask the question, you'll never get ANY answers. Capiche?

The enemy would have you to believe that the lies are the truth. Thereby we have all these lovely "theories" floating around and skewing peoples worldview.

Like your Theory that God exists? If you want to get down to brass tacks, we will. Your belief in God is nothing more than a Theory, just another theory floating about and skewing people's worldview.

Yes I do believe that you can see God's hand in creation and can see it in science and mathemtics.

Examples would be nice.

[/quote]Science can NEVER explain God, because it is man's science and therefore it is man trying to explain God thru mans creation. [/quote]

Science can never explain Leprechauns either. Care to guess why?

Can you validate God with science? Well if we could recreate the creation, or recreate the formation of a star, or if we could recreate the formation of a living cell, then I guess you could call that validating God. But since Man cant do any of those things, well then you cant validate God or His methods used in creation.

So why believe in something you can't validate? That is the essence of a RATIONAL mind.

Can God's existence be proved through science? How about can God's existence be disproved through science?

I'm not the one claiming the positive. Nor have I ever said that science can disprove God's existence. You're just setting up a strawman.

Can you show me proof that evolution in any form created the human eye? Why do we not see other forms of sentient life on this planet other than man? If it has to do with brain size, then why are there animals with much larger brains than ours, yet they still roam the plains and eat grass? There are some some things that science just cant explain away as a mere creation of chaos. The fact that science cant explain all things, leaves the God factor.

When have I ever, EVER said that science can explain ALL things? If you pay attention to my posts, you will see that I agree with you. There IS a possibility that God exists. HOWEVER, that possibility is IMprobable.

It took you this long to figure that out? Well let me step back and say that there are things that meant to be taken allegorically in the bible, and when they are meant to be taken that way in the bible, then they are framed as such in the surrounding text, i.e...
Rev 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
Do i believe that a big burning mountain is gonna fall out of the sky and turn the sea to blood? NO, but I believe that John saw what to him he could only described as what looked like a big buring mountain, perhaps a comet? But regardless when it plumets through our atmostphere it will LOOK like a big burning mountain.

Guess what? There are plenty of Christians that disagree with you. So fight it out amongst yourselves and get back with me when you have a unified position on your religion.

If you re-read my statement , I said that to US speaking is a means of vibrating air. I didnt say that God spoke creation into air and it was all sound, I said:
Its all about the wavelength man! Its all about the mathematics man! Chaos is a result of sin. That is why you will not find any THING becoming more complex over time, everything is breaking down. The human body is a great example. Look at what we are subjected to today. Cancer, deformities, virus, infections, arthritis, osteoperosis, the list is long. Has it all been around since the begining, well we dont have medical records from 6000 years ago, but Im gonna guess that NO, cancer was not as prevalent then as it is today. Has anybody ever actually documented the creation of a new star? Not to my knowledge, they have only witnessed the death of stars, but never one actually be created. You gotta think downward spiral here, the longer it goes the tighter the spiral gets.

Uh, aren't you being a little hypocritical? First, you dis science and claim it's worthless in proving God, yet here you are spouting scientific theories to support some wavelength idea. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

So that is pointless for dating anything other than pottery, even then it could be altered by say a forest fire.

Really only useful if the area being excavated is near a volcano.
Another dating method only really realiable on burnt stuff. Not useful for dating fossils that are claimed to be millions of years old.

That very first sentance alone makes this type of dating irrelevant.
So I guess there really is not 100% accurate way to date anything. You can get into dating fossils by the strata in which they lie, but then you would also date the strata by which fossils are in it. And you end up in one big circle. Most artifacts that are found and can be biblically related, i.e. temples and fortresses can be pretty accurately dated because of the records that were kept. Plus there are almost always more than one source that can verify its existence.

Since you feel that dating techniques are 100% erroneous, what, if any, are the alternatives? If you give up on dating techniques, how do you go about dating Christian archaeology and texts? Again, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

While Ron Wyatt may have gone about his finds in the wrong way, that does not contradict that fact that these things are out there in the desert to be seen. Getting the okay from the local governments is the hard part, mainly because they are all muslim and dont want to allow any proof of jewish roots to be found on thier watch.

There is no FACT here, that's the problem. He's positing THEORIES. Didn't you say you didn't like theories? Again, you can't have it both ways. I suppose it doesn't matter anyway since you can't use dating techniques to back up any of his discoveries.

 

[Dark Virtue]

And none of your sources have ever been slanted coming from an atheist or evolutionist text?

Which is precisely why I don't use atheist texts.

What, exactly, is an evolutionist text anyway?

Do you understand the difference between micro and macro evolution?

And I'm sorry you think I accused only you. What I meant when I said "please, please don't say it only works on old stuff" is that I've heard it so many times it gets rather old.

If you don't want me to lump you in with all the crackpot Christians I've met, I would appreciate you affording me the same modicum of respect.

And your texts are never biased, I'm sure. And they do present the facts, please prove them wrong before you write them off as false.

What do you consider bias?

Here's what my source said:

Please cite your source: name of the book, etc. If you want to play hardball, let's do it the right way.

And anyway, once I "pull my nose" out of these "biased Christian texts", where should I look? Wikipedia, that is edited by evolutionists? A book written by an evolutionist? Do you have a suggestion for a book that isn't biased to any particular side?

Again, I need you to define and explain what you consider bias to be.

And please, stop using the term "evolutionists". It makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.