I have been discussing science and archaeological evidence supporting Scripture on another wesbite regarding ex-christians but am always requested to provide evidence from "legitimate, qualified, and authentic sources." Take for instance Ron Wyatt, the evidence he has found is the size of a mountain, but men (even some Christians) try hush his findings or try discredit him for not being a "qualified archaeologist with a BA in Archaeology, etc. etc." They even go as far as saying he placed evidence in some cases, threatened people and used clever marketing skills to distribute his findings, calling him a con-artist, even a Seventh Day Adventist.

Also with the Burckle and Abbott crater, I mention it perfectly describes what caused the flood, but then they always respond quoting the phrase from the NY Times "Burckle crater has not been dated, but Dr. Abbott estimates that it is 4,500 to 5,000 years old." It gets so annoying debating it because they focus on the part "has not been dated" thereby trying to discredit the entire research. They accuse me of not being logical but I think I am the most logical of the lot, if you just read the next line of "4500 to 5000 years ago" you find these to be parameters, and from local findings on the Madagascan island the deposits confirm these parameters. Not only that the article goes on to mention "Dr. Masse (an environmental archaeologist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico) analyzed 175 flood myths from around the world, and tried to relate them to known and accurately dated natural events like solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions. Among other evidence, he said, 14 flood myths specifically mention a full solar eclipse, which could have been the one that occurred in May 2807 B.C. Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, Dr. Masse said. A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami." Click here to read the article.

Not to mention, I have to keep trying to explain the correct Scripture interpretation like Noah actually only taking domesticated animals on to the Ark and not every single species known to man. Then I get blasted with "how do you know your interpretation is correct and you're not just trying to twist Scripture to fit your beliefs?" Even after quoting that lovely passage from Yada concerning the dimensions of the Ark and where he says "Yahweh aced His classes at the Naval Academy" they still try brush over it by saying "Even so, there is still no room for millions of pairs of creatures." And this ridiculous comment even comes just after talking about there only being domesticated animals on board. Crazy! By the way, how many animals were there on board actually? Anyone know an amount, even if just a ballpark figure?

I mention the follow sentence from Yada: "Furthermore, since life existed on earth immediately after liquid water was available, there was no time for random chance in either inception or mutation." And the response I got was this: "Can you provide any support for this claim." Anyone know of secular sources to aid what Yada said. I just came across an article by astrobio.net which pretty much sums up Day 2, 3 and 4 of Creation nicely. I want to answer this statement by saying that scientists are continually looking for water (on Mars for instance), and that water is the source of life, and our history books and origin of life articles all meniton the same thing, therefore Yada's statement is perfectly acceptable and truthful. But the word immediately in Yada statement requires definition to them.

When atheists try deny these findings they always request authentic sources, but I know Yahuweh usually uses the unqualified to confound the wise. He has made it plain for those who want to know.

Does anyone know of websites where I am able to use secular sources that will confirm these findings, and maybe other findings such as the Jews in Eqypt, Sodom and Gommorah, and anything else of interest. I have not bee succeesful in finding a website that will allow me to see the contours of the ocean floor to prove the Red Sea Crossing's raised surface, a ridge under the sea. The graphs I have found are based on Christian websites, so look biased.

The seed of Satan will hush any archaeological findings, that's one reason why I think scientists haven't been on to the Burckle and Abbott crater like children gathering around the birthday cake when mom calls the time to sing happy birthday. Mom (the Spirit) has called but the children of the earth are unwilling to be exposed of their disbelief or what the consequences might be.

I feel your pain, Matthew, having beat my head against that particular wall for decades. The sad fact is this: it doesn't matter how much light you shine on a blind man. He may feel the heat, but he still won't see. Satan is terrified of facts, for they invariably vindicate Yahweh's Word.

I've watched in fascination as the whole age-of-the-universe thing has been turned on its head. A hundred years ago, as a direct result of the application of Darwin's theory of evolution in places it had no business being, "scientists" were "certain" that the universe had been there forever---that it had no beginning. The fact was that they "needed" unlimited time spans to "prove" that the trillions of tiny accidental steps from non-life to life and then from simple life to complex had had such a long time to occur, evolution was virtually ensured: it was inevitable. Einstein, in what he later called the biggest blunder of his professional career, inserted a "cosmological constant" into his theory of relativity to reconcile the math he knew was right and the "scientific facts" he had been taught about the age of the universe (the steady state theory) that had to be accomodated. All the Christian faith had going for them at this point was the 6,000 years of Genesis that (apparently) told the story of a young---a very young---earth. Believers were the laughing stock of the scientific world. Satan was happy.

But then Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding (as evidenced by red shifts, showing that stars and galaxies were getting farther away from us). Astronomer Fred Hoyle, deriding the inevitable implications (namely, that the universe was finite in time) called the theory the "big bang," hoping the epithet would kill the theory once and for all. But in 1964, CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation was discovered, proving Hubble's hypothesis to be true. The Big Bang suddenly became gospel, and ever more accurate measurements eventually pinned down the age of the universe to somewhere in the range of 13.7 billion years (with our solar system coming into being perhaps 4.5 billion years ago). The Christian 6,000 year theorists were now shown to be completely off the mark, much to the glee of the scientific community. The smart ones (like Yada, Hugh Ross, etc.) dug back into the scriptures to try to figure out where they'd screwed up---and they figured it out.

But now science had a dirty little secret, one that no one talks about, even to this day. If the solar system is only 4.5 billion years old, and life (as other equally distinguished scientists have discovered) appeared on earth as far back as 3.7 billion years ago, then Darwin was every bit as wrong as the young earth crowd. It means life had to have appeared on this planet virtually as soon as it had cooled from the molten state and liquid water had condensed. And (if anyone still had the deductive reasoning ability of Fred Hoyle) that means there IS a Creator God to whom we owe our very existence. Oops. All of a sudden, the Believers are the ones with the known scientific facts on their side, and the scientists are the ones looking like brilliant idiots. Just because they're smart, Matthew, you can't expect them to be honest, not even with themselves.

kp

Yup, that came to mind, I was writing an article yesterday with that passage of Scripture from Luke 16 but had to leave work so saved the work, but haven't posted it yet. We'll see...

Thanks for your answers guys, even though the topic has swung a bit your responses have been inspirational.

I have a good feeling that my reach does not only include believers (those in Christianity) but also non-believers, even those caught in Islam. Islam, now there's a tough nut to crack?!