Radionuclide dating: OFF TOPIC

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

>

> You know I love you and respect your genius mind, but how do you argue

> with the Creator of the Universe?...

I certainly don't, but I think the reality He created is best

interpreted by science and not by rigid adherence to literalism. I

highly value the scriptures for their moral and spiritual lessons, and

for showing various ways to relate to Deity. However, I do not think the

Bible is a science text, nor was it ever intended to be so. Those

scriptures were written, selected, edited, amended, and translated by

people. The faith they engender should inform our view of reality, not

maintain a stranglehold on it.

Asserting that the nature of His creation is limited by the words in

Genesis is an affront to Him.

Some of the " history " the Bible contains may be more reliable than the

" science. " The pendulum is returning, at least a little, against the

" minimalist " school of archaeologists. They think that the books of

Kings and Chronicles (and everything earlier) are purely myth, because

there are too many discrepancies between the Biblical accounts and

archaeological evidence.

Best,

Chuck

P.S. I had the role of lector yesterday, with readings from Isaiah and

Galatians.