Howdy Paul, Sorry, I'm wrapped around the axel so far this week and have only given your article a brief look. But I think I'll have a chance Thursday or Fri. On your opinion of my sugested article, I don't understand your use of the term sad. I understand you don't agree with what it said, and I take it you don't like the formula used for presentation, but what about the actual details? What do you find faulty in the actual reasoning? On the Grand Canyon, I believe you are mistaken about what would be claimed on that site, Normally creationists would say the river did not carve the canyon and that the time frame was much shorter than a year (perhaps you mean something else about the timeframe). The explaination would usually be a catastrophic dam break, releasing the contents of a large inland lake that is credited with carving the majority of the canyon, sometime after the retreat of the floodwaters of Noah. I don't think you read the article very well in this case. Regarding faith: it will be practically impossible for us to discuss it since we have very different definitions. But using your definition, you practice faith all the time if you accept theories like the big bang, or planet and star formation by accretion, or abiogenisis, etc... These are all theories that defy the known laws of science. On my personal statement, thank you for your concern but I was moved, not prodded, so there is no problem here. JA Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: J A I read all of your reference http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible. (How are you going with "http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/seven-creation-paradigms-2.html"?) It is just like all the other pages I've read on this site in that it follows a sadly predictable formula - Start with an innocent question from a troubled believer. Explain the problem in simple but accurate terms. Cast doubt on some aspect of the problem. ... might have been ... ... has not been proved ... ... there is doubt about ... etc eg - Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)? Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method? Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe? Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate? (Build on this doubt until -- ta-da!) Argument demolished! Build alternate case based on the Bible. Make warm fuzzy statements to reassure the reader. (References, if not actually internal, are overwhelmingly 'friendly' ). While reading this page, I followed a link which led me to something on AiG about the Grand Canyon but I didn't make a note of the page. However, the crux of it was this - The Grand Canyon -- 277miles long, 4 - 18 miles wide, depth in places exceeds one mile. Sediments deposited, attained sufficient strength to stand unsupported, and Colorado river carved out the canyon -- all in one year? Clearly evidence doesn't cut the mustard here, you need faith -- that which allows us to believe what we know just isn't possible. Concerning faith -- I have been wondering for quite some time about why some have it, others don't, but the majority just have a dollar each way. There may be a gene which predisposes us to be what we are. Thank you for sharing your experience of personal faith but I hope you didn't feel prodded to do so because that was certainly not my intention. Paul D --------------------------------- Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now. --------------------------------- Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.