Ramiro

Hi Cheryl,
I haven’t had time yet to read all the responses but I did read down to this part and I’ll quote you, not as a cherrypick but because I couldn’t get past this without questioning what you’re trying to say with the following:
“The bottom line is are we going to believe what God has said (his testimony) or are we going to believe the testimony of science? The one thing that I know for sure science has changed their dating system by billions of years just in my own lifetime. I remember in my early years of school being taught that the earth was millions of years old. I didn’t pay attention to when it exactly happened, but the earth got a lot older sometime through the years. Now we are told it is no longer millions of years old, but billions of years old. Animals now are not just millions of years old, but hundreds of millions of years. That is a significant change, but the truth hasn’t changed since truth is consistent.”
You are correct about science changing it’s dating of the world. That’s how science works, it keeps adapting in search of the truth. Technology has advanced in your lifetime. There are new dating methods with clear empirical evidence such as fossil evidence, Radio-carbon dating, ice core samples, just to name a few. Is denying this kind of evidence part of the pursuit of truth? Is truth really consistent? The world would still be flat and we would be at the center of the universe if truth was consistent. Truth is subjective. What I view as the truth may not be what my neighbor views as the truth. Do history books tell the truth? Do I tell the truth? Do you tell the truth? I could tell you that I tell the truth and would you have to believe me? No, you obviously wouldn’t have to believe me.
I’ve put aside my assumptions. I’ve kept myself open to new understanding. I hold my beliefs in an open hand and not a tight fist.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.