I see from other threads you're back with us, Not_Now.Soon. So it just thought I'd give the thread a bump.

To Toni Lavis.

Thanks for letting me know your experience of the Pentecostal church. I'll keep that in mind. As for Catholic Churches, I don't have any intention of going to them right now. Not because of theology or disagreeing with them, but just the rituals they are known for, I don't think I'd understand the mass/sermon or what not, because of too much liturgies you and Latin.

I do consider the points I get from other people and other sources. But yes as far as the bible is concerned I trust it as more an authority then other sources of information. That said I should say I trust the bible books as they are without adding any more books to them. I count your previous book in question in the same line as the Book of Mormon. books claiming to be from God, but nothing more then claims.

As for the young earth theories, there is one theory that holds the earth is older but human history is still around 6000 years. That theory takes the 6 days God created the earth, and counts each "day" as longer then a 24 hour period.

(Continued)

The order though that so far doesn't have any explaination that matches up with science is how the Earth was made. Specifically that light was the first thing made but not the sun. The sun was made after it seems earth was.

The other explainations I've come across regarding an explaination, many of them are actually about refuting conclusions of our current scientific understanding. Not in the field to know which tools of dating are accurate or not, so honestly I don't pay that much attention to the counter explainations. The problem I see it as is that many are trying to justify God's words instead of just taking them as they are. Scientists (or experts in one field or another) say one thing then tweek it 3 years later or completely change it 10 years down the road.

Two explainations I've heard though aren't about how old the earth is though, but that it actually developed into a complex and diverse world of life at all. Instead of coming to nothing by the logic of the rule of entropy, or the chaos theory. Those two theories are good in my opinion, because they challenge the current scientific mindset of how the earth (and life on it) occured.

//I don't think I'd understand the mass/sermon or what not, because of too much liturgies you and Latin.//

Latin? Jesus, you really don't know much about Catholicism, do you? The Latin Mass - known as the Tridentine Rite - has not been in common usage since the 1960's after it was declared an 'extraordinary' form of Mass and the Second Vatican Council decreed that "normally the epistle and gospel from the Mass of the day shall be read in the vernacular", i.e. in the language spoken by the parishioners.

//But yes as far as the bible is concerned I trust it as more an authority then other sources of information.//

No you don't. The Bible supports a geocentric model of the solar system, but I'm sure you know better than that... why? Because everybody knows the Earth goes around the Sun, no matter what the Bible says.

//That said I should say I trust the bible books as they are without adding any more books to them.//

Yeah, why bother reading more than one book?

//I count your previous book in question in the same line as the Book of Mormon.//

The 'Book of Nature' isn't a literal book, it's an idea.

"Early theologians believed the Book of Nature was a source of God's revelation to mankind: when read alongside sacred scripture, the "book" of nature and the study of God's creations would lead to a knowledge of God himself. The concept corresponds to the early Greek philosophical belief that man, as part of a coherent universe, is capable of understanding the design of the natural world through reason."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature

//there is one theory that holds the earth is older but human history is still around 6000 years.//

You know, I'm not actually sure when history is considered to have started: you can't have history without writing. Everything before that is prehistory... and it goes back a lot further than 6000 years.

//Specifically that light was the first thing made but not the sun.//

Yes, there were visible wavelength photons before there were galaxies... and well before our galaxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

//The sun was made after it seems earth was.//

Nope, that's rubbish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

//Scientists (or experts in one field or another) say one thing then tweek it 3 years later or completely change it 10 years down the road.//

Yes, that's because science is all about trying to find the answers... not assuming you already have all the answers, so hey, why bother trying to discover anything new.

Rigid dogmatism is not a good thing.

//Instead of coming to nothing by the logic of the rule of entropy//

Just so you know, the only tattoo I have is a physics equation. Specifically, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: do not try to tell me how entropy works when you clearly don't have a clue, because I will take you to the frigging cleaners, sunshine.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system. The Earth is obviously not an isolated system; we're being constantly bombarded with energy from the great fusion reactor in the sky. If a system has an input of energy from an external source, entropy can be decreased in that system.

Consider perpetual motion machines (PMM's). Genuine PMM's are impossible; they are forbidden by the second law. No machine can indefinitely perform work without a source of energy. Mind you, that hasn't stopped cranks and charlatans from trying to build them.

My favourite story involving PMM's, cranks and charlatans is the amusing tale of Charles Redheffer, who in 1812 in Philadelphia, claimed to have developed a perpetual motion machine that could power other machines. He was exposed by the engineer Robert Fulton (designer of the first submarine), who removed some panels to reveal a belt drive going through a wall, on the other side of which sat an old man turning a crank to power the device... i.e. an external source of energy.

The Sun is the Earth's old dude with a crank handle. And yes, eventually it will run out of puff. In about 5 billion years. So don't cancel the milk or anything.

//Those two theories are good in my opinion, because they challenge the current scientific mindset of how the earth (and life on it) occured.//

They really don't. You've just failed to understand them properly, and how science works. They are part of the current scientific mindset of how the Earth (and life on it) occurred. The current theories we have to describe our universe are built on the foundations of older theories like thermodynamics.

And a theory's value is not determined by how closely it matches up with some story in a book, but how accurately it describes the world, i.e. how well it is supported by experiment.