— Pollution of Evolution and the Big Boink, The — updated

By on


my detailed reply at the end, in answer to this nonsense.  Robert

-------- Forwarded Message ------

Hello Robert: I would like to get your opinion regarding the information presented in this article (I do believe you have a scientific

background). And if not a scientific background then I definitely think you have an interest in science. Thanks.


Begin forwarded message:
[see this link for the whole story]

New discovery proves Earth billions of years old

Click on the above title to read this online. Follow me on Twitter & Facebook.

by Dr. Ed Berry 

A new physics discovery proves the idea that our Earth and universe are 6000 years old is false. Yes, I know, if you are a "believer," the 6000-year idea is hooked to your "religion." But the key to intelligence is to test all our ideas against facts. ....


My (quick, unpolished, unproofread) reply:

if you program a computer with false data, such as 2 + 2 = 9, when the computer does calculations the answers will be valid and logical according to what it was programmed with, but the answers will not be true in terms of reality.

They want you to step into their pseudo-reality and believe it is reality.

The author failed to note that in reality very few scientific laws have been discovered in the universe (except maybe mathematics)... what scientists find are not laws, but approximations to laws; like that tiny donut in the trunk of your car you can use in an emergency to hobble to the gas station or home; but it is not meant to go much farther.

The author, while bragging about the fraud Einstein, does not inform you that because man has not uncovered scientific law, science (or what men consider to be science) is constantly changing.  Natural laws do not change so what man has discovered is not natural law.  Aristotelian physics gave way to Newtonian; Newtonian to so-called Einsteinian; and Einsteinian is about to be put to sleep by something else.  They are not laws.  They are tools that work in absence of having the proper tool.  If you need a shovel but one has never been invented (or discovered), a stick will work; then someone invents metal and makes a crowbar and that works better than the stick; then someone invents a metal bowl and that works better than the crowbar; then someone invents a heavy duty half-bowl and welds it on the end of the crowbar and has a shovel.  Someone may invent a better shovel yet.  There may be some idea out there that no one has ever thought of that would be superior to a shovel; of course there is a steam shovel or backhoe and there is an auger for drilling post holes; but there may be something that actually manipulates matter by some energy force and digs a hole by you merely moving the mouse on your computer, even as they have computerized laser surgery.  Just because someone has never thought of it does not mean the possibility does not exist. 

But what the evolutionists do, totalitarianistically and through propaganda and brainwashing, they claim dictatorially, this is the only truth and anyone who believes differently is a cave man (which is argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad baculum—and thus it has nothing to do with truth or science but imperial decree).

The old scientific argument that a strata of rock is 14 billions years old because a mollusc that is 14 billions years old was found there; then when asked how he knows the mollusc is 14 billion years old, he replies because it was found in a strata of rock 14 billions years old.  Evolutionists, when painted into the corner and tied down will admit that the only reason they believe evolution is because they reject creation (they reject creation because they would have to admit there is a God and if there is a God who created and owns all, that would mean they have to submit to His Law).  Evolutionists so trapped will admit that indeed you have to begin with faith that evolution is true, and then build upon that foundation.  That is not science but religion in the garb of pseudo-science, and it takes us back to the computer program in which 2 + 2 = 9... you have to start by faith that their premise is true in order for their fairy tale to appear logical.

They use circular "logic" and also talk around the issue or talk about some other issue and then act as if that proves the issue they did not talk about.

of course earth is probably billions of years old.  But not according to the "Big Bang" or more properly the "Big Boink" by which so-called "scientists" have screwed over the minds of 5 or 6 generations.  It is this Big Boink that has deceived Christendom into believing the false doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man heresy, which has resulted in the destruction of Christendom.  God created His people, Adamkind separate and distinct and forbade intermarriage with aliens, foreigners, the people of His curse, corrupt and mingled people (non-Adamite peoples).  God commands separation; communism and the Antichrist world says amalgamate: "One race, one religion, one creed".  God commanded separation and since His people, the people of Christendom (true Israel) rebelled, God is now using those very aliens peoples whom He commanded we be separate from and whose peace and prosperity we were never to seek or secure to invade and overwhelm us, until we repent of our sin against God.  God said that He separated us from other people even as He separated clean animals from unclean—and commanded us not to make ourselves abominable with either unclean animals as food, or unclean people by intermixing.  To the degree we have absorbed alien peoples we have made ourselves abominable and those branches shall be cut off and cast into the fire.  God did not create all the animals as related species and none descended or evolved from another.  Likewise peoples.  God created each special and distinct and commanded no intermixing—not even of livestock or vegetation.  Hybrids are the attempt to destroy God's creation and supplant it with something inferior though claiming it to be superior—and all such are abominations to God.  The Big Boink teaches mankind to mix it up and intermarry, based upon the false premise that all came from the same source that it is only natural that they join back together (which parallels the so-called Big Bang that all matter [where it came from they don't know] exploded [by what energy they do not know] from one giant glob and the universe "evolved" and is expanding outward but for some reason [why they do not know] that it is slowing down because it is reaching the limits to which it can expand and like a god-zillion giant cosmic baseballs on rubbed bands, the universe will eventually be able to expand no farther and it will snap back on itself and implode... and they call that "science").

Scripture says "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth."

this was not on day 1 of creation.  We are not told when "in the beginning was"; but it most certainly was aeons in prehistory long before day 1 of creation.  Thus the minerals of the earth are billions of years old.

But life on earth is only 6,000 years old.  Those Christians who disbelieve this are certainly "free" to believe whatever fairy tale they choose, their minds never truly having begun to think or meditate upon the days of creation which were 24-hour periods of time, not ages or aeons.  That theory only makes sense if you don't actually scrutinize it and analyze it, which I have in detail.  God created and performed things in a specific order to prevent people from drawing false conclusions; but that does not stop those whose minds He has blinded from thinking like fools.  Those who refuse to believe what God has said, imagining that God is limited to being the way their limited minds can conceive, are not worthy of the truth, so God will not let them know it. Of course, people are "free" to believe whatever they want, and once in God's Presence, if they are so blessed, they will be humbled and then begin to truly learn.  God created plant life on the third day and did not create the sun until the 4th day.  If the days of creation were thousands of years or aeons or ages, what kept plant life alive for that vast length of time?  If the sun were turned off or burned out what would happen to plant life (and all life) on earth?  As I wrote in my God, Man, and the Universe:

"If the Sun were to burn out, it would take about 8 minutes and 33 seconds before the Sun’s rays already in motion, would end after they reached Earth, after which there would be no more (since the Sun is 93,000,000 miles away [if scientists' calculations are accurate] and light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second). .... If the Sun just stopped shining, within a week temperatures on Earth would be below 0° F.; within a year ¯ 100° F."

While we cannot know what the light was that God first declared there be and how he separated day from night before the sun existed, we do know that God kept earth warm (the inner magma core was maybe hotter?) otherwise the water on earth would have all been frozen (which it most probably was originally, which is why there is the ecological record of an ice age); God may have turned the heat up on day 1 of creation, as the backup generator, until he created the sun, to get plant life through the 3rd day.  God did it in that order for a reason.  However, to assume that God had plant life growing for thousands of years without the sun or moon, is a grand assumption indeed, and Scripture says faith is derived from the facts of the word of God, not fantasy or assumption.

They act as if they know everything, which they cannot.  They cannot know all the factors.  They make calculated guesses based upon the information they have which is also clouded to some degree, at times, by what they want the truth to be, what is a profitable "answer" to discover.

When you throw a baseball or fire a bullet, it is faster when first released and then slows down based upon friction or in terms of the universe the attraction or repulsion by other astronomical bodies.  There is no way of knowing how tall Mount Everest was at the time of the flood, because we do not know the speed at which God caused it to initially shoot up and how that rate slowed down over millennia, even as we do not know at what speed the tectonic plates of the earth were moving when God smashed the one continent and set continental drift into motion; nor do we know the rate at which it slowed.

Science continually gets things wrong, whether out of fraud, incompetence, or honestly.  I remember a few decades ago when a commercial by the EGG INDUSTRY was run frequently showing some laboratory and then claiming that eggs have 33% less cholesterol than we once thought.  My first reaction is, "GREAT how many millions of dollars of a refund will we be getting for that BAD SCIENCE that we paid for that told us that eggs had 33% more...?"  In reality, it seems it has to do with the chicken's diet, health, and exercise, and also if the yolk is broken while heated (like in scrambled or omelets).  Regardless, it also needs to be realized that statistics can be twisted or mispresented to make them appear to say whatever a person wants them to say; let telling half truths or merely making innuendos and allowing people to draw false conclusions in their own minds.  Likewise, God created various distinct and unrelated species with close enough similarity so that those who hate him will foolishly think that one species evolved from another.

God darkened the minds of such to worship the creation rather than the Creator.  Initially that was through mythology, but now it is through humanism and its "pagan religious history of its origins" called Evolution, which is the new mythology which glorifies creation and man instead of God.  They truly are the blind leading the blind, and those Christians who reject the 7- 24-hour days of creation, likewise, err, not knowing the truth, and are the blind leading the blind.  If the 7 days of creation were 1000 year periods (or aeons or ages), then after being created at the end of the 6th Day, Adam and Eve had to rest for 1,000 years (and he died under the age of 1000) and therefore, had no opportunity to reproduce before they died.

I have not gone to this link.  The data is irrelevant.  People are blinded by their own pet paradigms and what they want to believe.  Very few (like Ivan Panin, David Davidson, Charles Bradlaugh, Ingersol, Paine), bow before the truth when in their attempts to disprove it, it disproves them.  If one starts with a false premise he will end with a false conclusion.  It matter not how sophisticated the theory or data is presented.  It is a fairy tale.  As I show in my book, Who Was the Serpent in the Garden... and the Waters that Covered the Earth:

"In a very interesting report by Brian Thomas, M.S., “New
Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race” it was
revealed that in 2008 a very extensive project was undertaken,
with international collaboration, to sequence with incredible
detail over 1,000 representative human genomes from
sample groups from around the world. In October of 2010
some of these results were published which support man’s
existence on the planet to be exponentially smaller than the
evolutionists have claimed—less than 300 generations, which
is consistent with the Biblical account.

[My own calculations are as follows: It has been 5,990 years from
the creation of life on earth to 2015. 2025 should be the 6,000th
year from Creation and also the 120th “Jubilee from creation”—
though this “Jubilee” does not coincide with the Jubilee begun at
Sinai; it is a different type of Jubilee.
Judah was 22 generation from Adam (though the 23rd generation
of Adamkind; being born 2256 years from the creation of Adam)
Zarah and Pharez were born about when Judah was 42. By the time
of King David (born 2922 from Adam) man’s life span seems to have
stabilized (David died at age 70, ripe in years); David ruled over all
Israel when he was 30 and soon had several children.
Thus 2962 years elapsed from the time of creation of Adam to
the time that David [the 33rd generation of Adamkind] was 40 years
old; which comprised 33 generations and an average age of 90 at
which men had their firstborn, or at least the son who constituted
the chosen line. 5,990 - 2962 = 3028 (the time left from when
David was 40 to the end of this age, using 40 as a conservative
average age at which men have had their firstborn born to them
from Moses’ day to now = 76 generations. Even if you change
the age at which men sire their firstborn to age 20, that only
doubles it to 151 generations + 33 from Moses to David’s son =
184 generations maximum from Adam to the present.]

This study examined the DNA base sequences of 2 families,
including the mother, father, and child of each. Science published
the results which concluded that each generation of
offspring inherit about 60 new mutations from the parent
generation of each. Though the purpose of the study—the
“1000 Genomes Project”— was to try to learn which DNA
anomalies cause disease, the study spat out the additional
information about how long man has been on earth. This data
was extrapolated using an extremely accurate population genetics
modeling program called “Mendel’s Accountant” (developed
by a team of scientists from Cornell University; which
program is downloadable freely). This program calculates the
cumulative effect of inherited mutations in terms of health and
survivability (I believe the point being that once any branch of
a family tree inherits too many genetic defects, which are
cumulative—life-span is continually decreased to the point
that the branch of the family tree dies out: it spontaneously
aborts or does not even reproduce before it dies). The program
reveals that even if starting with a population of 2,000 individuals,
even if each mother has 6 children, factoring in the rate
of 60 new genetic mutations per generation, humankind would
become extinct after only 350 generations (this also factors in
natural selection of the least fit having already died out and not
passed on their more-highly defective DNA). Thus, man has
not been on earth anywhere near as long as evolutionists claim."

Also, the author of this article does not comprehend even the meaning
of the words "prove, proves, proof" as he uses the word "proves" in
the very title of this article, without realizing that proof is an elusive chimera
and most people confuse opinion, deception, delusion, and mere evidence
(which may be valid or invalid, true or false)... they confuse these inferior
notions with "proof" which they are not.

As I explain in detail in my book Does God Repent? — Can God Change His Mind?

"Proof or Faith...?
There is very little we can truly know or actually prove.
We have evidence alone in most cases when we think we
have proof. Hard sciences can be proven. In everything else
all we actually can do is amass evidence and then make a
choice concerning that evidence. No one can prove the Flood
was local or worldwide; to claim that one can is arrogant and
ignorant and shows mental instability and not being in touch
with the real world; not recognizing that there are 10,001
factors of which he is ignorant (especially concerning an
event that transpired 4,300 years ago). All the evidence is
never in. A lot of evidence is never even admitted to be
presented in court. All we can do is form an opinion, an
informed, (hopefully) intelligent opinion, but an opinion
nonetheless. I used to be able to lift my own body weight
over my head in a 1-arm snatch on a full barbell. If I could
still do that, I could prove it (actually, I could not prove it,
but only demonstrate it, or prove that I could do it, but I
could not really prove that I did do it, again, I could only
demonstrate it). Then I could. Now I can’t. Someone else
saying, “Yeah, I saw him do it” isn’t proof. If I had a video
that was made and/or if I had done it in front of accepted
verifiable authenticating committee, that may or may not constitute
proof (even some official organization saying, “We
saw it” really isn’t proof. It is testimony; evidence). Math
can be proven, a chemistry experiment can be proven, the
philosophy of logic can be proven. Few other things can
truly be proven unless they can actually be demonstrated.
Doctrine cannot be so proven; that is where faith comes in.
History cannot be so proven. The Flood is both theological
and historical, but it cannot be proven unless one was on the
ark video-taping as it occurred. Everything else is faith.
People choose which evidence they wish to believe.
Statistical probabilities are not certainties, but probabilities,
and they can be accurate or extremely inaccurate following
the law of the bell curve; and thus can be probable,
highly probable, or remotely probable, but still only probable.
Very few things can be proved universally 100% of the
time, because no event has been proven every single time
because every single time is an impossibility that can never
be achieved to infinity. Proving something that happened
before one was even born is highly improbable, if not impossible.
We see how the modern media and journalists and
historians and scientists lie and distort the truth now as the
events are actually unfolding; this is nothing new (as Solomon
said, there is nothing new under the sun). So, in reality,
people choose which historians from the past will be those
whom they choose to believe. Such is not proof. Such is a
choice; sometimes sincerely, sometimes sinisterly—but a sincere
wrong choice is just as untrue as a sinister wrong choice.
People choose which testimony or evidence (valid or invalid,
real or imagine) they will believe; but they cannot
prove that their choice is correct or their conclusion true.
Juries frequently convict the innocent and absolve the
guilty based not upon proof, but upon their own choice of
which presentation of evidence they chose to believe; and if
the evidence was false, then it certainly was not truly “proof,”
but confused for proof: that would be anti-proof."

(I express this below in another book of mine, but I cannot
locate which book, Windows 8.1 (which I now have on my
new computer) is lobotomized compared to windows Vista Business, which
I used to have (and have on my old computer)... and for some reason,
I cannot find in which book I wrote this, so I wrote something similar below).

Nothing is ever proved in a court of law.  Individuals
decide which pile of evidence they deem most convincing (based on how slick
the lawyers were, clearly they cannot make their choice based upon the evidence
that the judge refused to be admitted, and all the evidence is never in, a lot of
evidence is never uncovered, crime labs and dirty cops invent evidence,
witnesses are bribed to lie, etc., or jurors vote base upon their own prejudice or even from being
bribed or threatened.  Even if someone confesses to a crime, that is not proof that he committed
the crime, only that he confessed to it.  People confess often to crimes they did not commit for many
different reasons: some demented people do it for attention, or revenge against a parent to shame them,
some do it because they were bribed or threatened, some who are mentally handicapped are tricked by the
cops or prosecutor into thinking that if he simply confesses he can go home, some confess to a crime
in order to save a loved one who is actually the guilty party.

Such is the difference between proof and evidence; few things are ever truly proved.

Until one understands this simple fact, he understands very little.

Scientists are in many ways like individuals on juries, or judges, or even the accused.

Choices are made, and dishonestly, those choices are referred to as "proof" when it is not.




one person emailed in response:


On 2/18/2016 3:00 PM,
> Hi Robert,

> Einstein theory, have very serious doubts that there ever could come a truth out of that. Read it shortly after getting it, but didn't get to answer right away. If memory serves me right, you are the first besides me that I've seen to take the fact that our God has always been into the equation of the earths age. Now, I know too little to know if there's any truth in the varies dating methods, so have no confidence therein. But, I've been observing enough in the mountains and so on to know that this earth is a lot older then the young earth advocates push with blinded eyes.

[you wrote]
> "Doctrine cannot be so proven; that is where faith comes in. History cannot be so proven. The Flood is both theological and historical, but it cannot be proven unless one was on the ark video-taping as it occurred. Everything else is faith. People choose which evidence they wish to believe."

> Doctrine CANNOT be proven??? So then, your answer is, we got to turn to faith. Well, how are we then go to prove something then? So, what is the Scriptural definition of faith?

> You can answer if you want and leave it. But I now understand you as to why you believe the things you do. If doctrine can't be proven, then we are as a ship without a rudder. This is not to say that ALL doctrine can be proven, but a lot can. Then when we were told to be as the Bereans, that then has no merit and I then would know no way of helping you.

> Sincerely,



I am assuming when you say "Read it shortly after getting it, but didn't get to answer right away" that you are referring to my previous email, not Einstein's theory.

I don't know what you mean by "I've been observing enough in the mountains and so on"

You say, "so, your answer is, we got to turn to faith" as if faith is a BAD thing.  That is curious.

You say, "But I now understand you as to why you believe the things you do. If doctrine can't be proven, then we are as a ship without a rudder."

No, the fact that you say that shows then that you understand very little.  You don't understand why I believe anything because you have never ordered any of the nearly 100 books that I have written in order to actually read one.  And you don't understand the nature of truth or study or faith if you think that because we cannot prove something that we are like a ship without a rudder.  That is a gross illogical false inference.  And you don't understand the nature of proof.  Most people do not.  Semantics is partly to blame (the rest is ignorance).  There are many levels of the meaning of proof... but I speak only of the true absolute meaning.  Some people may say, "I love ice cream."  They don't "love" ice cream; if they do and they are having an interpersonal relationship with a bowl of frozen sugar and milk they are psychotic.  They either don't understand the meaning of love, or they are simply using the word in a very weak, improper manner that has become colloquially accepted.  So it is with proof / prove / proving.  Proof is something that is universal; that every sane person who sees it will agree.  However, the way most people use the word proof or prove is meaning nothing more than "it satisfies me enough to believe it"--regardless of what "standards" of satisfaction that person has.  Proof is elusive.  All the senses can be completely fooled.  The mind can easily be fooled.  A slick salesman, debater, statistician, political speech writer, con man, educator, scientist can come up with a plethora of "stories" that the average person (who does not truly think logically, having never actually studied logic, though most people think that they are logical, however, how can a person know he is logical when he has no clue about what logic even is?  most people think they have a good singing voice too, but if you have ever watched America's Got Talent, and especially the auditions, you will see just how delusional the majority of people are).  Most people think that they know a subject, even though they have never scratched the surface of it a nanometer deep.

Very little can be proven.  History is not a science.  History cannot be proved.  People choose which evidence they believe to be true, they choose which historians they choose to believe; that is not proof but opinion or making a choice.  Imperial decree is not proof.  It is edict.  Those who think they can prove things like history and doctrine are not proving anything other than their self-appointed imperial issuing of decrees they want people to accept as proof of the truth.

Can you prove the moon exists?  You can point to it and tell someone, look, that is the moon.  If they refuse to look how can you prove it?  If you are actually pointing to the planet Venus, and the person you are showing looks and sees it, have you proved the moon exists?  But saying "look" to someone is not proof.  You did not thing other than point.  Even less can man prove God.  That does not mean we are without a rudder.  It is reality.  God calls us to faith.  If He did not, then He would reveal Himself to every single individual whom He wanted to believe in Him, perform a few miracles, and the issue would be solved.  Christ said to Thomas, "Blessed are those who see not, but who believe".  Likewise, Scripture tells us, "walk by faith, not by sight".  This does not mean we stick our head in the sand.  Our relationship and knowledge of God starts with God revealing Himself (we prove nothing) and putting within us the faith to believe (we prove nothing); upon that foundation, we then accept that His Word is True and based upon the unimpeachable internal logic of the Word of God we are convinced of its truth; and show ourselves to be honorable children by studying continually, while relying upon the Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth, so that we can truly understand.  However, there are hundreds of denominations (and false religions) and thousands of different ideas.  Were there proof, there would be only one denomination.  However, there are many because people cannot agree on anything.  That is because there is not proof and because most lean unto their own understanding and are not lead by the Spirit of Truth; the majority would not believe the truth even if there were proof: the majority are selfish and only want to believe that they want to believe.

Doctrine cannot be proved; if it could would not the vast majority believe the same thing?  Does not everyone believe 2+2=4?  That is an established fact that can be proved; that is why all agree on it.  That's why they don't give B.S. degrees in history or theology.  History is an art, not a science.

Gravity can be proved, or at least demonstrated.  It can be replicated by anyone.  Just pick something up, hold your hand out away from yourself and away from any other object, and let go.  Did what you were holding and let go of... did it fall to the ground?

Okay, similarly, go ahead.  Prove the virgin birth.  Do you have a video tape of Mary's entire life, every single second, up to the point it was realized that she was pregnant, a video showing every moment of her life up to that point in time as evidence that she had never known any man?  Do you then have a sperm sample from God to prove He is the Father?  That would be proof.

I BELIEVE the virgin birth 100% without any doubt because that is what the Word of God says.  If I list the Scriptures referring to the Virgin birth, I have not proved the virgin birth (read the above paragraph again if you still don't understand); but I will have demonstrated what a collection of Bible verses HAVE TO SAY about the virgin birth, but I have not PROVED the Virgin Birth.  Thus, the next logical point necessary, in order to prove that what the Bible says about the virgin birth, in order to accept the virgin birth as true, would be to PROVE that the Bible is the Word of God.  This, likewise, cannot be done unless you can subpoena God to come down to a court of law, raise His Right Hand and swear by Himself to tell the truth, after which He would need to demonstrate that He indeed is the God Who created the universe and that yes indeed the Bible is His Word.  I BELIEVE that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is True.  I cannot "prove it" like a chemistry experiment, in which any person who attempted the exact same experiment could replicate it and get the exact same results every single time, if followed according to precise instructions under the same conditions.

This does NOT mean that we should not study or believe—because we are commanded to.  The point is that it is not us who can prove truth; it is God who has hidden truth from the world and opened the hearts and minds of His elect to believe that what He has said is true (and to actually understand the correct interpretation of what He has said); and based upon that faith we then endeavor to study to show ourselves approved.  Augustine said Understanding is the reward of faith; seek not to understand that ye may believe, but believe that ye may understand.  Faith cometh by hearing the Word of God.  Understanding is a gift given to members only and membership is handed out to the elect and the membership card is faith.  Without faith it is impossible to please God.  Without faith it is impossible to receive anything from God--including understanding.

If doctrine could be proved we would not have those who baptize by sprinkling, others by dabbing, others by pouring, others by dunking--and those who are back dunkers, front dunkers, dippers, side dunkers and double dunkers (and some who believe that baptism itself saves you, and others still that you actually have to believe that the water itself is saving you or it doesn't count).  If something could be proved only a fool would not believe it.  However, this opens up another can of worms, in that much of what is totalitarianistically forced down the throats and into the minds of the masses is not truth and has not been proved (evolution, etc.), but it has been dictatorially decreed and ordered and demanded that all bow down to the great image every time the music sounds and recognize it as god.

No doctrine can be proved.  Doctrine can be explained, and it can be explained correctly and incorrectly.  If I recall correctly, you don't believe in the Trinity.  You don't base this on "proof", you base this on your opinion of what you think is believeable.

God commands us to believe, in order to be saved, not fully understand and not prove in order to be saved.  The understanding and attempting to prove (or more precisely, "confirm") is for our edification, for our strengthening (and witness), and is act of obedience.

Further, as I explain in my, God, Man, and the Universe (pp.32,33):

“No other ancient work contains the same amount of
manuscript evidence as does the Bible. The Bible contains
66 books, written by 40 different authors spanning 40
generations and 1,500 years; yet it is consistent, coherent,
and entirely reliable. Never has science or archaeology ever
disproved a single thing in the Bible—and the Bible was
right thousands of years far in advance of secular
understanding in many matters of history and science.
Modern science and archaeology only serve to prove the
Bible. The amount of evidence proving the reliability of
the Bible is overwhelming.

There are more complete Bible manuscripts than there
are of the works of Shakespeare. The 37 plays written by
Shakespeare in the early 1600s all contain missing text
which forensic experts had to “guess” to “f ill in the blanks”
to complete the plays. It is also significant to realize that
even if all of the Biblical manuscripts had been lost, it is
possible to recreate the entire Bible by piecing together
Biblical quotes from the early Church Fathers from the 2nd
and 3rd Centuries A.D.—all for except 11 verses out of the
31,102 verses in the Bible. That is staggering in significance!

There are 24,000 existing Greek New Testament
manuscripts (complete or partial) and 5,366 complete Greek
New Testament manuscripts. The books of the New
Testament were written between the years A.D. 40 to 90.
The earliest-known copies of New Testament manuscripts
date to the year A.D. 125—which means that they were
recorded or copied only 35-85 years after the originals; which
means that even without God overseeing their copying, the
chances of them being accurate are much higher.
In contrast, there are only 643 existing Greek
manuscripts of the Iliad of Homer, which was first written
in 900 B.C., and the earliest existing manuscript was written
500 years (c.400 B.C.) after Homer wrote it. On top of that,
they are incomplete and there are 764 disputed lines of
text in Homer’s Iliad, while there are only 40 disputed lines
in the New Testament. The New Testament and the Iliad are
roughly the same size. The New Testament has 7,957 verses
of 179,011 words. The Iliad has 15,693 lines of about (an
estimated) 154,000 words.

Similarly, the works of Aristotle were written between
384-322 B.C., yet the earliest-existing manuscript is 1,400
years old (from c.1100 B.C.) and only 49 manuscripts of his
works still exist. Dated much closer to the time of the
writing of the New Testament, Julius Caesar’s “Gallic Wars”
was written c. 58-50 B.C., yet the earliest known manuscript
was written 1,000 years later (c. A.D. 900) and only 10
known manuscripts are in existence.”

Now, does it not take faith to believe that God guided the men who developed our canon
and cross-compared all the known manuscripts?  Since you or I did not discover, catalog, and
cross-compare these thousands of manuscripts, we certainly cannot prove that the manuscript
from which the Bible version we use is correct.  We have to trust that God directed them in the truth.
[Similarly, if you ever fly anywhere by plane, you have to take by faith that the pilot is actually competent
and that the airline did not merely want to be the first to hire a black, muslim trans-gender, blind and deaf
quadriplegic as captain commercial pilot.]

Things built upon trust / faith are not proof; though they may lead to understanding and greater faith.

It also requires faith that the translators got it right.  However, based upon what? does a person
determine which version is the best?  I believe the KJV is the best, though not without
error (the minor error being easily demonstrated).   However, people choose what they want to believe in
any given area; and they choose whether to believe the evidence that you offer or demonstrate.
People believe what they want to believe despite the evidence.  This is a sad fact of reality.  If everything
was actually provable, people would believe.  You could force feed 1,000 rats, one at at time, successively
with cyanide and show to those watching how ever single one of them dies; you can then prepare an equivalent
dose for a human, and then ask: "Who thinks that I have not sufficiently proved or demonstrated that cyanide
is poison and at this concentration is lethal?  If you think I have not proved it, step right up and drink this glass". 
If all things were so proveable or demonstratable, everyone would believe--and respect the truth.  That is not the case. 

God, for His own Purpose, removed the application of punishment, in space of time, far enough from the crime itself,
to the point people think that they can get away with violating God's Law (their fear is extinguished because the punishment
is not immediately paired with their sinful act).  Clearly, if God threw thunderbolts down from
heaven immediately each time a person crossed any line, very few would ever cross those lines.  Similarly, if God answered
every single prayer immediately, for every single person... why... of course, EVERYONE would believe and
everyone would pray and everyone would pray all the time.  But God did not do that.  Why?  Because it is not His
Will that all believe.  Furthermore, it would cease to be faith and be something that most took for granted and expected
as a right.  Prayer would then be considered a demand: When I pray I am supposed to get what I ask for so give it to me
now God!  Christ Himself early in His ministry, knowing--determining before Creation who would believe
and who would not, purposely in the synagogue spoke some very heavy duty speech which the majority
did not understand because they did not realize that it was figurative speech and THEY STOPPED FOLLOWING
Him; why did Christ say it? because He wanted them to stop following Him because they were not of His sheep.

If you think that you can prove any doctrine, prove to me now... pick any notion out of the air and pray for it right now
and prove that the promises of God concerning prayer are true.  Pick something that could not happen on its own, or at
least something highly improbable according to the laws of statistics.  However, one prayer is not proof.  You will then
need to pick another similarly highly improbable thing out of the air and pray for that, let's say, 10 days in a row, and
inform your whole email list of each thing in advance and then offer proof that it was answered, the easiest thing would
be to pray for something globally discernable, like a solar eclipse that caught all scientists off guard... an anomaly ....
an earthquake, a tornado where there had never been one... some pestilence on evildoers in washington... the earth
opening up to receive the flood the dragon has spewed forth (I pray for that many times a day)...

Furthermore, it would not be enough for you to get 10 for 10 prayers answered, but you would then have to get another 100 people
and have them perform the same experiment to so prove it.

Again, if the promises of prayer could be proved as easily as putting money into a vending machine, everyone would "pray without ceasing" -- but that is not reality because that is not what God has determined.  God is separating the chaff from the wheat, by blessing those who see not, yet who believe... who believe even in the face of doubt, impossibility and hopelessness.

We don't pray because it is easy and because we get everything immediately like driving to Walmart or through the drive through at Burger King.

We pray because God commanded us to pray and we pray out of faith and desperation for those things we truly need.  And part of prayer
entails faithful perseverance because faith must be tested.  Before Christ gave the parable of the woman and the unjust judge He said, "Men ought
always to pray and not to faint".  If prayer were a simple vending machine, such grueling angst and perseverance in the face of (seeming) denial would not
be an issue.  Christ did not say to prove doctrine; but to believe and then the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth.  Verses of Scripture that
tell us to prove things, are imprecise translations of those words, meaning a lower level of "proof" or they are figurative.  When God says prove Me, it is not us proving God.  It is God proving  His own faithfulness in response to our faith.  When Scripture says "prove all things" the Greek word does not mean prove in the pure scientific / logical use of the word, dokimadzo means "approve, test, examine, discern, or think competently about".  Clearly we can only do something to the extent that we are able to and therefore some things cannot be "proved" but they can be rationally discerned to the point that the evidence is greatly in their favor by which a person can safely make an informed decision.  If there were two glasses of fluid before you and one contained a colorless and odorless DEADLY poison, what level of proof would you require before you selected one to drink from?  If instead of poison, one glass contained a colorless and odorless chemical that would give you flatulence, but otherwise not harm you (only the air in the room), would you require the same rigorous "proof" if you were dying of thirst and needed to take a drink and only those 2 glasses were available?  Statistical probability itself is not proof.  Card counters and those who understand odds and the laws of statistics can go to Vegas and have a better chance of getting rich (if the casino attendants don't realize that he is trying to use math rather than simply gamble, and run him off); but even then it is not proof.  It is still some degree of guessing, though with a greater likelihood of probability than guessing based upon no evidence.  But it is not proof.  It isn't even faith.  It is a calculated but unsure hope.

If one thinks that he alone has the magic decoder ring all by himself to divine which texts and manuscripts
and parts thereof are valid or invalid (having never seen the originals, not even knowing the ancient languages),
augmented by his own dreams and any voices he may hear, --neither is this proof of anything
(but it is evidence that he is possibly delusional, mentally unstable, and antichrist).

God calls us to faith... but we are to build upon that faith by diligent study of the Word of God,
not walk around blind.  While you can present evidence for why you think a certain doctrinal position is
the correct position you cannot prove it.  You can endeavor to prove it or more properly defend what you believe
to be the correct position (which is apologetics, logically defending the Biblical position you
believe to be true), but unless you are a fairy and have a magic wand you cannot prove it.

If you could prove it everyone would lay their crowns at your feet and acknowledge every word
that fell from your tongue.  If you cannot do that, you cannot prove it.  It would be nice if such
existed, whether the truth dripped from my lips or yours.  It is not a matter of who is right and
who is wrong.  It is not about us, but about the truth—about Christ who is the Way the Truth and the Life;
about us recognizing the truth and conforming to it.

That is the purpose of faith and separates the chaff from the wheat; that was the purpose of the Parable of the
talents.  We are each responsible before God to lean not unto our own understanding but be in tune with the Holy
Spirit who will lead us into the truth.  But you cannot "prove" whether person A is led by the Spirit or person B who
has completely contradictory views.  Again, it is a matter of faith and a matter of honest study and trusting the
Holy Spirit to show whether person A or person B is true.  However, it seems that God is testing us (not for Himself,
but to show to us), like the parable of the stewards and talents; to see who will understand correctly and do what is right.

You ask for the Biblical definition of faith; if you have studied the Bible, I thought you would know this.

Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

(right there, the first verse in the "Faith Hall of Fame" chapter of the Bible; have you never read that verse?)

of course, in that definition, you will not find the word prove or proof anywhere.  How can you prove something you cannot see?

While prove/proving/proof/proved are used in Scripture maybe a total combined 40 times, faith, faithful, faithfulness is used around 340 times.

For by Grace are ye saved through... (proof?) no... faith.

Without (proof?) it is impossible to please God? no... faith.

Don't draw another false inference that study, testing, examining, discerning is not important; it is.  But faith is the foundation.  Which books of the Bible
do you believe don't belong in the Bible, or which parts of which books do you believe don't belong in the Bible, and what is your evidence and authority for such claims?  If you are the one to make that decision, then it has nothing to do with proof, but your faith in yourself and what you determine is of greater authority than the centuries of true scholars who developed the canon of the Scriptures.  Have you even read a book on "how we got our Bible" and studied the history of the Bible and the Christian Faith to even know what issues are involved?  Have you read any books on the Reformers, the Reformation, the doctrine of the Reformation or the Puritans?  Did you take any college courses or have you ever read any books on Logic?  If not, then upon what do you base all your "proof"...?

The Bible and Biblical truth is spiritual.  It must be spiritually discerned.  It cannot be discerned by those who are unconverted
or by those Christians who are carnal, not walking in the Spirit, leaning unto their own understanding.  Christ said He
would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into the Truth.  Those not led into the truth (only deluded into thinking they
are) are not walking in the Spirit, but in themselves.  God said He blinded the eyes, and shut the ears, hearts, minds of all
and only opens those of the elect whom He draws unto Himself.  Without faith it is impossible to believe.  Without
faith and without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to understand the Truth of God's Word.  Granted, those who are unconverted
and carnal Christians can certainly understand, to a limited degree, "facts", "details", "data", and "information" in the Word of God
but they cannot understand TRUTH and they cannot see the Big picture, and even if they could see it they could not believe it.

THAT is the purpose of faith and that is the relation of faith to understanding.

Also, I don't know what you really mean by

"you are the first besides me that I've seen to take the fact that our God has always been into the equation of the earths age"

Have you never met anyone who believed that God created the heavens and earth?  Am I the first one?  I really don't know what you are saying.  I find it odd that you think that you can prove things when you don't even communicate coherently (and I don't mean that as an insult so please don't take it as one; take it as a challenge to communicate precisely, otherwise, what is the point in communicating?  I trust that despite any flaws in my thinking and expression--I wrote this email once and went over it once, I did not pour over it for a week as if it were a dissertation--but I do believe that have communicated my position coherently; whether you agree with my position or not, I certainly have given you a lot to think about, rather than merely saying a few things that left you wondering what I was actually talking about).

If you meant, "You are the first person other than myself whom I have heard express the notion that the earth itself is older than 6,000 years, while life on earth is only 6,000 years old" then I don't know why you did not say something like that.  I don't know what "God has always been into the equation of the earths age" means, so I cannot comment further; but I will make a few more general comments concerning this issue.

The 6 days of creation began when God said, "let there be light".  However, Scripture clearly says that "In the Beginning" God created the heavens and the earth.  That was BEFORE day one; in an archaic, undefined period of time called "in the Beginning".

Nowhere does Scripture say that God said, "Let there be dirt.  Let there be water.  Let there be rock.  Let it form a ball and hang in empty space."  For whatever reason, God deemed not to tell us how or when He created Earth itself.  But Job 26:7 post-facto does tell us that God "hangeth the earth upon nothing" (contradicting the ancient myths of the earth being on the back of a turtle or snake biting his own tail or elephant or the pagan god Atlas).

The age of the earth is irrelevant concerning the Scriptural account; what is relevant is the age of life on earth, which began with the 6 days of creation, God creating the conditions for life on day 1, when He said, let there be light, most probably He ordained the laws of nature, energy, matter, the pre-requisites for life as we know it.  He then caused dry land to appear.  Of course, He could have created sea life before dry land was to appear, but that is not what He determined to do.  He then created plant life, then sustained it until He created the sun, moon, and stars.  After He created plant life He created the animal kingdom, and finally Adamkind completely separate therefrom.  All that took place in 6 days and then God rested.  The young earth believers, if they understand Scripture, believe LIFE is young, not necessarily that the rocks of the earth itself are young.  

However, even secular scientists think they can prove things, when they cannot.  No scientist can prove that any rock is a certain age.  What he proved is that he has faith in an instrument that has been calibrated to indicate that a rock is a certain age.  I can fix my kitchen scale below zero, to negative one, then when I weigh a hamburger out to 1 lb. (though it is actually 2 lbs.) I can then believe I am staying within a calorie restricted diet.  I take the meat out.  Look, I weigh it.  1 lb. 

Of course, "science" is a bit more "sophisticated" or complex and unless you have the club membership and the white lab coat and have taken the Hypocritical Oath ("I believe in science above all other gods"), then you will be told you don't have the right to question because you don't understand: "We are the experts--look, we have white lab coats and pieces of paper on the wall called diplomas and licenses and awards--so trust us." 

Of course I over simply and over generalize and certainly don't pigeon hole all science or scientists into the same fraud... but the truth is, a computer spits out answers based upon what "reality" it was programmed to accept as truth, and thereby give all answers based upon that standard.  As the old saying goes in computers "G.I. - G.O."  (Garbage in, garbage out.)  If the data entered was not true, the answer the computer spits out will be valid based upon the flawed data, but it will not be true (this explains the results of the past 4 or 5 electronically determined "elections"). 

There are far more factors that science does not know than it knows about, so they cannot know what a plethora of unforeseeable factors may be contaminating and confounding the results, giving a false answer that they think is true.  When they say that a rock is so ever how many years old, what are they actually saying?  do they even know?  Science cannot even define motion.  What is a rock?  A rock is comprised of minerals.  What are minerals?  Minerals are specific conglomerations of specific molecules of various distinct elements.  Molecules are distinct atoms bonded together in a specific fashion.  So when they are saying a rock is so many years old, are they saying the rock is that age, or the minerals, or the molecular bonds or the atoms?  Are they able to separate the age of each?  Do they even know what they are talking about? 

If I have a pile of sand, a pile of granite dust or very fine gravel, a pile of cement, and a bucket of water, and I mix it together in various ratios and make cinder blocks or a concrete slab... each of those elements had an origin, a history, and an age of its own before I joined them together.  Can science tell when I joined the elements together to make the block (not knowing any of the conditions in which I made them, nor the conditions in which that block was subjected for the past however many years, whether it was in a climate controlled environment for 10 years, then under water for 10, then outside in the sun for 20, then back in the climate controlled environment for 5, before I threw it in a peat bog?  Can they then also tell me the age of the sand, the age of the granite dust, the age of the cement, and the age of the water (not knowing the conditions or origin of those elements either)...?  Maybe I just need a lab coat and a decoder ring and club membership and then I could believe.

Of course not all science is so blind... but a lot of what is called science is blind and even fraud, and it is passed off as proof when it is not.  As the old story goes, I believe on a ship crossing the atlantic the Prime Minister of Israel and Einstein met every day and each day Einstein explained E=MC(2) to him, and Ben Gurion said, after Einstein explained it to him every day for a month, that finally at the end of the trip he believed that Einstein actually understood it.  Of course, the humor being, Ben Gurion was clueless about what Einstein tried to explain and Ben Gurion did not know Einstein was telling the truth, but he believed Einstein thought he knew what he was talking about.  The same goes for any "science" or any "belief"... if you immerse yourself deeply enough you may actually believe it, but that does not make it true (though it may be true or it may not; but it always helps to have Imperial power to make a decree and have armies to enforce that everyone "believe" it).

Had God created earth on day 1 or 2 it seems logical (not based upon our own opinion, but based upon the logical format and pattern of God telling us what He created on each day and nowhere does He declared, "let the earth appear out of cosmic dust", and then "let there be light" and then and the evening and the morning were the first day").  Thus, it seems logical by Scriptural pattern that He would have so told us that He created the earth on day 1 or 2, had He indeed created it on day 1 or 2; but He did not tell us and it adds to the sense of the ancientness of the narrative, and infers that He created earth long in pre-history, like a sculptor may purchase a huge block of granite and let it sit, untouched, until he finally had the inspiration and had decided what He would sculpt out of it.  Of course, God did not need to wait for inspiration or decide what He would finally do; He ever knew and He does not need "inspiration".  Why He so determined to create earth and leave it unformed for some unknown period of time, we can only postulate.  This creating earth and leaving it tohu bohu or without form and void until He determined to form it into earth as we know it, has nothing to do with any "gap" theory.  All life is the same age, albeit, a day or two separated.  It is not that some species are more ancient or didn't "evolve"; but God created each species as they are to serve His Purpose.

Herein, I have given 100x more evidence of what I believe, than you offered any "proof" of what you believe.  My evidence is based on faith and Scripture and logic.  Your notion of "proof" (whatever that is) is likewise based on faith (whether you realize it or not), but what that faith is in remains to be seen.

I say nothing to be insulting, but to make points.  I have no perverse need to be right.  Stock in me has not shot up because of my taking half a day to type this out.  I have profited nothing.  I seek to profit nothing.  My sole desire is to glorify God by diligently searching out a matter and presenting coherent thought for others to consider in light of His Word and hopefully be led of His Holy Spirit to understand truth.