Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Professor Shanon who said moses was high on drugs suggests that even the burning bush was hallucinated. Moses had the tell-tale signs of one under the influence of a psychadelic. He even says he has experimented with psychadelics himself- http://www.dailymail.co....ts-claims-academic.html

consider the escaping of the Jews, with the Egyptians following them and the red sea intercepts to the fugitives. Moses prays and God does the miracle of parting the sea. The Jews pass but the water returns again to stop the army of Egyptians.
Seems like a miracle incompatible with scientific laws. But upon thorough investigation of the place where the crossing might have taken place, it turns out that sometimes there blow a high wind which blows out water, baring the bottom of the sea.
The people who revealed the strange phenomenon declared that the biblical story describe not a miracle but a real event that occurred naturally.
The problem with this assertion is that the wind that bares the bottom of the sea in this area rises rarely.
You might ask, why did it begin precisely when the jews passed along and ended when the Egyptians came? This looks like a miracle in response to Moses prayers but the miracle is in fact the taking place of a completely natural event that began at the right time for the Jews to cross and ended in time not to give a chance for the Egyptians to do the same, a rare coincidence.

also-
Scientist Carl Drews (the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.) used computer simulations to determine that wind blowing 63 miles per hour could part the waters at the intersection of the Nile and the Lake of Tanis. Wait, wasn’t Moses supposed to have crossed the Red Sea, not some lake in Egypt? In fact, modern Biblical scholars believe that the Hebrew yam suf is best translated not as "Red Sea" but as "Sea of Reeds." Drews’s hypothesized location would fit this description quite nicely.

Through simulations, Drews has found that a wind blowing at 63 miles per hour for twelve hours could have "split" the waters by blowing them backwards. His idea is not so far-fetched. In 1882, a British general reported a similar phenomenon at Lake Menzaleh, also in Egypt: strong winds blew the waters back, creating a land bridge. Drews believes the wind strength in the case of the Exodus to be 63 mph because it would be strong enough to blow back the waters but weak enough to allow people to pass through it. As such, Drews concludes that the parting of the waters has a basis in science.
Drews simply notes that if the Jews had to choose between being slaughtered by the Egyptians or taking a chance crossing parted waters, they’d choose the latter. In other words, Drews hints that the "parting of the sea" was more of a coincidence than a direct act of God.

In a nutshell, indeed all these biblical events took place, coz scientists havent refuted any of them. So the scientists go ahead to find logic or explanation of why these events occured. The more they get into details, the more everything gets complex. I'm not surprised, because the complexity of all these happenings only proves what was said in the bible in Isaiah 55:8-9:

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

We'll never comprehend who God is in totality. Having a basis in science doesnt mean God and His acts do not exist, because I would ask, how did science come up in the first place?

True, Adam lived 6000 years ago, but the earth is not 6000 years old. And you can get that in Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

You see, we all know what God creats is beautiful, but verse 2 says the earth was formless and void. That means there was a timeline between verse one and two. Remember when we are told that Lucifer was an archangel and I think in charge of music or something, then he wanted to be God and was condemned to the bottomless pit? Didnt that occur before Adam was created? Who knows, that period between the two verses could have been millions of years.

I assume you are referring to C-14 dating and an argument put forward by some creationists to support the theory of a Younger Earth. This is one argument against a Younger Earth I found- C-14 dating has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. It has a normal upper detection limit of ~50,000 – 60,000 years BP, so C-14 dating will never tell us anything about the age of the Earth, or about "billions of years".


Radiocarbon dating is not the only radiometric dating method available. There are several methods, utilising isotopes with half-lives far in excess of C-14, which do indeed give ages of millions, and even billions of years, such as Uranium-Lead, Argon-Argon and Potassium-Argon methods. These methods are not affected by the Earth's magnetic field, or pollution in the industrial age, or A-bomb tests, or even by mythical floods. There are even methods of dating which do not rely on radioisotopes at all, and provide ages from thousands to millions of years. Interestingly, it's these non-isotope dependent methods (amongst other data) that have helped to establish calibration data which confirms the reliability of methods such as radiocarbon dating.

I thought God created everything in six days and Adam was created on the sixth day. When creationists trace christ's geneology back to Adam they come up with 6000 years. Should i add the 5 days before Adam was created to make it 6000 yrs+ 5 days?