Hello all. Frosty E Hardison here. Yeah it's really ME!

On something as simple as faith? You either have it or you don't.

On something as simple as having a testimony that Jesus Christ has taken an active part in your life? You either have one or you don't. If you don't have it, you walk around in life an empty shell – often times you don't even know it! Once you are filled with HIM and the unconditional love that He is all about? You KNOW what it was to be empty and you want to help others discover the truth too. Scientists can't measure that.

On something as simple as the age of the earth? I can do the math, the lineage provided in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 that give the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary) places us at what right about 12,000 years today?

As far as science goes? Observational science and speculation of new ideas? Oh yeah, what we see is what we get. Or is it an optical illusion? I have no problems keeping an open mind for new ideas, perspectives and sources of information— the thing is, even under strict circumstances: Can we as fallible humans be mis-interpreting the data that is being read? As a data and systems analyst I have to ask that question all the time. Same goes for the carbon 14 factor. Where do the calculations come from that the world is several billions of years old when carbon 14 data is only good for a few thousand years? Then when you look at the methodology of HOW carbon 14 itself is produced you come into several variances to consider as well. Under what circumstances are there fewer occurrences of C14 being produced – what increases and what decreases it? Is it steady? Is it stable? What factors produce the absorption rates into tissues, fossils and specimens we are looking at? Do they differ or vary by diet, climate, solar variances? As a hobbyist in science myself, I at least still ask those questions.

I would rather have a human witness to cross examine than a machine of any kind – any day. Neither are infallible, but at least one of them can reason, think and extrapolate a conclusion weighing ALL the evidence rather than a preprogrammed set of line codes that can be out of calibration at any given time.

And if you want a spokes person for global warming – I would have chosen Ben Stein! Not AL Gore. Have a wonderful day.