Driewerf, I am not a member of CMI. I would not say that if a fact contradicts scripture that it can't be accepted, I just don't think there really are any facts that provably contradict it. But that is a complicated matter for even evidence against it doesn't mean it isn't true.
CMI is a source which contains about 8,000 articles that deal with all of the issues of EvC. My reliance on it is for it's convenience in accessing the old canard arguments of evolution they rebut on that site, fairly well and more completely and reliably than any other creationist source given the scientists that write them are fully qualified. It is a very useful source of information but I also read books too, some I am reading and have read are;
- The Greatest Hoax On Earth (Sarfati)
- The Works of William Paley.
- Mere Christianity. (C.S. Lewis)
- In The Beginning Was Information.
I also read other sites online such as creationworldview.org, AIG, discovery, etc...
As you are also aware, I also read evolutionary material, as I shown you in that other thread by quoting several sources, so as to show you how evolutionists argue many fallacies despite being, "expert".
So as to those facts which don't support the bible, on the face of it, they may seem to go against it at first, but as I shown earlier for example, what seems like great ages, turns out not to be when we discover how unreliable and selective the dating methods are.
In life, there will always be facts that seem to contradict X. This is because induction can lead to two sets of facts for and against.
In a court of law for example, one may present a compelling case for guilt in murder, but you can also create a case against murder from other facts.
So you get competing inductions of evidence. Obviously if fresh dino meat is young, the rock it is in is dated old, it can't be both.
What does that prove? It proves that these facts in and of themselves, cannot prove either, for there could be some way the meat was preserved (highly improbable to the point of absurdity) or there could be a way the dates are wrong.
Logical question: can you have facts in this world which seem to go against the bible BUT it doesn't matter because those facts may seem to genuinely mislead us?
For example imagine if I made an argument that I had an alibi for when a murder was committed, but someone said they saw me in the area at the time. Imagine if because I was SCARED of being arrested for murder, I lied and I was in the area but I told the police I wasn't. As you can see, this witness would count as an evidence against me, but would it really count against my innocence?
Not really, it's just something that would seem to favour my guilt.
This is why logical rules don't permit affirmation of the consequent;
"if I was guilty I would lie about being in the area"
While that is true for most murderers perhaps, or a lot of them, it does not follow that the fact that I lied, means I am guilty of murder.
So what I have just done is provably show you that facts and evidence can go against the bible, even if the bible is true.
But I don't think that is something you are willing to consider, because you simply want to affirm the consequent because you are biased against the bible, as an evolutionary atheist.
That you can't understand the relevance of these things that I explain, is not my fault. Your request for me to come down to your level, cannot be granted. Effectively you are saying, "mike, be dumb and ignore these things you know of, and just accept evo."