by Steve Risner "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi Ever look at something you found in the dirt and ponder its age? Sometimes the age of an object can be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Other times, the best we can do is guess based on some facts we may have. Still other times we can only imagine. In the cases where we can fairly accurately describe an object’s age, we have to have some frame of reference. For instance, a coin will have the date it was made printed on it. Therefore, we can know with a fair degree of certainty when that coin was made. Perhaps a watch found in the dirt has a manufacturer’s emblem on it. If we know when that manufacturer made watches, we can determine a timeframe. If we know when they made this particular style of watch, we can assume an even more accurate date. If the watch is inscribed with a message that includes a date, we may be able to say the watch was made very near that date. If we find a fossil in the ground, how do we know when that animal lived and died? If we find a rock, how can we be certain of when it was formed? They rarely come with dates on them or manufacturer’s emblems. So how can so many scientists insist they’ve figured out the age of, say, a particular rock formation or a fossilized dinosaur or even the earth or universe? How can they pick up a rock and proclaim its age? I will suggest that they, in fact, have no idea how old any of these things are. I will also suggest that to “know” their ages means the person with this “knowledge” is not a scientist or, at least in this instance, is not using the scientific method. They are claiming something as fact when it is actually a faith. It is based on nothing more than how their worldview allows them to interpret the evidence they have collected. You see, evidence, contrary to popular belief, doesn’t speak for itself. It cannot. The one viewing the evidence must make the evidence say something. It’s very easy to make the evidence appear to gel together nicely and tell the same story from multiple angles if you’re interpreting it in such a way. The topic of the age of the universe/earth has been written about significantly. There are numerous blog posts on this topic on the Worldview Warriors website. If you search the key word “radiometric” on the blog page, you will find several written by Bill Seng, Charlie Wolcott, and myself. My focus in this writing is not to get into the detailed scientific evidence because it’s not the point. The point here is that evidence has no voice but what the investigator gives it. This is entirely true for nearly everything used as evidence to support Darwinism or the Big Bang or origins in general. Please note this is the case for either side of the discussion. Creationists know and are secure enough in their position to admit that creation and evolution are not scientific fields. They are faith-based issues determined by our worldview. Sure, it’s possible to pull out scientific facts that support your ideas—but only if those facts are interpreted to support you. There is a strange belief that evolutionism has a monopoly on scientific facts. This is very odd thing because the facts are not for or against anything. They simply are the facts. There aren’t facts for evolution and facts for creation that we are somehow lobbying for you to view. There are just facts. Creationists use the exact same facts as secularists use. It’s only the interpretation of those facts that differs. I have personally asked an entire group of anti-Biblical persons (some old earth creationists, some theistic evolutionists, some atheists) what it is in science that Biblical creationists reject or deny. The responses, which were numerous, were astounding. The lack of understanding on what science actually is was shocking. The inability to be specific in answering my question was also very telling. Occasionally, I will use these responses as topics for blog posts. Today is touching on one of their answers—the age of the earth as determined by “science.” If we have no frame of reference, forensics is useless. We don’t know when it happened, how it happened, what was involved, nothing. We have no idea, in terms of science, about the origins of the universe, earth, or life. Yet we are told in science texts all about these things. There is a major difference between what a crime scene investigator does and what a person does who is trying to judge the age of these things or how they happened. In forensics, we have a database of evidence we can look at. We know several factors involved. We know how things work and can determine that something either did or did not happen based on experience. In many cases, an eye witness is very useful in solving a crime. But we have little if any of this in the study of origins. We assume a great deal and arrange the evidence conveniently to support our preconceived notions about the topic. Many suppose, because of all the television shows like CSI, Criminal Minds, and NCIS (and so many others), that forensics is a very hard science that frequently provides indisputable evidence for the way a past even occurred. In truth, forensics does solve crimes and is very useful. However, anything is possible on television and the technology used in many of those shows to catch the criminal often only exists in Hollywood. Looking into the past is difficult. Looking into the distant past is more difficult. Looking into the far distant past is nothing more than story telling. Many think that the “evidence” that suggests an old earth or universe is very solid—it’s well established and well tested. This is a farce. The number of holes in the procedures used for this is appalling, and if one is unaware of such discrepancies, they should really look into it. Such an outline is beyond the scope of this post but, as I stated, there are several posts on this topic from the Worldview Warriors as well as countless articles online concerning issues with these forms of dating objects. In short, there is no such thing as “evidence for evolution or the Big Bang” and “evidence for creation.” There is simply just evidence. A young earth creationist will view the evidence in light of his or her belief in creation. An evolutionist will view the evidence to support his or her belief in universal common descent. This is very similar to how a Democrat will have a very different view of how the election in 2012 went vs how a Republican would view the same election. Two students from different schools that battled it out in a basketball game will likely interpret the night’s events very differently. If your team won because of a controversial call by the referee, you would likely view that call differently than someone from the losing team. These facts on the age of the universe or earth are absolutely no different. We, as followers of Christ, have an eyewitness account, and supporting the story told in Genesis 1-11 with science is easy. In fact, I think it’s easier than using it to fit the story of the Big Bang and Darwinism. There truly is no reason for a Christian to adhere to philosophies that contradict the Biblical history told in Genesis. Melding secularism and Christianity never works. If you’re not sure, read Genesis 1 today and see if it’s possible to fit millions or billions of years into it. This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. Any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will be deleted. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature, will be reported to the authorities.
25 comments:
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/a-certain-point-of-view.html
"I will suggest that they, in fact, have no idea how old any of these things are. I will also suggest that to “know” their ages means the person with this “knowledge” is not a scientist or, at least in this instance, is not using the scientific method."
I suggest that the people who refuse to use the scientific method are the young earth creationists who want all rocks or fossils to be much less than 10,000 years old. It is science - not fantasy or some kind of religion or religious text - which has gradually provided a framework for approximately dating these pieces of the natural world. Scientists don't look at any fossils or rocks in isolation, rather they assess them within the wider context of what is already known to be plausible - or implausible - regarding how and when they were formed.
By contrast in this example, it is Steve and those at Worldview Warriors who agree with him who are exercising faith in the biblical sense that all results they disagree with from the various different dating methods (including tree rings and ice cores which can be observed in the present) 'must' be wrong. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1, NIV.)
I disagree with the implied claim that there is no science and every conclusion about the natural world is a faith-based conclusion based on 'worldview' (though you would say such things on a website entitled Worldview Warriors). So would many practising Christians I am sure. And if evidence cannot 'speak', I rather doubt that it could lie - unless you believe in a creator who allows his creation to mislead scientists (I would agree that even if we assume an honest creator sometimes the most obvious interpretation of evidence eg with the BICEP2 episode over the past year has needed to be revised by the science community due to incomplete understandings, and that indeed is how real science proceeds - whereas young earth creationism must 'rule out' for all time certain interpretations on principle regardless of evidence).
cont'd
"I have personally asked an entire group of anti-Biblical persons (some old earth creationists, some theistic evolutionists, some atheists) what it is in science that Biblical creationists reject or deny. The responses, which were numerous, were astounding." Why don't you give your readers an example - assuming you have one - rather than simply condemning everyone else? Whenever I read blogs by committed Christians who are old earth creationists they show in great detail why a young earth creationist interpretation does not fit the evidence and does not appear factual. Whereas many young earth creationist bloggers simply attack in a non-specific manner and fail to provide specific examples that demonstrate how those they disagree with 'must' be wrong in the conclusions they reach in the fields of geology, astronomy or biology.
"Many think that the “evidence” that suggests an old earth or universe is very solid—it’s well established and well tested. This is a farce. The number of holes in the procedures used for this is appalling, and if one is unaware of such discrepancies, they should really look into it. Such an outline is beyond the scope of this post but, as I stated, there are several posts on this topic from the Worldview Warriors as well as countless articles online concerning issues with these forms of dating objects." It would have been useful if you had briefly backed up your controversial claims.
Finally young earth creationism is actually an exercise in denial. With very rare exceptions, you deny that it is possible to correctly interpret evidence to learn anything - or rule anything out - regarding the distant past on this planet. You reject the scientific method when it consistently leads to conclusions that you disagree with. As you do not generally have a better scientific interpretation, you instead talk misleadingly about 'worldviews' and treat the Bible as a source of infallible scientific/natural history even when observations and measurements by scientists don't affirm an infallible Genesis historical account eg the fossil record does not match the chaotic pattern that a worldwide flood as described in Genesis would have resulted in (even if you all claim otherwise - as happened in this blog-related discussion where the blogger has chose to silently censor me without even telling me or anyone else why:
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13235 http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3618)
PS I realise that this blog is addressed to Christians rather than the population at large. If I was still a practising Christian believer I would still have held the views expressed above.
Very good article. I've written and posted several things on how evidence must be interpreted, but I think you went into more detail and explained things rather thoroughly. This should be useful to Christians and to secularists who are willing to think about how they "know" certain things.
I'll be sharing this with the class I teach at church, too.
And this - just seen which is why I am making a further post HERE - is how Mr Sorensen behaves on his own blogs:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2015/03/anti-creationist-bullying-in-worldview.html
(It's publicity Bob.)
Ashley
Thanks for reading and for commenting. You failed to grasp the basic principle of this blog. The truth of the matter is you seem to think science can tell us the age of something no person was around to see long long ago. That's simply a failure on your part to understand what science can and cannot do--one of the points of this post. You believe hard facts are those which are interpreted to agree with a specific theory when that's impossible. If two people can view the same evidence and get very different stories from them...well, that's the entire post in a nut shell. Not only is it possible, it happens all the time all over the world in a variety of fields scientific or otherwise. Only in origins is it not reality. Only in origins is it the Darwinist's way or a fool trying to ignorantly support his religion. Your tree ring/ice core examples are interesting since they have been refuted numerous times for years and years. At any rate, you think this blog is about something it isn't, I guess. Or you're not making your points very well. But the scientific method cannot show you how old a rock is. How can you know a rock is a billion years old? How is the system calibrated? Why are disagreeing results thrown out? Why are the rock layers dated by their fossils and the fossils dated by their rock layers and were so long before radiometrics was used? Why do scientists in the field have to tell the lab what age they're looking for when they submit a sample for dating?
Creationists interpret the evidence --every last little bit of it-- and it fits in the creation theory. There is NO evidence--literally not a single bit--that is denied or ignored. Another point you seem to have missed in the blog. We ALL use the same evidence. How it's interpreted is the difference. It fits perfectly with the creation story. You claim the interpretation is lacking logic and all that. That's nonsense. The evidence fits nicely with creation--all the evidence. One day you may learn a little about how science actually works and what creationists mean and what they say. Any more posts you make that are complaints about other people on other forums will be deleted. We don't have time for games. Thanks for your understanding.
I do understand, as well, that you have likely been hurt by someone or something and you've likely blamed God for that hurt. Pain is very real and understanding how God could allow certain things to happen can be very difficult. I could be wrong about you and I am sorry if I am, but I've seen people like you before and that's their story. They are angry at God for something and don't understand that He sees the big picture and has our best interests in mind. His love is far greater than any hurt we encounter--this is not to lessen a hurt but to show His love is indescribably great. His grace is far more reaching than anything we encounter in this world. He wants you to know Him and rest in Him. That's the bottom line, Ashley. Blessings to you. I'm not giving up on you!
Bob
Thanks, mate. I appreciate it.
We will have to agree to disagree Steve. The young earth creationist position is a rather arrogant (modern) defence of the Bible that involves denials of basic scientific discoveries and robust well-supported theories (which are not atheistic merely at variance with the 2,000 year old plus book of Genesis which is not a science tome anyway). It is a simple fact that Earth could only be 6,000 years old if the natural world is FALSELY and consistently giving dating results for the Earth (and wider universe) that are absolutely VASTLY older.
I am posting what I sincerely believe to be factual. I will not give up on facts - for inflexible religious apologetics. (Unlike you and your friends who clearly believe in a deceptive creation.) And I DO know what you people believe.
It seems that evolution is irrefutable despite the abundant evidence to the contrary, and the recorded deceptions. Yet we are the liars according to some people. Note that nothing in my post was addressed, it was just a weird personal attack on me. Because of that, he feels the need to post here?
Bob's blog post was a weird personal attack on lots and lots of (mostly) unnamed people. I wanted Steve and others to read it - and make up their OWN mind about its contents. However since Bob asks me to be more specific, he complained in his rant about alleged bullying - but failed to show any actual bullying in the real world.
By the way:
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/06/92_percent_say_bill_nye_won_in_christian_today_poll/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/the-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-was-a-nightmare-for-science.html
Having now read this for the first time - thanks to Bob's blog - I think the article is somewhat ill-judged and unnecessarily negative about Nye's performance. Whilst Ham was arguably a 'winner' in getting the debate to actually happen at all, 92% of people (including me) firmly believe that he lost on the night. Which is why he has never dared claim 'victory'. He failed to convince that what Steve argues for above is 'true'. Though of course his fanbase would mostly have made up their mind before the debate even happened.
How can a blog have personal attacks against unnamed people? Although I've had narcissistic people assume that they are the ones being talked about. But let's get back to the topic of the post instead of indulging in railing against creationists and self-indulgent paranoia, shall we?
I now think that Bob was mainly trying in his blog to attack aggressively - by proxy - the Huffington Post and Bill Nye. Since ONE of his links was to a Ken Ham 'sermon' of 27 February attacking them over presidential candidates and over the topic of scientific literacy.
Message just sent to Answers in Genesis:
"https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/political-bullying-and-intimidation-over-evolution/
The Huffington Post was simply stating the obvious that a US President needs to be scientifically literate. Adding: "this is not the time ... to elect a science-denying right-winger to the Presidency".
Whereas Georgia Purdom was putting pressure on a particular potential Republican candidate for the Presidency who avoided a question about evolution. "It is important where he stands on that issue because it's relevant to a lot of other things ...".
If the former is 'bullying' HOW is the latter 'not' bullying?"
Anybody can see that so far I have discussed the actual contents of Steve's blog at much greater length than Bob has. He has said little about it other than he considered it "very good". He did not address the content of my two opening posts.
Ever since AHR got kicked out of that forum, there's been no living with him. Now he has to attack people on blogs.
I don't hide my identity though.
Ashley said, "The young earth creationist position is a rather arrogant (modern) defence of the Bible that involves denials of basic scientific discoveries and robust well-supported theories"---please be specific. My position has always been that Biblical creationists do not deny any scientific facts or ignore any facts. Please indicate which facts you are alleging we stand in the face of. Thank you.
He also said, "It is a simple fact that Earth could only be 6,000 years old if the natural world is FALSELY and consistently giving dating results for the Earth (and wider universe) that are absolutely VASTLY older."
The earth cannot be blamed for intentionally interpreting the data in a specific way. Lyell made the statement that his goal was not scientific in his work but was to remove Moses from geology. You think he was correct, I assume, in his work but would have to agree that, if this is true he was not studying science or being open minded. He was pushing a religion.
The claim is often made that the earth has the appearance of age. To this I say nonsense. What would the earth look like if it was 6000 years old and destroyed by a flood? I think it would look exactly as it does.
You are still not getting the point of most of these discussions which is that this is not science (origins in general). It is philosophy or religion. We both can support our particular ideas with science but neither position is science. If you think this is wrong, you are unaware of what science actually is and can do. That means you'll fall for anything.
Is it scientific to guess about a one time past event that happened under conditions we have no knowledge about at a time we were not around for? If so, please explain.
I do not need to be more 'specific'. Your blog was an example of what I was talking about, Steve. You wrote: "The point here is that evidence has no voice but what the investigator gives it. This is entirely true for nearly everything used as evidence to support Darwinism or the Big Bang or origins in general." You wrote: "This is very odd thing because the facts are not for or against anything. They simply are the facts." You wrote: " Creationists use the exact same facts as secularists use. It’s only the interpretation of those facts that differs." You wrote: "Many think that the “evidence” that suggests an old earth or universe is very solid—it’s well established and well tested. This is a farce. The number of holes in the procedures used for this is appalling, and if one is unaware of such discrepancies, they should really look into it." You wrote: "In short, there is no such thing as “evidence for evolution or the Big Bang” and “evidence for creation.” There is simply just evidence." You wrote (without supporting your bald statement): "We, as followers of Christ, have an eyewitness account, and supporting the story told in Genesis 1-11 with science is easy. In fact, I think it’s easier than using it to fit the story of the Big Bang and Darwinism."
You do not show that the science you claim is 'wrong' IS wrong. You just insist that it is.
You are a classic science DENIER spouting unenlightening 'twaddle'.
I am not having it. In fact I never did (my past Christian belief survived without science denial, and discovering science was only one factor in losing my faith - the serial dishonesty of some Christians and the unfaithfulness of God also being significant).
You are correct that young Earth creationism is not science. However there are too many YECs who suggest that it IS. They call it 'creation science'.
"The earth cannot be blamed for intentionally interpreting the data in a specific way." OK, I'll blame your God for creating a misleading Earth (because YECs CANNOT demonstrate scientifically that mainstream science have 'wrongly' interpreted evidence and data from nature).
Of course if there is no God, Earth cannot have been deliberately misleadingly created ...
"I think it would look exactly as it does." Looks don't count since radiometric dating and other dating methods does not give maximum dates of less than 10,000 years. No way do they do that.
Undersea caves and the Antarctic ice sheet are just TWO disproofs of a 6,000 year old Earth and a global flood 4,500 years ago.
"Is it scientific to guess about a one time past event that happened under conditions we have no knowledge about at a time we were not around for? If so, please explain." The claim by YECs that scientists simply 'guess' is FALSE.
See (and then deny?) the recent blog post by Jon Baker (Christian geologist): http://ageofrocks.org/100-reasons-the-earth-is-old/
//We both can support our particular ideas with science but neither position is science. If you think this is wrong, you are unaware of what science actually is and can do. That means you'll fall for anything.
Is it scientific to guess about//
Where do you get this idea about "both" and "neither"? That implies that there are only two positions. There are infinite possible positions. Can the data be interpreted to show that the earth is 17 trillion years old, or 238 million years old, just as easily as it can be used to show that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? And if so, how is there a consensus* on the 4.5 billion age and not any other age? Why was there not consensus 100 years ago, while there is today? And why is there consensus about the age of the earth, but not about the method of abiogenesis?
*a scientific consensus doesn't mean that 100% of scientists agree on something.
Ashley, I'm not sure how long it will take, but I'm willing to hang in there with you as long as is necessary. You just don't get it at all. You said, "You do not show that the science you claim is 'wrong' IS wrong. You just insist that it is."
I didn't say "science" is wrong. Your interpretation of the facts is wrong. The truth is far from determined by majority vote.
"You are a classic science DENIER spouting unenlightening 'twaddle'."--no. Not at all. I love science. I'm fascinated by it. I always have been. Real science. Not the religion you keep trying to force me to believe is science. This is a religious or philosophical discussion. One great example of why this is true is that I have a religious stance in the matter. How could I have a religious stance if the discussion isn't religious? It's not a scientific battle! NEVER EVER has been. Pleas stop equivocating science with evolution. That is so ignorant of reality. Science is a creationist idea--look at the founders of nearly every branch of it. As a doc I know recently said, "Silly evolutionist. Science is for creationists."
"(my past Christian belief survived without science denial, and discovering science was only one factor in losing my faith - the serial dishonesty of some Christians and the unfaithfulness of God also being significant)."--now we're getting somewhere. Thank you. But, you see, God is faithful and has shown Himself so for thousands of years. In fact, when man was lost and had no way to reconcile his disobedience, God made a way. Science has nothing to do with this. Actually, it's quite simple to use science to back the creationist position. I do it all the time. I need not deny any facts or ignore any facts.
Do me a huge favor and define what you mean when you say "fact" because I think you think it means something different than I do. Creationists aren't science deniers. That's a laughable notion since science owes its existence to creationists. I really wish you'd stop peddling nonsense without any backing. It's a terrible waste of time.
"You are correct that young Earth creationism is not science. However there are too many YECs who suggest that it IS. They call it 'creation science'. "--Again with the total missing of the point. This discussion is not science. At its heart it is philosophical. We can use science to support our case, but that's all. Evolutionism is also not a science. It's a religion. There is no way to explain it otherwise. Please try. I'd love to see it. Creation science is the study of the world from a creationist perspective. It's applying scientific study to the creation. But the debate is not over science as science is neutral. You confuse "science" with "evolution" which is WAY TOO common.
" I'll blame your God for creating a misleading Earth (because YECs CANNOT demonstrate scientifically that mainstream science have 'wrongly' interpreted evidence and data from nature). "--how ironic that a God that doesn't exist is responsible for a made up problem that you have. The earth doesn't look 4.5 billion years old. It looks 6000 years old. That's a very feasible scientific interpretation of the data.
"Looks don't count since radiometric dating and other dating methods does not give maximum dates of less than 10,000 years. No way do they do that. "--if this is true, why did you bring up what the earth looks like? Radiometrics are a farce. There are plenty of ways to date the universe at less than 10000 years. Look them up.
"The claim by YECs that scientists simply 'guess' is FALSE."--you failed to answer my question. So, I guess, in a way, you did answer it. Thanks.
"Undersea caves and the Antarctic ice sheet are just TWO disproofs of a 6,000 year old Earth and a global flood 4,500 years ago."--please explain
"See (and then deny?) the recent blog post by Jon Baker (Christian geologist): http://ageofrocks.org/100-reasons-the-earth-is-old/"--tell me about it and comment on how it applies or don't leave a link. I'm not interested in rabbit trails. You think one paper by one man will end the discussion? Are you serious?
Please try to understand the points of these blogs before continuing to comment.
Thank you, David, for commenting. I appreciate your time and your input. David said "Where do you get this idea about "both" and "neither"? That implies that there are only two positions."--no. it doesn't imply that at all. There are, in fact, only two positions when only two people are discussing it. The broad scope of the topic is: creation or not. But my comment in no way implies there are only ways to interpret the data. In fact, that is essentially the point--there are many ways to do this.
You quoted me but seem to support my position in this blog. So I'm confused but still appreciate your input. As I've stated, I believe even in these comments, that truth is not about popularity. It makes no difference who believes the truth or not.
If you could clear up exactly what you mean, that would be great and thanks!
I DO 'get it' Steve.
Being anti-science - like YECs always are - does not mean that they are not interested in science topics. But they hate the discoveries about the past made by the scientific method.
YECs cannot refute real science so they resort to muddying the waters (for their own fanbase in particular) by embarking upon 'philosophical or religious' discussions.
Science would NOT owe its existence to TODAY's (young Earth) creationists - who are proven science deniers - if they were in charge of it. But they aren't.
And it was you started arguing about 'facts' not me. Perhaps you would care to define the word. Do you agree with a typical dictionary definition of the word (which you may choose)?
This IS in part a debate about what is valid science. Whether you like it or not.
I have said my piece.
But if you keep accusing me of not 'getting it' or keep misrepresenting what I have actually stated eg by falsely accusing me of 'equivocation' I will deal with all your accusations. Charlie grew tired of that. If you insist upon specifics that I may have omitted to provide - then you will receive the 'specifics' (if you really do want me to provide them).
Earth does NOT look like it is 6,000 years old. As I have already elaborated upon. "Radiometrics are a farce". Totally untrue, science denier. You could try 'Radiometric dating: a Christian perspective'. Unless of course you don't want to.
I should probably have written "Looks alone don't count ...". An arguable error on my part yesterday that you apparently failed to notice. I gave two examples of 'looks' - as well as mathematical dating methods. Caves can only form ABOVE sea level. Did you not know that? And sea levels don't rise (or fall) 'overnight'. And the Antarctic ice cap CANNOT have built up in under 5,000 years.
"Look them up". I already did.
I also saw what happened when such a list got REFUTED [links follow due to current computer problems]:
The answer to your question - which you claim I ignored - is 'yes'. Science has uncovered past unseen natural events (though sadly for you not a literally worldwide flood less than 5,000 years ago). I am not saying that getting answers is easy or quick. Because science is time-consuming and sometimes hard, that is why I oppose science deniers.
You avoid the real points and instead accuse ME of doing that (or 'not' understanding).
YECs always behave much as you do when challenged!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe
http://creation.com/atheistic-opposition-response
"In fact, that is essentially the point--there are many ways to do this.
...
If you could clear up exactly what you mean, that would be great and thanks!"
Let's assume your view that accepting on not accepting a literal Genesis is driven by philosophy.
Let's look at scientists who do not feel the need to accept a completely literal Genesis.
These scientists come from a variety of nations, cultures, religions, and political viewpoints. As far as I'm aware, all of them accept that the best interpretation of the evidence is that the earth is ~4.54 billion years old. What leads these scientists from a wide variety of backgrounds to accept the same age, if not science? A rejection of the Bible does not directly lead to the acceptance of a ~4.54 billion year old earth. One could even reject the Bible as a valid source for evidence and still come to a conclusion that agrees with the Bible.
Post a Comment