New genetic research allegedly time periods for YEC

The age of the Earth is measured, not assumed. The chemistry of rock and crystal formation is observed, not assumed. The half life of isotopes and their decay products is measured, not assumed. The ratios of these isotopes in igneous rocks is measured, not assumed.

Events in the past can leave evidence in the present which can be tested with the scientific method. Empirical evidence from past events is well within science’s wheelhouse.

Unfounded conspiracy theories don’t make the scientific evidence go away. If you think scientists are lying, then present the evidence that they are lying. Otherwise, I would be careful about making such accusations.

2 Likes

The reason why you don’t understand why scientists aren’t willing to readily admit these things is that you don’t understand what scientists actually do. In particular, they don’t make the kind of assumptions that you think they make, and the assumptions that they do make are not as untestable as you think they are. There are ways that historical assumptions can be tested that don’t require you to have “been there.” In particular, different measurements can be cross-checked against each other, and different methods can be used to make testable predictions.

Here’s an example:

But in the case of the age of the Earth, the consensus isn’t “tightly controlled by a cabal that is less interested in truth than in advancing a materialistic worldview.” It is determined by people who need to know the ages of rock layers accurately in order to do such things as find oil. They have to produce age determinations that are correct rather than ideologically convenient, for the simple reason that if they didn’t, they would end up drilling in all the wrong places and wasting a lot of money in the process. “Materialistic worldviews” have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I’m sorry, but as @T_aquaticus says, the idea that the age of the Earth is tightly controlled by some cabal or other is nothing more nor less than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory – and in fact, as far as conspiracy theories are concerned it is probably the most implausible and far-fetched one there is by a very large margin. The number of people who would have to be complicit in it is enormous. You’re talking about hundreds of thousands if not millions of geologists and former geologists, including graduate students, retirees and those who have made career moves to other industries who no longer have any skin in the game. All these people would have to be not just falsifying data but doing so in a tightly co-ordinated way to produce the amount of consilience that we see in the data. I’m sorry, but conspiracies on that scale simply do not happen. Period.

5 Likes

I don’t understand why God would create as if He didn’t. Nothing whatsoever in nature requires Him as an explanation. The only thing He might explain is existence itself. If there were any other warrant for believing in Him at all. Is there?

Certainly not.

Something cannot come from nothing. Material cannot come from immaterial of its own accord, randomly. Life cannot emerge from non-life, randomly, absent an intelligent outside force.

A cursory observation of the universe tells us that it is irrational to deny the existence of God – the beauty of the sunset; the pleasure of tasty foods; the morality that even the immoral cannot escape. Everywhere one looks, regardless of their worldview, sends the inescapable message that God exists.

Romans 1:18ff:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…

There is Maggie, and manifold others (George Müeller?) who would say there is, for similar reasons, myself included.

Yeah, eye worms, they sure declare His glory.

There has never been nothing. God or no.

And it’s fascinating that you miss the only possible warrant.

If you have research demonstrating this I think we would all be interested in seeing it.

1 Like

You purport to be the scientists here – show me the research. It’s 2021 – surely you’ve figured it out by now.

I don’t know of any research demonstrating that life can not arise from non-life.

There’s a lot that science hasn’t figured out. It doesn’t seem rational to me that we declare something is impossible just because we haven’t figure it out yet.

That’s kind of like saying that gravity is misunderstood.

The thing is, or rather, here’s the thing; rationality doesn’t have to disprove magic. Physicalism lacks nothing at all, even in its inexorably shrinking empirical gaps, in explaining everything. That’s everything. As in everything.

Except that your presuppositions presume (as in too much) pre-big bang.

Maybe you should visit Why There is No Proof of God.

Which is why I believe the earth to be genuinely billions of years old.

I’m interested as to why this is your perception, and why you would think that only those who subscribe to a materialistic worldview which excludes God would admit to an ancient Earth. Just because Christian scientists who are employed by apologetic ministries or are on the speaking circuit are creationists, that does not mean that Christians in industry, academics or research are generally so. My own experience is that of the Evangelical Christians I know who are working scientists or applied scientists, all subscribe to more or less the mainstream account of the universe and life on Earth, and none are YEC. These are people who work directly with the evidence in their fields, they do not need to be told what to think, by a cabal or otherwise. The majority of evangelical university science departments also have no argument with the consensus.

It isn’t. It is based on evidence, which with some effort, is available to anyone.

6 Likes

It is my experience that scientists in general could not care less about world views, materialistic or metaphysical. They are interested in the wonder of science and the discovery of what was previously unknown. Christians in science are far more often persecuted by those in the church than from their fellow scientists of whatever or no religious conviction.

1 Like

It has always been my understanding that scientists are constrained from considering any supernatural explanations or evidences for “intelligent design.” In most cases, scientists in the academy who are open to non-materialistic explanations, including biblical ones, are discharged before reaching tenure. Do you disagree?

Perhaps these Christians hold to different views in private? Certainly, it would extremely damaging to anyone’s career as a serious scientist to admit that they rejected scientific dogma regarding the age of the universe, etc. I don’t understand why that isn’t obvious.

No, I just think they understand that the Bible doesn’t conflict with science, so there is no such thing as supernatural science.

1 Like

I believe that science will never be able to do any of the following:

Produce something from nothing;
Produce biological life from non-organic material;
Produce intelligent life from non-intelligent life.