Well yes, some things are mysteries. But the age of the Earth is not one of them. We know exactly how old the Earth is, to within an error margin of just ±1%.
Well yes, but God created a real world which contains vast quantities of detailed, intricate and self-consistent evidence for 4.54±0.05 billion years of history, with specific events happening at specific places and specific times with specific causes and specific effects. There are details of the evidence that we see in nature that have no discernible purpose whatsoever in the present day other than to act as evidence for that comprehensive and detailed history.
This is the thing. Omphalists seriously underestimate just how extensive, how self-consistent, how detailed, how unambiguous, how specific, and how insistent the evidence is. It is that level of detail, self-consistency and specificity that leads us to conclude that if the Earth were any age other than 4.54±0.05 billion years, then the evidence would be deceptive.
The problem here is that everyone is trusting their assumptions to be correct – regarding the age of fossils, regarding the age of the earth, regarding the ultimate age of the universe. I don’t understand why scientists aren’t willing to readily admit that science does a great job resolving problems relative to issues to which the scientific method may be applied; however, science is overreaching when it attempts to involve itself in making determinations about the unrepeatable events of unrecorded history. Perhaps you are trusting the “consensus,” but when the consensus is tightly controlled by a cabal that is less interested in truth than in advancing a materialistic worldview, I don’t think that consensus is worthy of absolute trust.
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.
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
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
90
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?
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…
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.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
99
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.