Evidence for God from Science

Well it matters in that it cannot be all of those ages. As I said it matters little to my conclusion that the earth has always been here from man's perspective. I am not the authority on what God meant to say, nor would I try to put words in God's mouth. I feel he meant to say exactley what he said, which is why I am a proponnent of plain reading and reject the idea that it was dumbed down, or that we need to inject our own wisdom into what God wrote.

Yes, it does have to be one of those ages. And yes, no one knows for sure what age it is, besides God. And you don't know if Genesis was just an abstract story of what REALLY happened. It sure doesn't sound like a detailed or intellectual account as it has few details and no explanations on how things got the way they are today.

I ask you, how would God explain modern scientific processes to an ancient Man who knew nothing of anything besides that they lived in the Middle East (if they even called it that back then).

I don't place my faith in scietific theory, not my own feeble attempts at explanation, nor popular science.

so, all of the evidence means nothing to you? If God created us in his image and yet you have no faith whatsoever in the reasoning/thinking process of your fellow man, then you should have an equal lack of faith in Man's ability to interpret the Bible correctly.

These forces that explain observations don't require the earth to be 6 billion years old, any more than they require the earth to be 2,422,693 years 4 months 12 days and 14.2 hours. Now it is plain to see that popular science attempts to show how plate tectonics could have worked during the last 6 billion years, but these are simple conclusions and interpretations based upon a foregone conclusion.

yes, you are correct that we can't nail events that happened that long ago into a day/hour time scale. We never will be able to "confirm" any of this, which is unfortunate. But np reject it all out of hand is ignoring the mountains of evidence that point to an old Earth. The age of the Earth was not always the same. It started out being thousands, then millions, then billions, and we've finally set the limit at 4.6 billion (not 6). This value, and all the values in between, are supported by radiometric dating, rock composition, fossil composition, and also the rates of plate movement. Plate tectonics has been proven to occurr as we can see plates subducting and rifting right now. Extrapolation of those movements is perfectly OK because those rates have no, and could not have changed in the past. If you think they can, please tell me how they could have?

I was not aware I was attacking, perhaps I have been over flamboyant in voicing that I don't see the requirement for it to be 6 billion years because we see observations. Conclusions and explanations are not evidence. I'm not certian what observation you refer to that make it painfully obvious that the earth is not 6000 years old. In any event why the restriction from 6 billion years clear back to 6000 years? Would it also be painfully obvious that the earth is not 250,000 years old

sorry, I didn't mean YOU were attacking, I meant the YEC's in general. I didn't think you were in that camp.

I find it funny that you say "conclusions don't make evidence" and you are attempting to defend YEC! YEC is the poster-child for this fallacy. Science is forced to extrapolate into the past because we can't possible confirm the past in the present. This is perfecly logical to do because we base our extrapolations off of what we see right now. That's the best we can do. Scientists don't pull names/dates out of a hat, they are well supported by evidence.

If you reject science for these reasons, then you must reject YEC for the same reason. If you accept YEC, then you can't criticize OEC or evolution for that same reason or you make yourself a hypocrit. YEC ALSO lacks the present-day evidence so they must make up even wilder stories (runaway subduction, canopy theory, hydroplate) with no evidence or even a feasible mechanism!

These are not evidence, they are interpretations driven by capitulation to other unproven theories. Correlation of similar fossils at two places doesn't require the causation you suggest. Too much of "evidence" is found in discussions of scientific experimentation. I would suggest that theoies are cheap and easily taint further research.

Again, YEC is based on the unproven theories you speak of. If YEC and Old Earth are wrought by the same problems, then what do you suppose we do about learning about our past? Is there a better alternative that has provable evidence?

And the fossil thing is very good evidence. The Tethys Sea extended across several of the current continents and they had a distinctive shallow-water fauna. If Everest is capped by these fossils, it is logical to assume that the peak of Everest rose out of the Tethys Sea. Ignoring dates altogether, we know that this Tethys fauna was distinct from fossils found in the time of the dinosaurs and also distinct from fossils found in the current Indian Ocean. From levels of sea level rise and fall associated with Ice Ages we can place the Tethys in a certain timeframe. From the current rates of plate drift, we can extrapolate that movement back when India and Asia collided. Since the plate movment, fossil, and dating methods all agreed to a timeframe given, it is reasonable to conclude that it happened in that fashion.

YES, the date is not exact. There is an "error bar" of millions of years for these estimates sometimes. But it's the best we have right now. Things may change in the future as we discover new things.

Hi NewCreature2, welcome to the forum...

Did you go by "newcreature" before? I believe you stated previously (as newcreature) that you were new to Christianity. I can't speak for most Christians, but I know from experience that YEC is usually what we first fall into when we get our feet wet. I'm not attacking you, but have you looked into all the evidence from science and scripture that OEC offers?

Thanks, no need to reply if you don't wish to.

Blessings...

I guess I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with it. Since the old age of the earth is accepted further research is interpreted as if it were a fact lending credence to what should otherwise be considered speculation and theory.

There is very little evidnce of any kind whatsoever to indicate the earth is a particular age. The vast majority of so called evidence has indeed risen from philosophical assumptions that the earth is extrememly old. Since EVERYTHING is being interpreted as if the world is old, then what we now know it to be true?

IT is simple to say their are mountians of evidence, care to share any of it. LEts start with Everest in this thread and perhaps branch out. What observation on everest requires the earth to be more than say 50,000 years?

Right on. There is not testable evidence or any substansive evidence for earth structures like mountains etc.
If they had it they would press the evidence to all audiences.
If such great conclusions of earth age are being made then the evidence must likewise be great. Not just a hunch. Of coarse creationism has a actual eyewitness and s a intellectual advantage on the truth of origins. So we can carefully show why old earth ages are without solid foundation
Rob byers

Robert Byers wrote:

I guess I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with it. Since the old age of the earth is accepted further research is interpreted as if it were a fact lending credence to what should otherwise be considered speculation and theory.

There is very little evidnce of any kind whatsoever to indicate the earth is a particular age. The vast majority of so called evidence has indeed risen from philosophical assumptions that the earth is extrememly old. Since EVERYTHING is being interpreted as if the world is old, then what we now know it to be true?

IT is simple to say their are mountians of evidence, care to share any of it. LEts start with Everest in this thread and perhaps branch out. What observation on everest requires the earth to be more than say 50,000 years?

Right on. There is not testable evidence or any substansive evidence for earth structures like mountains etc.
If they had it they would press the evidence to all audiences.
If such great conclusions of earth age are being made then the evidence must likewise be great. Not just a hunch. Of coarse creationism has a actual eyewitness and s a intellectual advantage on the truth of origins. So we can carefully show why old earth ages are without solid foundation
Rob byers

1. By arguing against evidence for an old earth you in effect undermine any understanding of the age of the earth to where the YEC scientific claims at best can be called disingenuous. I think it says something when addressing old earth evidence the strategy is not to refute it directly but to make a general claim to unreliability of data. If that's the case the best claim you can make then in turn there is no scientific basis for making any claim as to the age of the earth. Interestingly enough, the science that establishes the age of the earth is relied upon to predict future behavior in medicine, physics etc is received and relied upon by YEC proponents with little thought to the irony.

2. Are you making the claim that Genesis establishes a young earth? Can you positively demonstrate that?

I would like to add here is that there would be NO YEC scientific claims at all if it wasn't for a skewed interpretation of Genesis... The whole argument is based on a misunderstanding of the texts and not really science itself. This is what the proponents are advocating... It's "what does the Bible says first and THEN we go to science."

Unfortunately, no one dares to question Genesis or it's meaning... It declares YEC, that settles it, end of discussion... Period...

Of coarse creationism has a actual eyewitness and s a intellectual advantage on the truth of origins.

the funny part is that's he's serious...

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:

I guess I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with it. Since the old age of the earth is accepted further research is interpreted as if it were a fact lending credence to what should otherwise be considered speculation and theory.

There is very little evidnce of any kind whatsoever to indicate the earth is a particular age. The vast majority of so called evidence has indeed risen from philosophical assumptions that the earth is extrememly old. Since EVERYTHING is being interpreted as if the world is old, then what we now know it to be true?

IT is simple to say their are mountians of evidence, care to share any of it. LEts start with Everest in this thread and perhaps branch out. What observation on everest requires the earth to be more than say 50,000 years?

Right on. There is not testable evidence or any substansive evidence for earth structures like mountains etc.
If they had it they would press the evidence to all audiences.
If such great conclusions of earth age are being made then the evidence must likewise be great. Not just a hunch. Of coarse creationism has a actual eyewitness and s a intellectual advantage on the truth of origins. So we can carefully show why old earth ages are without solid foundation
Rob byers

1. By arguing against evidence for an old earth you in effect undermine any understanding of the age of the earth to where the YEC scientific claims at best can be called disingenuous. I think it says something when addressing old earth evidence the strategy is not to refute it directly but to make a general claim to unreliability of data. If that's the case the best claim you can make then in turn there is no scientific basis for making any claim as to the age of the earth. Interestingly enough, the science that establishes the age of the earth is relied upon to predict future behavior in medicine, physics etc is received and relied upon by YEC proponents with little thought to the irony.

2. Are you making the claim that Genesis establishes a young earth? Can you positively demonstrate that?

Its its unreliable then its unreliable. What is unreliable is not the data of the planet but the methods used to interpretate it. It is your side that claims it uses science accurately in making old earth conclusions. This is what is wrong right off the start. We can take on any "evidence" of old earthism but first things first.

Robert Byers wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:

I guess I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with it. Since the old age of the earth is accepted further research is interpreted as if it were a fact lending credence to what should otherwise be considered speculation and theory.

There is very little evidnce of any kind whatsoever to indicate the earth is a particular age. The vast majority of so called evidence has indeed risen from philosophical assumptions that the earth is extrememly old. Since EVERYTHING is being interpreted as if the world is old, then what we now know it to be true?

IT is simple to say their are mountians of evidence, care to share any of it. LEts start with Everest in this thread and perhaps branch out. What observation on everest requires the earth to be more than say 50,000 years?

Right on. There is not testable evidence or any substansive evidence for earth structures like mountains etc.
If they had it they would press the evidence to all audiences.
If such great conclusions of earth age are being made then the evidence must likewise be great. Not just a hunch. Of coarse creationism has a actual eyewitness and s a intellectual advantage on the truth of origins. So we can carefully show why old earth ages are without solid foundation
Rob byers

1. By arguing against evidence for an old earth you in effect undermine any understanding of the age of the earth to where the YEC scientific claims at best can be called disingenuous. I think it says something when addressing old earth evidence the strategy is not to refute it directly but to make a general claim to unreliability of data. If that's the case the best claim you can make then in turn there is no scientific basis for making any claim as to the age of the earth. Interestingly enough, the science that establishes the age of the earth is relied upon to predict future behavior in medicine, physics etc is received and relied upon by YEC proponents with little thought to the irony.

2. Are you making the claim that Genesis establishes a young earth? Can you positively demonstrate that?

Its its unreliable then its unreliable. What is unreliable is not the data of the planet but the methods used to interpretate it. It is your side that claims it uses science accurately in making old earth conclusions. This is what is wrong right off the start. We can take on any "evidence" of old earthism but first things first.

The methods to interpret it are the same methods that support much of the scientific advances that undergird many of the advances that you and I both benefit.

But first things first as you say. Old Earth Creationism is based first in Scripture and not science. I asked you to demonstrate a young earth from the Scripture and you've avoided the question. Do you take the same evasive technique there or do you have a position you can demonstrate and defend?

Canuckster
I don't like this stuff as it is clear that the things of the world, according to the bible, are young.

The bible says days for creation. The bible says all was perfect. So no death or choas on the planet/universe to cause death and fossilize it. The fall came and a exact dating of mans history from that.
The old age stuff is not from the bible but from incompetent interpretations of people who can't heal themselves.
The bible presents to the reader its a young world. If one does not believe in the bible then surely one must accept the human authors expected their audience to understand the short time span is meant. Surely a human author didn't expect the audience to imagine millions of years from this text. What would be the point of this invention?

The big thing however if the death thing. All evidence of old life is based on the remains of life in fossil form. The death/decay of everything only came since the fall. This is well dated from Adams age.

Robert Byers wrote:Canuckster
I don't like this stuff as it is clear that the things of the world, according to the bible, are young.

The bible says days for creation. The bible says all was perfect. So no death or choas on the planet/universe to cause death and fossilize it. The fall came and a exact dating of mans history from that.
The old age stuff is not from the bible but from incompetent interpretations of people who can't heal themselves.
The bible presents to the reader its a young world. If one does not believe in the bible then surely one must accept the human authors expected their audience to understand the short time span is meant. Surely a human author didn't expect the audience to imagine millions of years from this text. What would be the point of this invention?

The big thing however if the death thing. All evidence of old life is based on the remains of life in fossil form. The death/decay of everything only came since the fall. This is well dated from Adams age.

Repeating your claims is not establishing them. Please demonstrate from the scriptures that the earth is young.

I don't like this stuff as it is clear that the things of the world, according to the bible, are young.

no, it is painfully clear that everything on this Earth is old, and very old at that. Please tell me what about this Earth is young to you and the evidence to back it up.

The bible says days for creation.

does it say anywhere that a Genesis "day" was a 24 hour event. If not, you don't know how long the day is.

The bible says all was perfect. So no death or choas on the planet/universe to cause death and fossilize it. The fall came and a exact dating of mans history from that.

so, if Man's histry is dated SINCE the Fall, so man didn't exist BEFORE it? Do you believe anything existed before the fall? Because if things existed, there HAD to be death. What did everything eat? And please don't say plants because plants are living things too and they die if you eat them.

The old age stuff is not from the bible but from incompetent interpretations of people who can't heal themselves.

as opposed to your incompetent interpretations? Yes, all of the most gifted scientific minds in the world are incompetent and Mr. Byers is the only genius left. Please...

The bible presents to the reader its a young world. If one does not believe in the bible then surely one must accept the human authors expected their audience to understand the short time span is meant. Surely a human author didn't expect the audience to imagine millions of years from this text. What would be the point of this invention?

Surely? Did you talk to them one on one? Did they even understand what they were writing down. Did they make it all up? You, me, and no one on this Earth knows what God or these writers meant.

Please show where exactly in the Bible it says the world is young (6000 years old). Does it say "6,000" anywhere in there, or 4000 BC, anything! Even if you use the Adam and Eve timeline, you are just left with the human side. There has been lots of life that has not ever lived with a human. Where is that timeline in the Bible?

The big thing however if the death thing. All evidence of old life is based on the remains of life in fossil form. The death/decay of everything only came since the fall. This is well dated from Adams age.

we have fossils from the earliest beginnings of single-celled life until the present. Where in geologic time is this Fall inserted in the existing fossil record?

Himan (etc)
Here we go again with the same entry level stuff about origins.
If the bible is the source then its the source.
It says what it says and expects the reader to understand its clear meaning. Yes one can read into it but also not read into it.
There was no death for animated life. Plants etc were clearly said to bew food. Animals were not to eat animals so that there would be no death in that area. The whole concept of death is a rejection of Gods plan for creation and eternity. This is common Christian belief. The creation was cursed at the fall and not before.
The bible doesn't say there was death before and there is no evidence on earth now that there was. All evidence can be interpretated from a Biblical view as I do here.

With no death then all fossilized creatures are after the fall and since there is no processes or time then its the flood event which froze almost all known fossils. Save some post flood events.

do you have any evidence a ernest thinking person could be awed by showing a old earth from geology etc?>
If its clear tro you then give a few killer points.
Its all after the fact evidence you know

Robert Byers wrote:Himan (etc)
Here we go again with the same entry level stuff about origins.

Yes, here we go again because you refuse to engage, you simply repeat youself

byers wrote: If the bible is the source then its the source.

Nobody disagrees that the Bible is truth and the ultimate source

byers wrote: It says what it says and expects the reader to understand its clear meaning.

IN the HEbrew Yom can mean long periods of days, it IS clear

byers wrote: Yes one can read into it but also not read into it.

Understanding the meanings of Yom is not hard nor stretching the meaning of the language. We are not "reading into in" (unless you mean studying it)

byers wrote: do you have any evidence a ernest thinking person could be awed by showing a old earth from geology etc?>
If its clear tro you then give a few killer points.
Its all after the fact evidence you know

I have provided the link in orevious posts but since you "don't do homework" I will paste it here

God's Creation Proclaims Minimum Age of the Universe (yrs.)
Deuterium abundance and mass density 19 billion
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect 18 billion
Nucleochronology (decay of radioactive nuclides) 17 billion
Anthropic principles 17 billion
Star color luminosity fitting (Chaboyer) 14 billion
Expansion of the universe (WMAP) 13.7 billion
Galaxy lenses time delay (Saha) 13.5 billion
Age of oldest stars (U/Th, U/Ir, Th/Eu, and Th/Os dating) 13.2 billion
Spectral line of Uranium-238 (half-life=4.5 billion years) (Cayrel) 12.5 billion
Supernova standard candles (Watson) 12 billion
Globular Clusters (Chaboyer, Peterson, D'Antona) 12 billion
Gravitational lensing (Kundic, Falco) 11 billion
Light travel-time based on quasar-light source 10 billion
Cepheids (Freedman) 9 billion
Expanding photosphere (Schmidt) 9 billion
Star stream interactions in galaxies 8 billion
Geometric measurement to the quasar 3C 279 (Homan) 5.9 billion
Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion
Age of meteorites 4.5 billion
Accumulation of space dust on the moon ( measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion
Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion
Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion
Age of earth rocks 4 billion
Length of days of coral fossils (coral reference) 370 million
Accumulation of sodium in the oceans (sodium reference) 260 million
Rate of continental drift to form the the Atlantic Ocean 200 million
Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom 80 million
Erosion of the Grand Canyon 25 million
Geometric measurement to the galaxy NGC4258 (Hernstein) 23.5 million
Carbonate deposits: The Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida, has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick (Anselmetti) 12.4 million
There are sedimentary rock formations on Mars that are over 4 kilometers thick. Such layers would require tens to hundreds of millions of years of running water to form. In addition there must have been millions of years for all the water to have disappeared, since Mars is now extremely dry. (View pictures from the article) (Malin) 10 million
Ooids (small spheroidal bodies): Formation for adding many layers of mineral deposits involves massive time elements. (Algeo) >7 million
The Green River annual layers (alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers) 4 million
Geometric measurement to the galaxy M33 (Brunthaler) 2.4 million
Evaporites: When bodies of salt water are trapped so that circulation is limited, evaporation produces precipitation of calcium carbonate, then calcium sulfate and finally calcium chloride out of the water. Each layer takes several years to form. The Delaware Basin formation is 1,300 feet thick, consisting of 200,000 layers, requiring at least 600,000 years to form. The Mediterranean Sea floor is underlain by about 7,000 feet of evaporites, requiring millions of years to form and evaporation of a 60 miles depth of salt water. >3 million
Length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays (extinct volcanoes in Nevada) 830,000
Huge stalactites, stalagmites, and columns in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico (Carlsbad reference) 500,000
Vostok ice core in Antarctica (Petit) 420,000
Thickness of coral reefs 130,000
Organic banks (The Capitan Reef of West Texas, 2,000 feet thick in places, with fossilized remains of organisms.) 100,000
Radiocarbon dating of wood (upper limit of dating method) 50,000
Bristlecone pine trees in California 10,000
Dolomite formation: Replacement of calcium carbonate particles in lime sediment or lime rock gives strong evidence of vast amounts of time required. Rate is as slow as 200 million years/mm. (Arvidson)

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... verse.html

YEs there is plenty of evidence from all parts of the universe, including geology that an ernest thinker could feast upon. (If they actually look at it)

Here we go again with the same entry level stuff about origins.

if this is so entry level then why do you not understand this concept?

If the bible is the source then its the source.
It says what it says and expects the reader to understand its clear meaning. Yes one can read into it but also not read into it.

OK, so blindly follow the Bible and don't think for yourself... got it.

There was no death for animated life. Plants etc were clearly said to bew food. Animals were not to eat animals so that there would be no death in that area. The whole concept of death is a rejection of Gods plan for creation and eternity. This is common Christian belief. The creation was cursed at the fall and not before.
The bible doesn't say there was death before and there is no evidence on earth now that there was. All evidence can be interpretated from a Biblical view as I do here.

you stated yourself that there was NO death before the fall. You do not answer my question.

1. So sponges, coral, stalked crinoids, fungus, oysters, etc are all examples of "non-animated" life. So they are plants then?
2. Animals ate plants, so they killed them which equals death. You contradict yourself.
3. Can you prove that plants are not considered living things? Are their cells any less alive than ours?

Simply the point that all life must eat to sustain life refutes what you said. That's all the evidence I need to refute you and I barely need to even go any further.

With no death then all fossilized creatures are after the fall and since there is no processes or time then its the flood event which froze almost all known fossils. Save some post flood events.

there has been constant sedimentation and rock formation/destruction events for the whole history of this planet. As long as you have running water, ice and air/wind you will have erosion. This eroded material accumulates, compacts, and turns into rock over long periods of time. Care to refute this statement? If you deny it you say that the Earth had no water, rain, air, water masses, ice, snow, and glaciers in the pre-flood world.

I also ask you to provide evidence of how a single flood could organize the fossils we see today. i dare you! The flood was local, not global. I suggest you look at GMan's thread "Evidence for a local flood".

do you have any evidence a ernest thinking person could be awed by showing a old earth from geology etc?>
If its clear tro you then give a few killer points.

look at the post above. But to make it painfully easy for you...
1. take the example that the continents are drifting at a constant, slow, and known rate and that the continents have been in the same position for 4000 years. That is 2/3 of your entire available timescale! We know that the continents have been in a number of configurations over the past few billion years. They have split, rejoined, split, and joined again and this is all evident in the geologic record. How do you account for all of these configurations in the first 2000 years of your YEC timeline and what was the mechanism of this movement.
2. look at the Ice cores and cores from the bottom of Lake Tanjanyika. Ice cores count hundreds of thousands of years of melt cycles and freeze cycles. If you don't but that, the bottom of the African Rift Valley (tanjanyika) shows tens of thousands of years of dry and wet seasons. So even if the record isn't 100% correct is still shows well more than 6000 years no matter how you look at it.
3. We have human civilization in Mesopotamia, China, and African that dates back to 6-7 thousand years. These were farming, settled group of people that left records. What about the numerous thousands of years of nomadic, hunter-gatherer humans? Obviously they existed before the agricultural revolution! They also had technology inferior in quality to later cultures and lived besides animals that did not survive into modern times. Where did they fit in?
4. Dating methods. Complain all you want but the science is solid and the results corroborate the scientific theories.
5. Biodiversity. Look at the fossil record. We have billions of species known from the various eras of the fossil record. Think logically here and imagine if all of these animals were alive at the same time. The planet's biosphere could not support all of that life, plain and simple. Look what happened when humans arrived on this planet, all of the megafuana went extinct within a few thousand years.
6. Stratigraphy. Humans and their bones only exist in the uppermost layers of rock and nowhere else. If humans all died with the dinos and trilobites in this "global flood", it all should be laying in the fossil record in the SAME SPOT. But this isn't found anywhere, is it Mr Byers?
7. Evolution, even microevolution, is very slow. It requires a long period of time to produce new forms. Unless you'd like to show some examples of new species springing up as we speak Robert? This post-Flood microevolution produced marsupials from placentals in 10-100 years, right Robert? Care to set up an experiment using the scientific method to prove this?

Himan etc.
I said geology. Not haveing geologic evidence is my whole point. However you had a few.
The continents moving is not evidence of how they got to their present position. Creationism accepts and loves continental evidence of movement. We just say it was fast during the flood year. Your not witnessing the movement but only extrapolating back from perceived movement today. The movement today could be just a settling issue or a rocking back and forth or minor directional movement from the vestiges of the engine that broke the land up.
To me it is more obvious that the continents separated exactly as we see them. A sudden breakup.
You have no evidence here for a old earth but mere interpretation of data. No science method here going on.

The ice or any thing like this again was not witnessed and can be dismissed as evidence because other ideas for the varves etc can be thought up. This is not scientific evidence as it can not be tested. Any thing like this can have variables affecting in the unobserved past.

These are not killer points or even very good. Entry level too. Why should anyone be persuaded by these that there is geological evidence for a old earth. Its all untestable and premused to bits.