Evidence for God from Science

I guess my question is mainly to YECs:

Why are scientists so sure that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old?
("I don't know" is an acceptable answer.)

Note: I'm not asking why the Earth is young.

There aren't that many YEC people here, but maybe you'll get one to show up to answer you - I guess.

The age of Earth according to the Wikipedia community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

harth1026 wrote:The age of Earth according to the Wikipedia community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Your reference is good. However, I was wondering whether any YEC understands
that reasoning, and hence why scientists have little doubt about the Earth's age.

For example, do you understand the reasoning in your Age_of_the_Earth reference?
And if so, do you have any doubt?

My guess is that YECs do not understand those dating methods, but I'd like to be shown wrong.

The comparisons in tree rings of living and dead bristle cone pines, and ice core samples from the polar regions, are also strong evidence of Earth to be older than 6000/10,000 years... and for some reason these methods seem even more convincing to me than carbon 14, radiometric, etc. dating methods..

IgoFan wrote:Your reference is good. However, I was wondering whether any YEC understands
that reasoning, and hence why scientists have little doubt about the Earth's age.

For example, do you understand the reasoning in your Age_of_the_Earth reference?
And if so, do you have any doubt?

My guess is that YECs do not understand those dating methods, but I'd like to be shown wrong.

There is no question that the earth is old.... The only real supporters of YEC is a small group of Christians that apparently think that the Bible states that the earth and all it's inhabitants was literally created in six days, therefore any contradictory evidence for this will not be tolerated even if it is convincing evidence... This link below explains some of your questions, we can reveal more evidence latter as needed as well..

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

Gman wrote:

IgoFan wrote:Your reference is good. However, I was wondering whether any YEC understands
that reasoning, and hence why scientists have little doubt about the Earth's age.

For example, do you understand the reasoning in your Age_of_the_Earth reference?
And if so, do you have any doubt?

My guess is that YECs do not understand those dating methods, but I'd like to be shown wrong.

There is no question that the earth is old.... The only real supporters of YEC is a small group of Christians that apparently think that the Bible states that the earth and all it's inhabitants was literally created in six days, therefore any contradictory evidence for this will not be tolerated even if it is convincing evidence... This link below explains some of your questions, we can reveal more evidence latter as needed as well..

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

Thank you for the reference; I should have found that myself.
And thanks everyone for the insight that YEC may not be as prevalent as I had thought.

Do you think that any self-respecting YEC would bother submitting themselves to your little test? The premise is downright offensive, as if the only reason a person would hold the position is due to ignorance of the prevailing model's reasoning. That's the kind of attitude that keeps the divide far and wide.

I don't want to speak for the OP'er but there are some OE'ers who honestly are in the dark about why YEC believe that. One of our teachers who grew up OEC and went to a Chrsitain universtiy was taught by all OEC professors in the science classes and our HS was the first real time she was ever exposed to dogmatic YEC. She was borderline thunderstruck that we have parents who will argue about it.

NOw from his profile, the OPer is not a Christian and so perhaps his motive is as you say. Just offering another perspective.

From the conversations I have had, the responses mostly are 1) the science is wrong and the science is wrong because 2) the scientists are biased or 3) the scientists have fallen from grace and are not following the scriptures

I've been a YEC proponent in the past. I won't presume to speak for all of them, anymore than I speak for all OEC's.

There is a significant portion of YEC supporters who hold the position because their world view and biblical interpretation demand it. It's not based upon evidence but upon faith. Some of that persuasion then assume that it is their responsibility to provide alternative views or explanations for the scientific evidence. It's therefore a reverse approach that scientifically assumes a conclusion and therefore arranges all the evidence to support those conclusions. If and when those constructs fail, they move onto other plausible or implausible explanations. It is this approach usually put forward not by trained scientists but well-meaning Christians who work through the process backwards that in my opinion give creationists a bad name.

That said, although I don't have a great deal of respect of YEC science, I do believe that there are some competent scientists who sincerely work with the evidence and have an approach of integrity and something that needs to be acknowledged is that a majority view is not a basis for truth and the scientific method and approach has plenty of room for skepticism and questioning assumptions.

To be fair too, I think it's possible for OEC's to approach the question and assume that science trumps scripture in this regard. I believe hermenuetically an Old Earth interpretation of Genesis and other related passages is the most consistent based on the internal evidence within those passages, and it is convenient but not necessarily foundational that science backs up that interpretation, as I would expect it should.

I'm less fired up over time with this particular debate having settled it in my own mind to where I don't feel the need to assume that all YEC's are insincere or undisciplined in their thinking and approach. Certainly I'd say that of those who don't have a basis to evaluate the positions and simply work backwards to twist evidence, but then there are any number of plausible positions in other realms where that can be done and perhaps we should extend a little more grace to one another where we can.

Good answer

My sister became a YEC which kinda bothers me... hopefully she'll turn to the Day-Age/OEC view sometime like me.

And how can some YEC proponents such as Kent Hovind, be "well-meaning Christians" if they deliberately lie to scientifically-illiterate Christians to spread their propaganda? They break one of a 10 commandments by doing so right there..

Canuckster1127 wrote:It is this approach usually put forward not by trained scientists but well-meaning Christians who work through the process backwards that in my opinion give creationists a bad name.

Agreed.... I would add the underlining belief of the YEC'ers (and their science) is predominately Christian, if that doesn't send a red flag... At least I'm not aware of any that are atheist and YEC simultaneously...

Anonymiss wrote:And how can some YEC proponents such as Kent Hovind, be "well-meaning Christians" if they deliberately lie to scientifically-illiterate Christians to spread their propaganda? They break one of a 10 commandments by doing so right there..

For the record, I would say that Hovind is an embarrassment to both Christianity and science...

Anonymiss wrote:My sister became a YEC which kinda bothers me... hopefully she'll turn to the Day-Age/OEC view sometime like me.

And how can some YEC proponents such as Kent Hovind, be "well-meaning Christians" if they deliberately lie to scientifically-illiterate Christians to spread their propaganda? They break one of a 10 commandments by doing so right there..

I didn't state that all YEC's were well meaning Christians nor that Kent Hovind was or was not representative of the entire movement. As to whether Kent knowingly misleads the ignorant, I don't know the man's heart in that regard. I can question his judgement and certainly question other elements based upon some of his other issues, but I'll leave assessing his motives to God.