Age of the Earth and Normal Thinking

[Jimmy Higgins]

We keep on hearing about this scientist or that scientist who interprets the data that makes the earth 6000 years old. HOWEVER, what is omitted is that virtually every other geologist in the world disagrees. Now why are they all wrong, and the bare bare bare minority, say 0.0001% of geologists correct? I mean, usually when a person thinks the whole world is wrong, we say something about their mindset. Why is that not equivalent here?

[sptheology]

Today @ 08:19 AM post located here
Jimmy Higgins:

We keep on hearing about this scientist or that scientist who interprets the data that makes the earth 6000 years old. HOWEVER, what is omitted is that virtually every other geologist in the world disagrees. Now why are they all wrong, and the bare bare bare minority, say 0.0001% of geologists correct? I mean, usually when a person thinks the whole world is wrong, we say something about their mindset. Why is that not equivalent here?

Hi Jimmy

In my view, the reason nothing is said about this is because all of the evidence available points to a very old earth. It is impossible, in my opinion, to prove anything at all about the age of the earth from Scripture. It just doesn't talk about it. That leaves us with the empirical evidence if we want to judge it. And the empirical evidence favours a very old earth.

Regards

Steve

[Undomiel]

The answer is in the particulars. Let's say, for example, you want to discuss the history of sports. Now let's say the first example of sports was actually a couple of guys hitting each other with tree limbs. Since this is really not what you would consider a sport, you instead only go back as far in sports history as is meaningful to your discussion. That's the answer to your question.

[Elvis Rehnquist]

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here
Undomiel:

The answer is in the particulars. Let's say, for example, you want to discuss the history of sports. Now let's say the first example of sports was actually a couple of guys hitting each other with tree limbs. Since this is really not what you would consider a sport, you instead only go back as far in sports history as is meaningful to your discussion. That's the answer to your question.

Huh?

[Socratism]

I can speak with some authority on this (not as a geologist of course), because I used to firmly believe that the universe and the Earth were both billions of years old.

I believed that the universe was old because of the starlight problem. I never bought the idea of "light in transit".

I believed in an old earth because of radioactive dating.

These are very powerful arguments, at least so it seems.

Unlike some, I believe it is easy to calculate the age of the Earth (and universe) using the material in Genesis. We used to do this in high school and it is not rocket science. One can quibble a few years here and there but there is no reasonable way to get billions of years out of that account. Or so it seemed.

All of that changed for me when I actually looked into it again a few years ago after a career spent in some of the highest technologies going in our society.

Now I see the possibilities for the error in thinking things are that old. Most people reject these possibilities because if they started thinking the Earth was only a few thousands of years old they would have to give up their belief that all life evolved from a hypothetical primitive protocell billions of years ago.

So for the vast majority who want to cling to that belief for whatever reason (peer pressure, prestige, "freedom", security, etc.) there is no point going there and thinking more deeply about it.

[Elvis Rehnquist]

Today @ 05:10 PM post located here
Socratism:

Unlike some, I believe it is easy to calculate the age of the Earth (and universe) using the material in Genesis.

And what ages did you come up with? Or are they the same?

[Undomiel]

Elvis,

The history of humanity as we know it today, is what is being dated. Some assume this also translates to the history of planet earth. Some don't. Not all creationists believe it started at the same time. Therein lies the discrepancy and the answer to his question. It isn't a faulty mindset just a disagreement on how to measure time.

[juliod]

Now why are they all wrong, and the bare bare bare minority, say 0.0001% of geologists correct?

This is the sort of discussion I wouldn't participate in. We don't vote on scientific fact. And the Argument from Authority is a fallacy regardless of which side it is on.

The only legitimate question is whether the dissenter has good evidence in support of their position.

DanZ

[Dee Dee Warren]

In addition to the fact that there is already a thread with this subject matter.