Replies

Well, on the other hand, there is no repeatable experiment which shows the age of the earth. So it isn’t science in that sense, it is really history.

We use science as a forensics tool when determining historical events, but it’s not science. We know it’s not science, because periodically new announcements are made that change the “scientific understanding” of some presumed historical event, and when that happens, nobody complains that the previous belief was fraud.

And of course, forensics, which is both an art and a science, also deals in the realm of hypothesis. You have to adapt certain preconditions. We are pretty good at those, and they are tested as you compare the resulting determinations to what you figure out by other methods.

But one big presumption in all scientific forensics of origins is that there is NO GOD, and therefore NO “Magic”.

Given the presumption that nothing could just be created fully formed, it is easy to understand why the age of the earth is currently estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. That is how old it would have to be to get to where we are today from “nothing”.

Now, suppose we had an infintely powerful, all-knowledgeable being. And suppose he wanted to make a copy of our universe, and he did so. We certainly understand the mechanism of cloning, and so we see the theoretical possibility of an exact duplicate of our universe being created.

Well, if you lived in that alternative universe, you would of course believe that it was 4.5 billion years old, as it would have the identical CURRENT STATE as our universe.

BUT, you would be wrong, because it is 5 minutes old. Science would give you the wrong answer.

Well, if we believe God created the universe, how can we prove He didn’t do so 6000 years ago, or 60,000 years ago? Some might complain that God wouldn’t have a reason to create all these apparent age items in his creation, but given the Bible’s references to wanting to keep some blind to His existence, how better to do that than to give us a theological challenge — Do we believe in God, or not?

I understand and accept most of the evolutionary “science”, meaning what we observe today. Some of it is crazy on it’s face, sorry, but mostly it’s stuff we can test out for ourselves. I simply don’t believe that the history this science predicts is the real history of our universe.

I don’t reject science, I simply understand its limitations. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that the story spun of origins by evolutionists is more of a fanciful wish — probabilities being just one, complexity of design for another, and the still-evident lack of viable genetic steps from one species to another (this last point is becoming more clear as we map more of the genomes)