[TheCrusader]

"Such events leave lots of evidence -- in the fossil record and in the genetic record. No one saw O.J. whack his wife, but the evidence most certainly points in that direction".

Evidence is wonderful, but when people take evidence and present it as fact we are all in trouble. There is barely a single "scientifically determined" date pertaining to the age of the earth, and the origin of mankind that I learned as a young man that stands today. For that matter, today's "scientific fact" is almost always tomorrow's outdated theory. The examples abound. When people are dealing with issues like apes, evolution and the origin of man, and they present their unproven theories in a fashion that makes them appear as facts, it's not the bad science that offends, it's the same old damn lies that offend peoples' sensibilities.

[Junior]

The date of the Earth is derived from several radiological dating methods on the rocks which make it up; when those methods agree on a date (i.e., the date is double checked using other methods), then researchers can be confident they have a low-end reference point for the age of the Earth. The upper end can be determined from using the same methods on meteorites, which coalesced (and thus reset their isotopic clocks) from the debris that makes up the planets and moons. These dates are most definitely "scientifically determined."

Many of the folks on these threads would be really suprised by the methods researchers have developed over the decades to work out sticky problems such as dating objects. And they'd also be surprised at the lengths researchers go to to double check any findings they might get. Sometimes I get the impression the less scientifically literate on these threads think scientists get their information from divine revelation, or from pulling numbers out of thin air. The LSL fail to understand the checks and balances used by scientists.