Nobody ever produces a date for any material which contradicts the already known parameters.
If you really look at the history of science you will find that statement is patently false. In fact, the history of science is just the opposite, newer data leads to contradicting known parameters.
Here are a few examples.
Lord Kelvin in the 1890's tried to calculate the age of the earth using conduction and raditation of heat from a molten mass. He assumed, based on the best evidence of the day, that there was minimal additional heat and the earth simply cooled off. His best estimate was that the earth was between 20 and 40 millions years old.
When radioactivity was discovered, less than a decade later, it became obvious that there was another form of energy present that would add heat to the system. At first, only the rate of decay was used but that pushed the age of the earth from about 40 million years back to at least 1-2 billion years.
Subsequent studies of rocks have continually contradicted known parameters pushing the age of the earth back even further. Now we have found samples of rock that are at least 4 billion years old. Samples from lunar rocks and meteorites are even older, at least 4.5 billion years old.
At each step, as more is learned, old beliefs and parameters get overturned. What actually happens is exactly the opposite of what you assert.
It is not that mankind or scientists try to fit the evidence into some preconcieved notion about age, but rather the evidence forces us all, regardless of our beliefs, to accept that the earth is far older than we once thought.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
