Would I still oppose evolution, in a world without God?
There is more to an old Earth then the ToE.
Because [evolution] would probably be just a theory amongst many
Unlike religion, science is convergent.
A thousand independent theologians reading identical material will come to a thousand exclusive, absolute truths
, which, given enough funding, will be printed on battle flags.
A thousand independent scientists reading identical material will come to a small number of overlapping, tentative hypotheses, which, given enough information, might be combined into a single theory.
with no motivation for anyone to care too much about it.
Evolutionary theory makes honest profits and saves countless lives. What's not to care about?
If we rule out the Bible, would there be any evidence for a scientist to suspect the earth might be young? Hmmm.
No.
If there were no religions and if it were not for the Bible saying [the Earth is young]
The Bible does not say the Earth is young. That is an inference one must make if one isn't willing to accept the Bible as a book religious lessons rather then a book of natural science.
or is it possible that scientists might look more openly at the evidence
Is it your contention that scientists close their minds to evidence to spite the Bible? Has it really escaped your notice that many, many scientists who are content with an old Earth explanation are also Children of the Book?
and have more freedom to theorise about the age of the earth?
Is it your contention that scientists don't evoke SkyMaster-G as an explanation for observable phenomena because the Bible
does exist?
Is it not more plausible that science excludes the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena because all the evidence ever presented demonstrates either a natural explanation or our own ignorance; or, the logical necessity that an answer for anything is an answer for nothing, giving no indication of the next move?
Would they hold just as strongly to the current estimated age, or be more tentative?
It's not an estimate, it's a measurement.
let us say I am going to dig a hole in my back yard before supper: I've got three hours to dig it; I can fill a 20 liter bucket with soil in about five minutes; I can keep up that pace for 20% of the time if I rest for 80% of the time; The sides will be nearly plumb; The hole will be nearly circular with a diameter of about one meter.
How deep will be the hole?
How tentative is the answer?
I have dug a hole. I drop a tape measure into it.
How deep is the hole?
How tentative is the answer?
My Mum a supreme being doesn't want me to dig a hole in the garden:
Will that change our estimate?
Will that change our measurement?
There are many methods to estimate the age of the earth, each one giving a different result, ranging from thousands to billions of years.
There are no legitimate methods of measuring the age of the Earth that give values of thousands of years. A legitimate method would be one based on an evidenced mechanism that gives repeatable values independent of the examiner's predilections.
If it were not for the Bible, would each method receive equal weighting, instead of most attention being paid to one method (radiometric)?
It is only a wish to support the Bible that gives anyone cause to assume weight for a method that would give a value of thousands of years for the age of the Earth. Radiometric dating is given weight because it is based on an evidenced mechanism that gives repeatable values independent of the examiner's predilections.
I came to this belief by thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries etc, to first convince the rational part of my mind that [the Earth being thousands of years old] was at least scientifically plausible.
This only shows your profound ignorance of science. There is no scientifically plausible way that the Earth is even only a couple of billion years old, yet alone millions or thousands of years. What you have convinced yourself of is that you can circumvent what little evidence you know about, while ignoring that which you do not know about. You account for none of it.
That was pretty gentle, right?
Edited by lyx2no, : formating.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson
™ Version 4.2
