DW: Overwhelming scientific evidence compels us to conclude the world is much older than 10,000 years.
VJ: If the evidence is indeed as rock-solid as you suggest then why do many reputable scientists continue to think otherwise?
By now this horse is dead and rotting, but I'm still going to beat it.
First, "reputable scientists" are human. Many have blundered, and many will keep blundering. Reputable scientists are particularly prone to err when they venture outside their field of expertise.
Second, every scientist I know of who makes this age-of-world error does so because his thinking on the subject is dominated by preconceptions unrelated to any scientific data.
Third, no scientist I know of who makes this error is intimately familiar with the relevant data. Said data are fundamental for astrophysics and geology. I'd wager that you would change your mind if, for example, you spent two or three years as an oil industry geologist--unless, of course, your mind has frozen solid!
Hanging your confidence on the opinions of a tiny minority of scientists dominated by their biases is living dangerously.
Don
Received on Tue Jul 27 03:38:39 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 27 2004 - 03:38:40 EDT