gluadys said:
What you are forgetting, Kerry, is that the ages of the earth, the solar system and the universe are not scientific assumptions. They are scientific conclusions from the evidence. Scientists of the 17th & 18th centuries did not start out assuming the earth was old. They were forced to that conclusion by the geologic evidence they were examining.
...
So assigning an age and a beginning point to the universe was a revolutionary scientific idea and one that was forced on science by the evidence, not one that was assumed.
Knowing the history of how scientific theories came to be is important in distinguishing assumptions from conclusions. Creationists who are ignorant of this history often think science is assuming something that is actually a conclusion, not an assumption.
It would be wise to look at when and how a theory came to be before throwing out accusations that scientists are operating on the basis of unsupported assumptions. Usually they are operating on the basis of conclusions from the evidence which were made by their predecessors.
OK I see your point, but that does not negate my point.
An assumption is an opinion at the begining of the process, and a conclusion is an opinion at the end of the process. A conclusion is not a proven fact, but simply an interpretation that is logically supported by the evidence.
Let me give you an example from my own experience. At an earlier time in my life I assumed (and perceived) lawyers to be very wise and intelligent people. This assumption was no doubt a conclusion based upon their portrayal in movies.
After spending 15 years in our state's Supreme Court, dealing with lawyers, and thier documentation, and taking their telephone enquiries, I was forced to modify my concept of lawyers. My previous assumption was wrong. Remember however this was a conclusion based upon movie evidence. So it was a conclusion at the end of that process, but an assumption at the beginning of this process.
So now I conclude based upon my experience, that for the most part lawyers are ordinary people who were simply smart enough or hard working enough to pass their law exams which are mostly just rote learning. Many of them are not very bright at all.
Now if I needed to select a lawyer, I might start from my previous conclusion that many are not bright, only enough so to pass the exams. While this might be true for the population of lawyers, it would be an assumption about the particular one I selected.
I hope you can see what I am saying. Just because a particular scientific position is the result of conclusion about previous evidence, it becomes assumptive when applied to new evidence.
Now what I was saying about the Mars hypothetical, is that the age of the solar system is a conclusion based upon interpretation of available evidence. Now either or both of the interpretation of the evidence or the conclusion could be erroneous.
If our planetary system is the result of gravitational captures of material sent this way from various nearby supernovas or large planetary collisions that ejected material on a trajectory, then it is entirely possible that the various planets of our system could have widely variable ages. If you believe in a 4.5 billion year old universe, then the variation in the age of our planets could be of the order of billions of years, with some being as young as only just before recorded history.
Now when viewing the evidence from Mars, what criteria for processes are they likely to assume. A young planet or an old planet. Any one want to take bets that it is an odds-on probability they will automatically opt for an old planet scenario, even though it might have taken shape only a short time ago. What I am suggesting is feasible, although not proveable, one way or the other.
Now lets take a look at a piece of hypothetical evidence. Lets say it is found that the bedrock of Mars is incredibly similar to the bedrock of Earth, within a very small order of variation. Now it could be concluded and held by many, that this now supports the theory that both planets are of similar ages, and originated from the same source material. A pretty logical conclusion I would think.
BUT, what if all planets have the same type of bedrock. This might support the theory of common source, but now opens to doubt the theory of common age, since a recent planetary collision or supa nova (or other astronomical event) could have recently created this planet from universally homogenous bedrock material. Now this is also a logical conclusion. As to which is accepted and becomes popular thought depends upon your starting ASSUMPTIONS for this evidence, even if those ASSUMPTIONS are based on CONCLUSIONS from previous science.
At the end of the day we still don't know for sure, we just have opinions of the physical evidence. Granted they are scholarly opinions, and opinions from within strict acadaemic frameworks of agrument and knowledge, but still they are opinions.
So when these opinions, conclusions, theories, assumptions, are contrary to the plain declared words of God in various parts of the Bible, which do you think as Christian believers we should give greater acceptance. I submit that until it is proven "fact", that the authority of the Bible should have precedence.
