Q1: PhilVaz, aren’t you a geologist? How do you determine the Earth’s age? Using sedimentary layers epecially, what is the youngest that you see the Earth could be? I’d defer to your superior knowledge here as long as it was not based on carbon (C14) dating
Q2; It could be calculated since the Universe is expanding, how long ago there would have been a point of Unity. From my elementary knowledge of cosmology,my guess is that the Universe is much older than 6000 years, maybe a many miliion, but not billions.
Q3. Ties to question 1, but such things as Noah’s Ark, tower of Babel etc are in question still historically. So I’d answer this one a strong maybe. However, a biologist programmed at University to believe in NDE would not, of course. I would say they could be wrong.
Q4. There certainly isn’t a seemingly endless backwards line of civilisation, but there are certainly relics that are old (like Aztec, etc.) I honestly don’t see enough anthropological evidence for civilisation to be miilions of years old. No way. Maybe more than 6000, but not more than say 100,000 years. That’s honest.
Q5: No (I agree)
Q6: Yes it can, depending on how far you want to go with it. Jesus’ miracles are also unscientific. Peter striking people dead is unscientific. So yes, if one relies completely on the rationality of naturalism and the physical sciences, one can deny any spiritual reality at all. Visit the above forum and let some atheists make the point much better than I.
Sorry, I lost the thread, and looked but couldn’t find it. I don’t know how old the Earth is. I would say it is as young as you (as a geologist) say it could possibly be. I was not there, and neither were you. The RCC as I said has not ruled infallibly on this issue, so I am free to beleive what I like.
Have you visited the forum that I posted? You may win some converts there, or you may be made to see that going too far the path of naturalism can lead one to deny the supernatural entirely.
Very quickly, lets get to the crux. The supernatural cannot be proven by natural means (the laws of science). So hardcore atheists say nothing exists beyond the knowable, natural universe (matter and energy), To believe otherwise (eg in a Creator), since it cannot be proven requires faith. Faith comes from hearing the word of God. So what is more important, science or God? Why not use science for building bridges, cars, medical help, etc. And use spirituality for morality, comfort, meaning to life.
Science answers the how.
Religion answers the why.
I see little to no need to reconcile the two, but each as tools with different uses.