Neither does the evolutionist. It is and always will be "billions" of years because that is what is required. All other interpretations are ignored or ridiculed.
Because all the evidence from the earliest geologists till now says at it's most basic: "Earth is far older than 6-10,000 years". Has nothing to do with what is required for anything.
If you see this:
You say "hmm this clearly cannot have happened in a single global flood or within 6000 years."
And that's exactly what the early Christian geologists realized.
In fact, we almost never ignore evolutionist's so-called "evidence". We are always pointing out the faults because you won't. You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that we have no evidence of our own and at the same time we ignore yours. That would result in silence which is not at all the case. Please, at the very least, allow logic to have some sway in your criticisms.
Your "fault pointing" as a rule is cherry picking at best.
The difference is in the presuppositions.
Yes, you have a presupposition that doesn't rest on data, it rests on your belief. The presupposition in science is merely that nature works in a consistent manner and that the workings of nature can be discovered by careful experimentation and observation.
Tell me that the hypothesis that T-rex is really 70 million years old was ever seriously questioned when Schweitzer found blood cells and soft tissue in a bone.
It comes down to which is more reasonable:
Is it possible that blood cells in some form (or casts of them or biofilms resembling them) could survive for millions of years.
Or is all of the data we've collected concerning the age of the earth: multiple types of radiometric dating (C14 is just one), stratigraphy and the pattern of fossils in rocks all over the earth, tree ring data extending past 6000 years, human historical sites continuing uninterrupted, starlight from distant stars (and supernovae from places much farther than 6000 light years away).
All of THAT is magically wrong because someone thought maybe some rehydratable maybe tissue maybe biofilm was found in some dinosaur bones?
It's like deciding to believe in spontaneous generation again because nobody can figure out how chickens are catching avian flu.
That's what you're describing, not a revolution but a reversion to a previous idea that was rejected because of data.
Quote:
"I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”"
Tell me how that and the following adhere to the "Scientific Principle"?
Well if it survives on my shelf in the presence of iron for 2 years, then it must be able to survive for 35 million times that long! (not a quote)
That's like running as fast as you can off the rim of the Grand Canyon and, after 2 feet saying; "So far, so good!".
So because individual scientists are sometimes unscientific does not magically mean all of science is wrong. Science is very interested in overturning old ideas. If there were evidence to show the earth is not 4.5 billion years old and evolution never happened, the person presenting that solid evidence would be amazingly famous and receive all kinds of accolades.
It sometimes takes some time but scientific revolutionaries that are supported by data soon become heroes. No data? No accolades.
BTW - The elimination of Steady State Cosmology never threatened the TOE with extinction which is why it was able to be tossed. Try finding one upon which the Grand Ole Theory hinges and see what you come up with.
Have you ever considered the option that the Theory of Evolution actually IS true and that's why there's no evidence to supplant it?
