I don’t think many scientists believe that it is possible for us to know whether something is an inconvertible truth. Dawkins certainly doesn’t. But evidence, b

I don’t think many scientists believe that it is possible for us to know whether something is an inconvertible truth. Dawkins certainly doesn’t. But evidence, both past and present, matters. We may not be able to be absolutely certain but we can be pretty certain, extremely certain even. The evidence for the universe being much older than 10,000 years is truly overwhelming and you don’t get to just discount that evidence. You have to find a theory that fits the existing evidence perfectly and you have to find new evidence that confirms your theory. Considering how extremely certain we are about the universe being much older than 10,000 years, you have to be thorough and your evidence has to be truly overwhelming [0], a daunting task, no doubt. Some study with little evidence and an incomplete theory just won’t cut it if the topic of discussion is the age of the universe and its goal is to make the universe six orders of magnitude younger. Not all evidence and every theory is worth the same. [0] Astrophysicists everywhere should jump out of windows and Nobel prizes should be thrown at you.