The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

stevejazzx

Shouldn't the real question be 'is it possible that religion and 'x' can ever really be described as being incompatible while the parameters of religion itself are so vague that they can be made to fit around any idea? I heard a good one recently
'Is it possible to believe in God and still be an atheist?
The answer was 'yes' because atheists are deluded.

JimiTime

Below is my deduction of the various stances from christians.

1) I'm open to the idea of evolution, but I am bombarded with so much 'science' that I just ignore the topic.

2) Well, clever folk are sure about it, and I don't want to be seen as an idiot so I'll say, God made evolution so its win, win.

3) I don't know, I have faith, and don't really care about the topic.

4) It has nothing to do with salvation, so I'm not going to put any importance on the topic.

5) They are incompatible, insomuch as they contradict each other. Literal six days is what it says, and thats what I believe etc.

6) They are completely compatible. Genesis is metaphorical, and 'Adam and Eve' could just represent the first creatures with a 'soul' etc etc.

I personally am completely unconvinced by the theory of evolution. I'm just a simple layman though, so such an opinion may be discarded as coming from ignorance. It all seems a bit smoke and mirrors. To coin a phrase you used OP, a bit 'kings new clothes'. However, I am not stuck in a literal interpretation of Genesis, nor a young earth. I also at present do not rule out evolution, but I am unconvinced. I definately think that there are implications in the theory that effect aspects of Christian doctrine. Things like the geneologies, original sin etc need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, most of those who are opposed to evolution on a faith basis seem dishonest and deceptive in their ways. Knowingly or not I don't know. Funnily enough, as much as I'm unconvinced by the theory of evolution, I hear very little convincing arguement against it. I think its mainly due to the fact that most who try argue against it, get too involved in the intricicies of it, rather than deal with the elephants in the room.

So in summary, I don't believe in the theory, but i don't completely rule it out (yet!). I'm just not convinced. I don't see it as a hugely important topic, but an interesting one nonetheless. Certainly my view brings derision and accusations of idiocy from the self proclaiming 'logical intellectuals', but that rather adds weight to my position for me.

So what do you think OP? Are the two in conflict? Are there too many mental cartwheels to be performed in order to reconsile the two in your opinion? Or do you think the theistic evolution stance is credible?

AtomicHorror

Interesting post Jimi. You're open to convincing and well aware of the rather painfully obvious flaws in the usual creationist arguments. That seems reasonable to me and I wouldn't be half surprised if there were a great many non-religious people with a similar position. I do wonder what "elephants in the room" you think are present in evolution, but that's really a matter for the Other Thread. I'd actually be interested to hear about your views on that.

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally am completely unconvinced by the theory of evolution. I'm just a simple layman though, so such an opinion may be discarded as coming from ignorance. It all seems a bit smoke and mirrors. To coin a phrase you used OP, a bit 'kings new clothes'.

Perhaps I can convince you, or convince you to dig a little yourself. I made a post which I think makes a good argument in favour of evolution on a primarily logical basis. That is to say, it does not look at specific evidence but leaves you room to test the concept yourself. Rather than derail, I'll just direct you to it:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60019928&postcount=15489

and the "sequel" which considers how things ought to look if intelligent design were at work rather than natural selection:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60044107&postcount=15504

Lovethinking

pts wrote: »

If you really want to learn (which, to be honest I'm not sure you do) this video is a good starting point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

I guess you are misinterpreting the motives behind my questions and answers.
I am not requesting that someone teach me about evolution, rather I have asked that in order to discuss evolution with someone I have learned that it is necessary to ask them to explain their version of it... I have found this out the hard way through the years. Once a person has defined their version of evolution to me, then I can proceed to give my opinion on it without barking up the wrong tree. That is why I have repeatedly suggested that another thread be opened whereby someone gives their full outline of evolution including how it answers the pertinent questions. I am not unaware of the fact that this may appear to some as evasive... but I can assure you that it is not. We should keep this thread on topic and move to another one to focus on evolution alone.
Nevertheless, I do not agree that the mega thread is of any use for this.
IMO, a good discussion must begin with each party defining their whole stance. Otherwise, each party must assume they know the stance of the other... can you see the potential for misunderstanding?

Lovethinking

JimiTime wrote: »

So what do you think OP? Are the two in conflict? Are there too many mental cartwheels to be performed in order to reconsile the two in your opinion? Or do you think the theistic evolution stance is credible?

Yes. I see the two as being in conflict. They can meet on some points but are opposites on others.
I will try to make time tonight to outline what I mean. I'm off to work now.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Er...there's a science board.

Thinking the same thing.

Someone doesn't have to learn what Evolution is from the Creationist thread (that would probably be a terrible idea). That thread is about religious objections to evolution, and it would be very helpful if people actually understood evolution before they posted there. Unfortunately that is often not the case and most of the objections or issues religious people have on that thread with evolution tend to be just based on their own ignorance of the theory rather than any genuine flaws with it.

There are plenty of websites that go into what evolution is (wikipedia is a good start) and the Science board can answer any genuine questions a person has about something they don't understand.

And if they want to make an religious objections, or think they have found the passage in the Bible that totally disproves evolution, then the Creationist thread is always looking for more victims.

pts

Lovethinking wrote: »

I guess you are misinterpreting the motives behind my questions and answers.
I am not requesting that someone teach me about evolution, rather I have asked that in order to discuss evolution with someone I have learned that it is necessary to ask them to explain their version of it... I have found this out the hard way through the years. Once a person has defined their version of evolution to me, then I can proceed to give my opinion on it without barking up the wrong tree. That is why I have repeatedly suggested that another thread be opened whereby someone gives their full outline of evolution including how it answers the pertinent questions. I am not unaware of the fact that this may appear to some as evasive... but I can assure you that it is not. We should keep this thread on topic and move to another one to focus on evolution alone.
Nevertheless, I do not agree that the mega thread is of any use for this.
IMO, a good discussion must begin with each party defining their whole stance. Otherwise, each party must assume they know the stance of the other... can you see the potential for misunderstanding?

I don't think I was misinterpreting your motives in my previous post. The point I was trying to make was that many dissagreements with evolution is due to a lack of understanding of evolution.
It has also been my experience that theists that reject in evolution do so because they either don't know enough about it, or because they don't want to know about it. I therefore provided a link to a video which explained some common questions about evolution hoping you'd be in the first category, but not convinced this was the case.

Many objections to evolution have already been raised before in this forum. I think some of the regulars would prefer not having to answer the same questions over and over again. For that reason they suggested that you check out the creationism thread.

PDN

This is the last time I will say this.

This thread is to discuss the compatibility of believing in evolution and believing in God.

It is not for discussing the evidence for or against evolution. Any further such posts, or arguing with this moderating decision, will be deleted. If posters continue to ignore this instruction, so that I get fed up of deleting such posts, then I will lock the thread.

We already have a Creationism thread.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

This is the last time I will say this.

Sorry, my bad

Can we agree though that "evolution" means the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution as understood by most biologists. It is a pretty well established theory.

I think some of the issue here is that people seem to think there are a number of different versions of evolution (don't get me started on macro vs micro), and that leads to a debate over the merits of one over the other.

AtomicHorror

Lovethinking wrote: »

I am not requesting that someone teach me about evolution, rather I have asked that in order to discuss evolution with someone I have learned that it is necessary to ask them to explain their version of it... I have found this out the hard way through the years.

In scientific terms there's pretty much only one version. There are details that some people may differ on, but I suspect it is the fundamentals that you see as being in conflict.

Lovethinking wrote: »

Once a person has defined their version of evolution to me, then I can proceed to give my opinion on it without barking up the wrong tree. That is why I have repeatedly suggested that another thread be opened whereby someone gives their full outline of evolution including how it answers the pertinent questions. I am not unaware of the fact that this may appear to some as evasive... but I can assure you that it is not. We should keep this thread on topic and move to another one to focus on evolution alone.

Nevertheless, I do not agree that the mega thread is of any use for this.
IMO, a good discussion must begin with each party defining their whole stance. Otherwise, each party must assume they know the stance of the other... can you see the potential for misunderstanding?

Well, we're not going to be allowed to create another creationism versus evolution thread here. I somehow doubt that the Biology forum moderator would appreciate such a thread on his watch. So that leaves us with the Atheism forum (although that has several evolution threads of its own) or some other forum off boards (I moderate the Pseudoscience subforum at The Science Forum but that might put us on an uneven footing).

So what do you want to do?

kiffer

yes, you can.

Like all scientific theories it does not make special rules for Divine Intervention...
Can you believe in modern medicine and God? At no point during clinical trials for a drug do we assume that a vital step in the process is the existance of God...
Nor when we build bridges or planes...


If you don't understand a theory then are you sure you can say what it is or is not compatible with?
Do you understand the chemistry behind the cis-platin type anticancer drugs? Would you call the research into them "smoke and mirrors" simply because you don't understand it or that most of the work is inaccessible to you?

A Primal Nut

SDooM wrote: »

Not at all, it seems to be a common tactic for creationists to say that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in God, however your average atheist actually understands evolution and knows it has nothing to do with how the universe/world was created et al so they believe nothing of the sort.

The belief in evolution has nothing to do with your religion really- the Roman Catholic church support evolution, for example.

I disagree. In all religion, humans are somehow special, different from all other animals, have a soul, the only ones who can get into heaven, etc. According to Evolution, humans are just the most advanced species to have lived (in terms of intelligence, at least), just as the dinosaurs were millions of years ago. If dinosaurs were able to think philosophically, they might have thought they were somehow special and the most advanced species, etc. In millions of years time long after humans have died out, another species even more intelligent and advanced than ourselves will likely evolve, and they will look back on humans like we look back on dinosaurs and think of themselves as special and the only ones to get into heaven, and so on. That is unless they are intelligent and advanced enough to have no interest in religion.

So basically the idea that humans are seperate from all other animals (souls, heaven, etc.) more than other animals are seperate from each other, is enough to make religion and evolution incompatible.

Zombrex

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I disagree. In all religion, humans are somehow special, different from all other animals, have a soul, the only ones who can get into heaven, etc. According to Evolution, humans are just the most advanced species to have lived (in terms of intelligence, at least), just as the dinosaurs were millions of years ago. If dinosaurs were able to think philosophically, they might have thought they were somehow special and the most advanced species, etc. In millions of years time long after humans have died out, another species even more intelligent and advanced than ourselves will likely evolve, and they will look back on humans like we look back on dinosaurs and think of themselves as special and the only ones to get into heaven, and so on. That is unless they are intelligent and advanced enough to have no interest in religion.

So basically the idea that humans are seperate from all other animals (souls, heaven, etc.) more than other animals are seperate from each other, is enough to make religion and evolution incompatible.

Personally to me all that is very convincing, but it should be pointed out that this is a conclusion based on evolution rather than something in the theory itself

There is nothing in evolution that says (or could ever say) that God didn't single out humans as special animals to do something supernatural with, such as add a soul too.

PDN

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I disagree. In all religion, humans are somehow special, different from all other animals, have a soul, the only ones who can get into heaven, etc. According to Evolution, humans are just the most advanced species to have lived (in terms of intelligence, at least), just as the dinosaurs were millions of years ago. If dinosaurs were able to think philosophically, they might have thought they were somehow special and the most advanced species, etc. In millions of years time long after humans have died out, another species even more intelligent and advanced than ourselves will likely evolve, and they will look back on humans like we look back on dinosaurs and think of themselves as special and the only ones to get into heaven, and so on. That is unless they are intelligent and advanced enough to have no interest in religion.

So basically the idea that humans are seperate from all other animals (souls, heaven, etc.) more than other animals are seperate from each other, is enough to make religion and evolution incompatible.

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Christian view of man.

First of all, the Bible does not teach that man is the only creature to have a soul. That is a common misconception - but the word 'soul' means 'life' and is applied in the Old Testament to animals as well as to people. The New Testament word for soul - 'psyche' - primarily means mind (hence 'psychology', 'psychiatry' and 'psychadelic'). Animals clearly have minds, emotions and a will - just as do humans.

What humans do possess that is unique is a spirit. This is the part of us that can communicate with God and, I believe, is what it means to be created in God's image. Apart from the spirit, man is indeed nothing more than a slightly more complex animal that has developed a thumb and learned to use tools. A person's dead body, once the spirit has departed, is just a lump of meat, fat & bones - just like the body of any other animal.

Therefore, it is perfectly compatible with faith in God for someone to believe that homo sapiens evolved like other animals. Then that God implanted a spirit into two particular homo sapiens, making them the first real humans (in the sense of having something extra that sets them apart from other animals that lack this spirit).

So I'm afraid you're arguing against a straw man of your own devising rather than actually understanding why it is that Christianity says man is uniquely different from animals.

Capt'n Midnight

Mac Masters wrote: »

:pac: Well I'm Christian but the way I see it is, you've got to take the bible with a pinch of salt, some things won't always be completly accurate but it's really just guidelines to how we should live and worship at the end of the day!

Probably best to reduce your sodium intake. There would be more nutrition in a leather bound one. Avoid the ones with coloured pictures or lettering as those dyes may contain heavy metals or otherwise be toxic.

As for guidelines, NT >> OT as there is a lot of over the top stuff in the OT, have a look at http://www.thebricktestament.com

Given the amount of incest, rape, murder and general abuses involved, the bible could probably have been banned here for most of the last century if it had not been a religious book.

If you want to use the NT as a guideline fair enough.

If you want to use the OT then you have to pick and choose between a good few conflicting viewpoints. To do that you are putting your own interpretation on it, you could justify an awful lot of things by choosing the right passages. There have been a lot of battles with both sides convinced that God was on their side. Compared to that, integrating evolution and the historic age of the universe just means you need to consider that a "day" in genesis may refer to a epoch rather than 24 hours. And don't forget all the word of mouth in the early days, lack of vocab for certain concepts and the miss-translations later mean that we can't be 100% sure of what the original story was. If we were 100% sure then all translations of the bible would be the same and we would not need to put any thing in historical context. But our world and life experiances are different to people living in a desert thousands of years ago when 1/5 people died of smallpox. Even the word Gay has completely changed it's meaning in the last 50 years.

AtomicHorror

Pamela111 wrote: »

Evolution, like the Big Bang and Global Warming, is a false theory proposed by the Satanic Free Mason Communists who are promoting a pagan New World Order in an attempt to seat the antichrist with one GLOBAL government, one GLOBAL currency, one GLOBAL bank and one GLOBAL pagan religeon.

The world is not prepared for what is about to come. Eventually most of the world will be destroyed. The world will pay a heavy price for the sins of abortion and sexual immorality.

Yes but what elements of evolutionary theory specifically conflict with your faith? That's the topic, not this other stuff. Thanks for underlining the rationale for your opposition to evolution though.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In scientific terms there's pretty much only one version. There are details that some people may differ on, but I suspect it is the fundamentals that you see as being in conflict.



Well, we're not going to be allowed to create another creationism versus evolution thread here. I somehow doubt that the Biology forum moderator would appreciate such a thread on his watch. So that leaves us with the Atheism forum (although that has several evolution threads of its own) or some other forum off boards (I moderate the Pseudoscience subforum at The Science Forum but that might put us on an uneven footing).

AtomicHorror - remember last time you posted that you ended up sending me science tutorials.

So OP and others if there are bits that you dont really get on the science side you shouldnt be afraid to ask. AH has never touted science to me as an alternative to my religion.

So what do you want to do?

Take of early and go to the beach

God wants me to:)

CDfm

Lovethinking wrote: »

Yes. I see the two as being in conflict. They can meet on some points but are opposites on others.
I will try to make time tonight to outline what I mean. I'm off to work now.

I dont think they are but then I dont take a literalist reading of the bible. Im Catholic BTW and this approach is what Anglicans C of E do aswell. So its mainstream and sometimes is called Platoist or Judeo-Greek reading of scripture.

Philo of Alexandria who was a contemporary of Christ was a key thinker on this (allegorical reading of scripture) and here is a wikipedia link on him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

Catholics certainly dont see evoloution as being incompatable with faith. Most atheists who are scientists say they cannot prove God with science and dont accept the bible as proof - fair enough. You will also find some good ethics/philosophical debates too where the science mob can be ultra conservative.

Lovethinking

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In scientific terms there's pretty much only one version. There are details that some people may differ on, but I suspect it is the fundamentals that you see as being in conflict.



Well, we're not going to be allowed to create another creationism versus evolution thread here. I somehow doubt that the Biology forum moderator would appreciate such a thread on his watch. So that leaves us with the Atheism forum (although that has several evolution threads of its own) or some other forum off boards (I moderate the Pseudoscience subforum at The Science Forum but that might put us on an uneven footing).

So what do you want to do?

Post it wherever and then send me the link (but not in an already crowded thread)... new thread preferable... so that you are not limited in giving the complete explanation.
Cheers

CDfm

Is it possible to discuss it without the creationist debate?

darjeeling

CDfm wrote: »

Is it possible to discuss it without the creationist debate?

The creationism angle is the only reason that a discussion of the scientific evidence for evolution is hosted in this forum (creationism doesn't belong in the science forum). There's nothing stopping a purely scientific discussion of evolution in the science forum, though as has been pointed out before, a boards.ie discussion is not likely to provide the most systematic, comprehensive and accurate grounding in evolution.

Bizarrely, of all the threads tagged with 'evolution', only a couple are in the 'Biology' forum, while most are filed in 'Religion and Spirituality'. If you do want to start a 'Science' thread, you could try 'Biology & Medicine' - now mostly used for doctors bitching about their contracts and patients about their piles - the not very popular 'Popular Science', or - if it's specifically fossils you're interested in - 'Palaeontology', in which Galvasean's heroic efforts are currently criminally undersupported (I'm as guilty as anyone).

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Is it possible to discuss it without the creationist debate?

In this case, no. Which is why I'm reluctant to try and start a new thread... Popular Science might be the place for it, just not sure r3nu4l will be okay with it. And if it's popular it'll basically just become a clone of BC&P.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In this case, no. Which is why I'm reluctant to try and start a new thread... Popular Science might be the place for it, just not sure r3nu4l will be okay with it. And if it's popular it'll basically just become a clone of BC&P.

Does that mean its extinct:pac:

LoveDucati2

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What makes you think the position that evolution is a fact is not based on evidence and reason? I think most of the Christians here are of the opinion that when a story in the bible is flatly contradicted by our observations of the world, then that suggests that the story is intended as an allegory of some sort, perhaps intended to explain events of a scientific or spiritual nature that would have defied simple literal explanation at the times the OT and NT were written.

This means that you have an answer for everything, regardless of whether you ar right or wrong.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

So god made monkeys, then a while later made humans?

I don't think so. Bacteria came into existence, then we evolved.

Lovethinking wrote: »

Evolution is still an unproven theory which is yet awaiting the "missing links" in the fossil record to prove it.

I have never yet come across anyone or any book that could establish evolution as a "fact"

Evolution has been proved beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is a fact. DNA evidence has proven that we are all related to every living thing on this planet.

Mac Masters wrote: »

:pac: Well I'm Christian but the way I see it is, you've got to take the bible with a pinch of salt, some things won't always be completly accurate but it's really just guidelines to how we should live and worship at the end of the day!

Brave post.

kiffer wrote: »

yes, you can.
If you don't understand a theory then are you sure you can say what it is or is not compatible with?
Do you understand the chemistry behind the cis-platin type anticancer drugs? Would you call the research into them "smoke and mirrors" simply because you don't understand it or that most of the work is inaccessible to you?

darjeeling wrote: »

Bizarrely, of all the threads tagged with 'evolution', only a couple are in the 'Biology' forum, while most are filed in 'Religion and Spirituality'.

Why would scientists need to discuss it. It's a fact.


As an Atheist the biggest issue that we have with you guys is that you are willing to blindly believe anything you are told, without trying to understand it or it's background. You hate criticism, and believe your religion is the most important and the others are cults.

Evolution seriously damages any credibility that religion had left.

darjeeling

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

Why would scientists need to discuss it. It's a fact.

The science forum is a place where scientists and non-scientists alike can discuss science. Just because something is established as fact, should we stop explaining how this has been established to anyone who wants to know? Of course not, and the science forum is the place for that.

Don't forget also that scientists are still digging up fossils, sequencing genes, measuring skulls etc to fill out the details of evolution.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what circular reasoning.

You assert that "all was good" cannot means that death took place in Eden before the Fall, and then say that an examples of death that must have taken place cannot be called "death", despite that clearly being what it was.

Would it not be less contrived simple to assume that "all was good" does not preclude death? That was after all simply your assertion of what "good" means, not something that is defined in the Bible.

Not really, for death is portrayed by the rest of Scripture as something not good, a consequence of sin:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Death is to be overthrown in the Last Day:
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

To include plant-life/bacteria used in digestion in the same position as animals and man is to make the Bible a nonsense from the first chapter, for it expressly gives the plants as food for man and beast:
Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

Well I believe you can and dont think it unreasonable.I dont see how you can believe otherwise.

Though I respect the rights of others not to believe.

I cant take the creationist position as being credible as to do so is to deny what you see .

The only thing one sees is the evidence. The evidence is not disputed.

But the scientists on both sides disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. We see the sun rise and set - are we denying what we see if we suggest it is not the sun that moves? So too there is more than one possible explanation for the evidence evolutionists claim as their own.

The creationist sites set out explanations in line with the Biblical accounts, and defend them scientifically and theologically.

AtomicHorror

LoveDucati2 wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

What makes you think the position that evolution is a fact is not based on evidence and reason? I think most of the Christians here are of the opinion that when a story in the bible is flatly contradicted by our observations of the world, then that suggests that the story is intended as an allegory of some sort, perhaps intended to explain events of a scientific or spiritual nature that would have defied simple literal explanation at the times the OT and NT were written.

This means that you have an answer for everything, regardless of whether you ar right or wrong.

I nothing. I was explaining their position, not mine.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I nothing. I was explaining their position, not mine.

A bit harsh. Some of us think not everything is explained- if it was you would be out of a job & that wouldnt be right.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

A bit harsh. Some of us think not everything is explained- if it was you would be out of a job & that wouldnt be right.

How is it harsh for me to make it clear that I'm an atheist? I figured I'd been mistaken for some sorta religious type.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The only thing one sees is the evidence. The evidence is not disputed.

But the scientists on both sides disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. We see the sun rise and set - are we denying what we see if we suggest it is not the sun that moves? So too there is more than one possible explanation for the evidence evolutionists claim as their own.

Not really true. The creationists deny that evidence such as radioisotope dating is usable. This is on the basis of experiments in which they, for example, did carbon 14 dating on objects containing no carbon and on the basis of things like the reservoir effect (which of course was pointed out by mainstream scientists). That second one serves as a great example of how creationists approach the evidence. And it's nothing to do with "interpretation". It goes like this.

1. A piece of evidence contradicts creation (eg. c14 dating)
2. It is assumed that the evidence is a mistake
3. The evidence is scrutinised closely for any weaknesses (eg. "aha, c14 dating is inaccurate for marine organisms")
4. Use point 3 to dismiss any all evidence of this type whilst calling into question any evidence that resembles it. (eg. using the reservoir effect to dismiss all c14 data and undermine the credibility of all radiometric dating)

This is not re-interpretation. It's cherry picking and confirmation bias. The evidence is that the world is over 4 billion years old. That measurement is no more open to "interpretation" than the distance between two objects.