"All are quite intelligent. Yet, are part of the culture they have been raised in. "
do you mean by this? are you saying that the "culture" has more effect on them then the evidence? do you define "culture" by the scientific conscience?
No, not really, though that certainly is an implication of this thought. Our culture has redefined "evidence". What was once considered evidence by all is no longer considered evidence by all. For example, in the past, affidavits were considered legitimate evidence. But now it is only accepted as evidence by some and not at all by others. Likewise, facts are no longer facts as understood in the past. Now, facts are only whatever select people say are facts.
When it comes to discussions over the age of the earth, facts are discarded or interpreted differently by a wave of "experts". All dissenting voices are silenced.
Our modern culture has become a cancel culture. A culture that uses shame to dismiss any alternative voices. This means that a particular voice is louder than every other voice to the extent that no other voice is permitted to speak or adduce evidence. In fact ALL evidence from an alternative voice is immediately labeled as not real (fake) evidence.
Hence, when I say that these intelligent people are raised in their culture, I mean no disservice to them. They all appear quite genuine in their views and wish to appear reasonable. Yet all, also are quite aware, that some topics are untouchable. Lane might well argue well for the resurrection of Jesus, and he does so with persuasive words, yet, he does not apply the same logic to the question of the age of the earth. That is a non-negotiable and untouchable subject. People may well smile at you for believing Jesus rose from the dead, but don't tell me the earth is not old. The first is considered a religious doctrine, the second a scientific one. The first one people will tolerate because of freedom of religion. The second is a high doctrine of the scientific community.
