Well, I’m guessing that she is not relying on something somebody wrote down in a book a few thousand years ago.
This is a hypothesis - maybe even a tentative conclusion - based on the determination of facts via measurement and experimentation, and a certain amount of speculation based on experience and other facts known to the researcher, also based on measurements and experimentation.
Does tis sort of thing make you nervous?
> Well, I’m guessing that she is not relying on something
> somebody wrote down in a book a few thousand years ago.
No, she is relying on conjecture masquerading as hypothesis.
If the book has sufficient supernatural creds, it might stand to be taken seriously.
Anyone who follows its accounts of early earth will see that there are at least four past eras described (not that there can’t be more). The initial creation era, the edenic era, the pre-deluge era, and the post-deluge era.
Scotty could not change the laws of physics, but Scotty was not God.
>> This is a hypothesis
... stated as though it were a fact.
>> Does tis sort of thing make you nervous?
Not per se. Science and the Creator are compatible (because the stuff of science — physics, chemistry — are His creation too).
What makes me nervous is when hypotheses like these, especially flimsy ones, are passed off as Facts Chiseled In Stone and carried forward into “policies” and “mandates” that destroy our economy and our way of life, in the name of earth or universe worship. That’s idolatry, by the way — worshipping the creaTURE rather than the Creator.