In order for something to be true it must be proven true by one or more of these methods and cannot be disproven by any of those remaining.
The scientific method, in which I was trained, is a good method, but highly limited because it can only deal with the here and now.
Let us apply the legal method of proof to a jury sworn to go only where the evidence leads them, and present to them the indicators of the age of the earth and universe. What would be their judgment beyond a reasonable doubt?
Please remember that truth is not determined by voting.
Truth is truth regardless of how few know what the truth is.
It cannot test historical and non-repeatable events.
For this reason, it cannot be used to prove either evolution or creation true.
Any person picked to sit upon any jury has preconceived ideas, bias and opinions, but they are sworn to be as impartial as any human may be and they are to judge solely upon the evidence and testimony given, not upon their personal prejudices.
Therefore, almost anyone is competent to sit upon a jury, unless they are so prejudiced that they would not change their preconceived opinion, even if they were given sufficient evidence that their preconceived opinion was wrong.
In various previous articles I have discussed specific Geochronometers which scientifically show that our earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are young, perfectly consistent with 6,000 years.
The reason that I have gone to such great lengths about this subject is simple.
In essence, anyone who says "do not confuse me with facts my mind is made up," is a poor candidate for a jury.