10 Basics Every Creationist Must Know

Andrew Snelling says this in the article called Radiometric Dating and Proof:

“Thus science is not the “window to the past”! This notion is based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of evidence. What we observe and measure today exists in the present. We can repeat our observations tomorrow, but we can’t go back to last week to repeat them. The only way we know our observations were the same last week as they are today is if we have an eyewitness testimony from someone who made the same observations last week.”

If what he says is true THEN THERE IS NO SCIENCE CALLED ASTRONOMY other than naming constellations and whatever we can see directly from orbiting space probes, etc. Snelling claims without me directly looking at something I can’t know what is going on. That means that we will never know what powers a star since I can never look inside one, for example.

IMHO this is a false way to look at scientific evidence, but very popular among some YEC advocates. It is as dangerous as evolution or atheism.

It is simply false to say that astronomer cannot deduce what scientific processes are happening or have happened.

Dr Jason Lisle makes a lot of my points from previous posts. We both agree that the “appearance of age” YEC position is simply wrong. Another possibility is some relativistic effect to cause time to flow at different rates in the universe. Jason has a rather unique possibility he calls “anisotropy of the speed of light”, but it is still a relativistic effect.

[TylerR]

How much of this entire debate comes down to how you interpret the evidence? Is one side desperately avoiding dealing with issues, while the other side has the “facts” on their side? What I’m asking is this - how much of this debate is actually just presuppositional? AiG’s nifty little graphic below makes the point. Jason Lisle said much the same thing in his Ultimate Proof for Creation, which is actually a handbook for presuppositional apologetics.

Is it a fair point?

In my opinion, this is not a fair point at all. Scientists of course start with presuppositions but to say they all go back to Darwin is ludicrous. Here is a simple example: they drill a ice core and find a lot more layers than 6,000 years. So they conclude that the evidence points to an earth more than 6,000 years old. Is that Darwin’s fault? No, it is simple logic. There are 40 or so dating methods that indicate an earth older than 6,000 years and not one of them as far as I know has anything to do with Darwin.

[Mark_Smith] If what he says is true THEN THERE IS NO SCIENCE CALLED ASTRONOMY other than naming constellations and whatever we can see directly from orbiting space probes, etc. Snelling claims without me directly looking at something I can’t know what is going on. That means that we will never know what powers a star since I can never look inside one, for example.

Mark, I gotta be perfectly honest with you. Based on the strong statements you’ve made, I would counsel you to do one of two things: either quit your job as a scientist, or give up your belief in young-earth creationism. You have repeatedly and adamantly argued that they are mutually exclusive and incompatible. To continue arguing as you do and yet try to live in both worlds seems inconsistent at best to me, based on the strident nature of your statements on this site.

I’m strident? OK…but look at some of the replies to me. Not exactly kind.

There is another way to YEC involving relativistic effects. Ever here of those? I have written about that many times here at YEC. It is “appearance of age” I don’t care for. But, I still say it could be true. The result would be the loss of our ability to learn much about astronomical objects. That is what I am saying.

Galileo accepted we can’t know about something in the past by inferring from present observation? Source please.

By Snelling’s logic I don’t know that the Earth orbited the Sun in November 1971 since that was before I ever observed it. OK…he said eyewitness testimony. I can trust my Mom or Dad. How about 1400AD. No one recorded information then. How do we know the Earth orbited the Sun then?

YEC does not demand a 6000 year old earth

Could be older. I think Ham and AIG makes it a test of orthodoxy.

I consider myself a YEC‘r but I don’t find 4000 BC tenable.

What are you thinking, 10K years, 100K?

[Mark_Smith]

What are you thinking, 10K years, 100K?

What I believe:

• A literal Adam and Eve
• Six literal days to create the earth
• Other unknown
• I don’t wish to speculate about what is unknown

But Jim, you are speculating by claiming a young earth as opposed to an old earth. The question was where you place the date since you identify a young earth but reject the most common date for that position.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

But Jim, you are speculating by claiming a young earth as opposed to an old earth. The question was where you place the date since you identify a young earth but reject the most common date for that position.

Don’t believe 4000 BC is most common date for YEC. In my view it wasn’t until AIG made it a test of YEC orthodoxy, that it became common.

Why should I speculate when I just don’t know. It’s not a cop out. You don’t know either.

I think Usher may have been the one to popularize the 4000 B.C. date. I believe it was common before AIG taught it. As to whether or not it was most common among YEC that is hard to say.

[GregH]

TylerR wrote:

How much of this entire debate comes down to how you interpret the evidence? Is one side desperately avoiding dealing with issues, while the other side has the “facts” on their side? What I’m asking is this - how much of this debate is actually just presuppositional? AiG’s nifty little graphic below makes the point. Jason Lisle said much the same thing in his Ultimate Proof for Creation, which is actually a handbook for presuppositional apologetics.

Is it a fair point?

In my opinion, this is not a fair point at all. Scientists of course start with presuppositions but to say they all go back to Darwin is ludicrous. Here is a simple example: they drill a ice core and find a lot more layers than 6,000 years. So they conclude that the evidence points to an earth more than 6,000 years old. Is that Darwin’s fault? No, it is simple logic. There are 40 or so dating methods that indicate an earth older than 6,000 years and not one of them as far as I know has anything to do with Darwin.

[pvawter]

For instance, you point to ice cores as evidence of non-Darwinian old earth evidence, yet the assumption that layers=years is based on a paradigm that is heavily influenced by Darwin’s theory. The reason scientists entertain old earth interpretations of that evidence rather than young earth is that they are operating within a paradigm of old earth assumptions.

Really? So you don’t think that scientists can come to an objective opinion about how long it takes to make a layer of ice? There have to be presuppositions? I strongly disagree with that. It is just objective science—measurements, recording, processes, etc. It is what scientists do best.