Genesis and Creation Science

Beg your pardon? Our evidence is in written form, Genesis 1 and 2, known as historical narrative.

Beg your pardon but Genesis 1 and 2 are not historical narratives any more than Harry Potter stories or Sherlock Holmes anthologies are historical narratives.


What do you think creation science is for? :upside_down_face:

It’s a form of religious apologetics to give a false veneer of scientific credibility to frankly silly YEC claims.


Fleecing the rubes.


“If we put on white coats and stare at test tubes, John Frum will bring us a wealth of cargo.”


Good question.

Science makes generalizations based on inferences from what is known, and then systematically tests against predictions from those generalizations.

What is the distinct generalizations of creation science, of the YEC variety you favor?

That the cosmos was created about 6 thousand years ago, with a subsequent flood. It is right there in the statement of faith. All evidence is measured against those generealizations.

Not imagine yourself in a position where science is just starting out, and ask what predictions comes out of those generalizations. Would you predict ancient ecologies including dinosaurs? Would you expect galaxies billions of light years away? Would you be confident that crystals which exhibit radioactive decay would be consistent with millions of years of activity? Would you anticipate that the poles would hold ice kilometers thick, entraining a record of climate over ages? Would you expect magnetic reversals or that your compass would be as faithful as always?

None of this would be predicted on the basis of a young earth. The big picture is entirely missed.
YEC creation science does not make useful predictions. It exists as an excuse machine. Whenever mainstream science validates a generalization by means of fulfilling an actual prediction, say that tree ring chronology would synchronize with carbon dating, creation science invents some excuse to preserve a young earth. This is the distinction, not a secular vs biblical glasses, not a matter of interpretation, but prediction based on principle. Science makes predictions. Creation science makes excuses.


Sorry to be so blunt but I have said it before. Lazy science will look at all the superficials you have listed and jump to conclusions. Creation science on the other hand will look deeper and find truth.

Can your science make the claim that it seeks truth?

So, given a young earth (or young life), what predictions do flow from that?

So many. And so many I will forget to mention

We should be able to still carbon-date fossils
We should find soft tissue in fossils
We should look for genetic entropy given that lifespans have shortened (I am not yet convinced we have found that though)
We should look for evidences of accelerated nuclear decay - AND
If we can’t find AND, we should stay flexible to the idea that
a. the planet might be old but life is young (a distasteful outcome for some YECs that I understand and sympathize with so leave b. open as an option below)
b. we should look for evidences that the planetary materials used by God to differentiate earth and other planets were pre-aged materials (but why? and how?)

Many more predictions I missed.

Oh, duh, the obvious prediction that radioactive dating of volcanic materials should return various ages that disagree with each other, and in some cases, wildly disagree (meaning that planetary materials may have been pre-aged, but not conclusive yet)

Another prediction: we should find living fossils that we thought had gone extinct

Another: we should see an abrupt start to life in the fossil record

Another: we should find out of place fossils. Including fossil finds that cut across geologic strata

Oh how could forget? We should find a young universe, but if we don’t we need to be prepared with either 1. a model wherein it could legitimately be quickly fashioned or 2. learn to live with the results until we find #1 if ever

We should find marine fossils at the tops of mountains

Then the big one we missed staring us in the face was since the Levitical law contained sanitary laws, we should have long before the 19th or 20th century predicted the reality of germs and their bearing on sickness and its spread.

We should be able to explain what some term ‘vesitigal organs’. If we can’t explain them as functional today, then we need to have a convincing reason that they existed in past human populations

We should welcome modern genetics and the mapping of the genome - even when we find puzzling features. We need to struggle hard - very hard - to explain things like why the human and chimp genome should appear so similar in some aspects and yet the species are so dissimilar overall.

We should find a relatively recent set of progenitor parents of the entire human race.

Could you explain how that’s possible?

The answer is unpleasant to YECs even though there is no appeal to evolution. Out of respect for YECs and their (our) position, I am going to defer an answer until a later time.

If you’re unwilling to explain, please don’t bring it up in the first place. Incidentally, that all sounds like a lame excuse rather than a real justification.

1 Like

Oh I have every right to bring it up and to defer an answer. Beg your pardon.

Not granted.

Don’t you have a short memory anyway? How many times have I given the outline right on this forum of how an old planet could host young life?

Not once in any clear or reasoned form. You have provided occasional hints at your ideas, but they haven’t been coherent.

Average male human lifespan in Australia was 50 in 1900 and is now 84

Lifespans have shortened only assuming that the Genesis accounts of multicentenarians are true. Otherwise human lifespans have increased through human history, dramatically in the past century or so.


84 which is well below the Patriarchal 840 years found in Bible times, which is of course, my point. Again, however, I am not in a convinced kind of place to argue in defense of Genetic Entropy.

You don’t. It’s cargo-cult pseudoscience.

Science is almost impossible to overcome with mere rhetoric.