Has YEC ever attempted to address the consilience of carbon dating?

[Tim]

@Dan_Eastwood

The cam defend their theology, but they can’t defend CS and theology without contradiction …

Sure they can, see my point above:

@Tim

Further, as I’ve said previously in other threads, CS is actually a subfield of Apologetics, and thus Theology, not Science.

No contradiction here – it’s all theology.

@Dan_Eastwood

… because CS generally violates the laws of physics, to which they have no scientific response.

Then it’s probably just as well for them that CS isn’t part of science, doesn’t feel the need to play by science’s rules, and will happily ignore (with the flimsiest excuses) any scientific evidence that they find inconvenient.

@Dan_Eastwood

I’m happy to let them argue theology.

But in arguing that their views render God deceptive, you are arguing theology yourself. That was my point.

@Dan_Eastwood

All I want is to remove any pretence of science. I’ve used this approach many times, and it works.

I think the ability to do this depends on who they’re pretending to:

1. if they’re pretending to actual scientists (or people who care about actual science), then I think this will work (but I don’t think they care too much what these people think); but

2. if they’re pretending to Creationists (who I think are their target audience), then I don’t think it will work, as these people don’t seem to care too much whether the rules of science are followed, or if they’re ignoring inconvenient scientific evidence.

At which point science and creationism would appear to be preaching to their respective choirs.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Tim

But in arguing that their views render God deceptive, you are arguing theology yourself . That was my point.

That IS the point. Don’t answer theology with science, answer with theology.

This works because it forks their argument.

YEC: Creation Science!
Me: Bad theology.
YEC: Defend their theology.
Me: OK, so it’s theology.
YEC: More Creation Science!
Me: But we agreed that is theology, and your science violates the laws of physics. You have no alternatives to the laws of physics that are not deceptive.

You are right they may try to continue arguing, but any claim to science has been shut down. More often they just fade away, never to be seen again.

[Tim]

@Dan_Eastwood

Me: But we agreed that is theology, and your science violates the laws of physics. You have no alternatives to the laws of physics that are not deceptive.

You are right they may try to continue arguing, but any claim to science has been shut down. More often they just fade away, never to be seen again.

I think I’ve already addressed this issue:

@Tim

Finally, I would suggest that most Creation Scientists (and their followers) don’t really see a hard border between science and theology. They may call what they do “science”, but seem unphased by (I might even go so far as to say ‘unaware of’) wandering over the border into theology on a regular basis. So I don’t think throwing in some ineffability into the mix will make them “abandon” their (already threadbare) “pretense at science”.

Also, I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule, even outside Creation Science, that states ‘once you talk theology you can’t talk science anymore’.