How do creationists test their ideas?

[pitabread]

Scenario: 5 creationists, 5 different beliefs about the Earth and its history.

Creationist A: Believes the Earth is flat and ~6000 years old, believes that all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist B: Believes the Earth is round and ~6000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist C: Believes the Earth is round and ~12,000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created between ~6000 and ~12000 years ago.

Creationist D: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life has been progressively created throughout its ~4.5 billion year history.

Creationist E: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life on Earth was originally created ~4.5 billion years ago.​

How would creationists determine which is the correct view of Earth's history? What methodology would creationists apply to determine this?

 

[HTacianas]

Scenario: 5 creationists, 5 different beliefs about the Earth and its history.

Creationist A: Believes the Earth is flat and ~6000 years old, believes that all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist B: Believes the Earth is round and ~6000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist C: Believes the Earth is round and ~12,000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created between ~6000 and ~12000 years ago.

Creationist D: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life has been progressively created throughout its ~4.5 billion year history.

Creationist E: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life on Earth was originally created ~4.5 billion years ago.​

How would creationists determine which is the correct view of Earth's history? What methodology would creationists apply to determine this?

I'm not sure what you consider to be the details of D and E, but I personally fall somewhere in there.

I will accept any generally accepted scientific theory provided that it is not advanced in a manner denying the existence of God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God says "Test me now herewith..", meaning his (still applicable) laws. I've tested them. They are true.

Scientifically speaking God declares that he created everything. Looking around I see stuff that appears to have been created. Proof enough for me.

 

[section9+1]

Unnecessary question. I don't really know how old creation is and somehow I manage to get through every day without it bothering me.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

Scenario: 5 creationists, 5 different beliefs about the Earth and its history.

Creationist A: Believes the Earth is flat and ~6000 years old, believes that all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist B: Believes the Earth is round and ~6000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist C: Believes the Earth is round and ~12,000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created between ~6000 and ~12000 years ago.

Creationist D: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life has been progressively created throughout its ~4.5 billion year history.

Creationist E: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life on Earth was originally created ~4.5 billion years ago.​

How would creationists determine which is the correct view of Earth's history? What methodology would creationists apply to determine this?

The problem is that none of the radioactive methods of dating is:
1) Repeatable
2) Accurate
3) Consistent

I've seen where people took their dog's bones to be dated and they came out as anywhere from 600 - 12,000 years old. Each time it was measured, different labs got different results and they were all wrong. The dog died as was buried 10 years earlier.

So if you can show me an accurate, repeated, consistent form of dating, it would be a starting point, but so far, I've seen none, including all the forms of isotopic, radioactive carbon dating, etc. So in the absence of reliable scientific methods of dating, I see instead where the Scriptures record every man from Adam to Jesus, and see how Creation took God 6 days. I have also seen non-Christian physicists show how a Universal Ocean could have been molecularity split by a huge explosion of Universal light, creating the entire known Universe in 6 literal days. So the evidence and science I've tested and seen points to young, round earth. The science textbooks in all my College Bachelors degree of Engineering at IUPUI in Indianapolis never showed me a dating method that was repeatable, accurate for items of known age, or consistent in their findings. They just basically said "It's X years old, this is generally how radioactive carbon dating works". But I've seen HUNDREDS of people who tried to use radioactive dating to accurately date KNOWN objects ages and these methods failed miserably. That is why I have no faith in radioactive dating methods. The evidence I've seen points to their lack of credibility.

Here's a basic video explaining some of the issues with current dating methods. It talks about some of the reasons carbon dating is not reliable.

 

[Tree of Life]

Scenario: 5 creationists, 5 different beliefs about the Earth and its history.

Creationist A: Believes the Earth is flat and ~6000 years old, believes that all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist B: Believes the Earth is round and ~6000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created ~6000 years ago.

Creationist C: Believes the Earth is round and ~12,000 years old, believes all life on Earth was created between ~6000 and ~12000 years ago.

Creationist D: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life has been progressively created throughout its ~4.5 billion year history.

Creationist E: Believes the Earth is round and ~4.5 billion years old, believes that life on Earth was originally created ~4.5 billion years ago.​

How would creationists determine which is the correct view of Earth's history? What methodology would creationists apply to determine this?

A creationist would examine all the available evidence. A big piece of evidence for the creationist is holy Scripture.

 

[pitabread]

Scientifically speaking God declares that he created everything. Looking around I see stuff that appears to have been created. Proof enough for me.

That's not the question. The question is how you would distinguish in the above scenarios who is correct.

 

[pitabread]

A creationist would examine all the available evidence. A big piece of evidence for the creationist is holy Scripture.

But how does one test the above scenarios to determine who is correct?

 

[Tree of Life]

But how does one test the above scenarios to determine who is correct?

They would test it according to all the available evidence:

(1) What does God say?
(2) What does our best science say?

Then come to a conclusion.

 

[pitabread]

<snip>

This isn't a question of whether radiometric dating is correct or not. It's a question of how does one test the above scenarios to determine which creationist is correct.

Even if you throw out radiometric dating as being incorrect (it's not but that's a whole different discussion), that still doesn't inform you as to how old the Earth and/or universe is.

Second, if you decide to simply add up the genealogies in the Bible to get to an age of the Earth, that still doesn't necessarily mean that is a correct manner of determining the age of the Earth. Especially since you have no other metric by which to test it.

So how would you test whether or not you are correct?

 

[pitabread]

They would test it according to all the available evidence:

(1) What does God say?
(2) What does our best science say?

Then come to a conclusion.

But how do you test that?

 

[Tree of Life]

But how do you test that?

Uh. I read the Bible and read science stuff?

 

[pitabread]

Unnecessary question. I don't really know how old creation is and somehow I manage to get through every day without it bothering me.

Your apathy is duly noted.

 

[pitabread]

Uh. I read the Bible and read science stuff?

And? Forgive me for being pedantic, but I'm trying to get some details here.

 

[Tree of Life]

And? Forgive me for being pedantic, but I'm trying to get some details here.

Are you asking for my conclusions?

 

[Speedwell]

Uh. I read the Bible and read science stuff?

That's fine from a particular religious perspective, but a book is not, cannot be scientific evidence. The Bible is no more scientific evidence of creationism than Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's fine from a particular religious perspective, but a book is not, cannot be scientific evidence. The Bible is no more scientific evidence of creationism than Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.

It may not be scientific evidence in the sense of empirical testing. But if the Bible is God's word then it very much belongs in the pool of available evidence. "What does God say?" if we had access to such information, would be very relevant!

 

[USincognito]

The problem is that none of the radioactive methods of dating is:
1) Repeatable
2) Accurate
3) Consistent

That simply isn't true.

I've seen where people took their dog's bones to be dated and they came out as anywhere from 600 - 12,000 years old. Each time it was measured, different labs got different results and they were all wrong. The dog died as was buried 10 years earlier.

That never happened.

 

[d taylor]

The Bible determines the truth about Gods creation.

 

[Speedwell]

It may not be scientific evidence in the sense of empirical testing. But if the Bible is God's word then it very much belongs in the pool of available evidence. "What does God say?" if we had access to such information, would be very relevant!

If, as you say. Now who is going to determine exactly what God "says?"