Replies

The two biggies are the distribution of animal species and orders on the earth (e.g., Australia) and how the heck did light from millions of light years away get here if the earth is less than 10,000 years old? These are two questions that I wish Creationists had better answers for.

This is my point. Do you believe that your knowledge of the distribution of animal species is incorrect, or do you believe that Young Earth Creationism thoery needs to be changed? With a scientific theory, the answer to this question is simple - you change the theory to make it fit the facts. However, if you are starting off with an immutable theory, and contradictory evidence appears, don't you end up with a contradiction?

This is my point. Do you believe that your knowledge of the distribution of animal species is incorrect, or do you believe that Young Earth Creationism thoery needs to be changed? With a scientific theory, the answer to this question is simple - you change the theory to make it fit the facts. However, if you are starting off with an immutable theory, and contradictory evidence appears, don't you end up with a contradiction?

It would help if you understood the difference between Biblical Creationism and Scientific Creationism. Scientifically you can't prove that God created the world in six days, or fish on the 5th day, or that there was a man named Noah. That's Biblical and you either accept it by faith or you don't.

Creation Science deals with the age of the earth and universe, fixity of species, catastrophic geology (vs. uniformatiarianism), etc. These are things that science deals with and I believe the evidence supports a recent creation and a global flood, and contradicts evolution. Just like Newton and Pastuer and thousands of other creation scientists have believed.