Inadequate answer. But you are correct. He (John Sanford) is a young-earther. If you read the testimony here it's clear, however, that this is primarily for religious reasons. (Why else, except BIBLICAL LITERALISM, would he readily allow that the earth might be less than 10,000 years old, but give a flat "no" to the suggestion that it might be less than 5,000? His lower limit is obviously based on the literalistic, Usher-type Genesis chronology.)
Q. First of all, do you have a personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. I do have a personal opinion.
Q. And what is that personal opinion specifically as to the age? And I'm interested only in the age, not an explanation.
A. I believe that I was wrong in my previous belief that it's 4.5 billion years old and that it's much younger.
Q. How old is the earth, in your opinion?
A. I cannot intelligently say how old it is except it's much younger than I think widely believed.
Q. Give me your best estimate.
A. Less than 100,000 years old.
Q. Less than 10,000?
A. Conceivably.
Q. Conceivably less than 10,000?
A. Yes.
Q. Conceivably less than 5,000?
A. No.
Q. So it's somewhere between 5 and 10,000 years of age?
A. Between 5 and 100,000. But I would like to--
Q. No, I'm asking the questions.
A. Okay. You ask the questions.
Wow.
So what is the supposed scientific evidence that the Earth is between 6-10,000 years old?
I'm sure the creation scientists have something other than the Bible.
Yah, I was right, but it's still not enough for you.
I'll just have to be satisfied w/ being right.
And evo reasons for opposing YEC are metaphysical as well, so where's the supposed advantage of your position?
You had some unique point that applied only to me, I presume?
Or did you just think you could pretend you did?