Is there anyone here that would be willing to participate in trying to do this with me? Some of the evolutionists would have to put aside their views to do this and help steer it and guide it in a way that would be scientific. What it would take, what would be needed, where to start, how to go about doing it, etc etc.
Basically i'm asking if some of the evolutionists here were to undertake a project of going about to try to build a Creation Model according to the book of Genesis how would you go about doing it?
I'm asking if you were to try to do it, how would you? Where would you start? What would you need? How would you go about doing it?
Well, what would one do?
Take the age of the Earth. We could add up the genealogy and the other time intervals, and we could find that if the Bible was right, the universe is ~6000 years old. This gives us a hypothesis. We can derive predictions from this about what we should see if we look at radiometric dating, at dendrochronology, at sedimentology, at the night sky, etc. Then we can compare these predictions with observation, find that they are wrong, and consider the theory falsified. That's science.
At this point, though, what the creationists do is start making up ad hoc piecemeal excuses for each particular bit of evidence falsifying the hypothesis --- excuses based not on evidence, but on wishful thinking. Well, that's not science.
You can't square the circle. You either have to provisionally accept that the scientific method has given us the right answer, and that Biblical literalism is an untenable hypothesis ---
or you can have faith without evidence that science is wrong where it conflicts with Biblical literalism. If you take the first option, you stop being a creationist, but if you take the second option, you stop doing science.
It's not a question of the evolutionists "putting aside their views". That's easy, that's what I do when I contemplate Biblical literalism as a hypothesis, treating it the same as any other hypothesis. The problem is that to believe the hypothesis to be unfalsified, I would have to put aside the scientific method itself --- in which case I might be doing creationist
apologetics, but I'm not doing creation
science.