Fountains of the deep, new evidence

Don't you think this is referring to written, human history? Not that pre-history is not history? The core problem with Creationism being accepted as legitimate science is the way it handles hypothesis testing.So, how one would need to approach the age of the earth from a creationist perspective, in order to be scientific, is to state the alternate hypothesis, H_a as: "The earth is approximately 6,000 years old." The null hypothesis H₀ would then be: "The earth is NOT 6,000 years old." Tests and observations would then need to be made to see if H_a is supported; for example, all carbon dated samples would return an age of < or = 6,000 years. If a carbon dated age returns as 10,000 years old, then what you would have to say is "There is not enough evidence to reject H₀." One could then look for ways that carbon dating could be flawed, develop some new assumptions about it and run new tests based on the revised assumptions (using the same, or a revised H₀ and H_a).But instead of approaching this issue in a scientific way (and this is an appropriate criticism, since creationists want to be accepted as legitimate science), they formulate their hypothesis testing all backwards. In other words, they state the research hypothesis as H_a "The earth is millions of years old." and H₀ as "The earth is 6,000 years old." Then what they do is attach the H_a by bringing into question certain assumptions or inferences and then declare that "There is not enough evidence to reject H₀ ."I assume you have had a 9th grade science class, so you should understand what I am saying here. Go back and read the article you cited in light of what I just wrote and see if that is what the author is actually doing there. Hint: It is.When people ask for "evidence" this is exactly what they are asking you and other creationists to do: support your H_a that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Attempting to bring into question the age of the earth being millions of years old and then declaring H₀ of a 6,000 year old to be valid is NOT, I repeat NOT scientific.HBD

It might be a good idea to study some actual geology before making statements such as this. There are some good threads on this very forum where creationists made these very claims, perhaps you could look them up and judge the arguments for yourself. There is no one on this earth that understands "global flood dynamics" since it is all made up.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo