Why do you specify "6000 years?"
I do not doubt that CRR will ignore that question. Actually, I'm surprised that he said "6000 years" and not 10,000. Most YECs in the USA know that their "creation science" strategy depends on their false and deliberately deceptive claim of basing their claims "purely on science and having nothing to do with religion" (paraphrased). Saying "6000 years old" is a dead give-away that your reasons are purely religious, so they instead say "10,000 years" in order to be more deceptive. A furriner like CRR would not know better -- mind you, I am not familiar with the legal landscape in Australia concerning these matters; perhaps CRR could enlighten us about that.
Back in 1996 in a local creationist organization's newsletter, a local activist YEC published an article tracing the age of the earth according to the Bible. Many, myself included, have attempted that exercise, but most of us can get no further than the Flood. This article carried it further up to an actual historical event whose date was known independently of the Bible. Even though I do not agree with his conclusions nor premises, still I thought that it was a valuable example of such an exercise, so I reposted it on my site:
ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?. An interesting read.
BTW, I'm sure that he copied it from somewhere else, but that does not matter.
Our dating systems are AD ("Anno Domini") and BC ("Before Christ"), but also CE ("Common Era") and and BCE ("Before Common Era") which are temporally equivalent to AD and BC but are for non-Christian consumption (eg, Jewish scholarship). This YEC employs a very useful system of
AC ("After Creation"), useful since all the biblical dating is ultimately in reference to Creation and it isn't until later Cyrus the Persian that we can tie that dating system with BCE and so unify them.
In summary, here are this YEC's dates:
Creation -- 6202 years ago, 4185 BCE
Flood -- 1656 AC == 2529 BCE
But basically, 6000 years don't mean squat! The clock starts right after the Flood, at 2529 BCE! "Basic created kinds"? Don't mean squat until after the Flood at 2529 BCE! After all, the only reason the creationists ever came up with "basic created kinds" was to try to solve the problem of crowding all those different species into one teensy-weensy Arc. So whatever hyper-evolution may have happened before the Flood
don't mean squat! Creationists have 1656 years less time to play with utilizing their hyper-evolution.
And then there's
Baron Georges Cuvier, the "Father of Paleontology". I believe that he originated the practice of taking a single bone and extrapolating the entire animal from it -- far less of a reach than you may think.
He was also a staunch anti-evolutionist. Back in college (late 1980's verging on 1990) I personally read an English translation of his
Thorie de la terre (Theory of the Earth). From his Egyptian Campaign (whose other contribution was to use the Sphinx' nose as artillery practice, thank you very much, Nappy!) Napoleon had brought back many Egyptian artifacts, including a large number of mummies of both humans and animals. Those mummies dated back to thousands of years BCE; according to Wikipedia, the oldest animal mummies date back between 5500—4000 BCE, well before the Flood (
https://en.wikipedia.org/...d_non-human_animal_mummification).
The problem for him was that he was still a young-earther. So he looked at the mummies from thousands of years ago, very shortly after creation by his reckoning, and he looked at the same modern animals and he saw virtually no change at all. Therefore he deemed evolution to be impossible.
So, then, CRR doesn't actually have 6000 years to play with, but rather about 4546 years. But not even that much, since Baron Georges Cuvier firmly established that by thousands of years BCE all the animal species had been fully evolved.
Instantaneous evolution??? Is
that the creationist solution? Well, that is the only bullshit that you are feeding us at this time.
Very early on, I heard a presentation which stated that a single speciation event required about 50,000 years. I cannot tell you what that could have been based on. But the creationist model of near-instanteneous evolution over multiple taxonomical levels is .... mind-blowing.
No, absolutely ridiculous!!!!
ABE:
Of course creationists will try to explain away their near-instantaneous evolution by claiming that the original basic created kinds had been created with incredible amounts of genetic variability.
The problem with that is that that genetic variability would have been all used up long before the Flood. Remember, the Flood happened 1656 years
after Creation.
Also remember that the only reason for that entire "basic created kinds" and its associated near-instantaneous evolution is to be able to get all those animals onto the Ark. So the fact that the near-instantaneous evolution would have happened very shortly after Creation and more than a millennium before the Ark renders that entire line of claims moot and utterly useless.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE