Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth

Granny Magda made an interesting point on imageinvisible's post:

quote:

---

This sounds just like the nineteenth century uniformitarianism that you are so critical of.

---

Original SourceCreationists often attack uniformitarianism, yet seem to have no problems using it in their own claims for the age of the Earth. Yet when attacking uniformitarianism, they claim that a different set of physics existed prior to the entry of the current laws of physics yet can provide no good reasoning or evidence for this.My question is, how can you determine the age of the Earth when your belief operates on the premise of two different sets of laws of physics, one of which cannot be determined in the way it functions? And are the dates given by creationists who DO use uniformitarianism essentially hypocritical?Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

C'mon. There has to be at least someone who can try give this a shot.

quote:

---

They seem oblivious to the apparent contradiction between these views.

---

So that's why I'm not getting any replies?I can't wrap my head around how one can determine the age of anything when the primary laws of physics cannot be determined. It just doesn't make any sense.

Even though it doesn't make any rational sense?

I get all of that, no problem.Specifically for the soft tissue, they more or less lied about what was found. It wasn't 'soft tissue' exactly, more like super dessicated, close to fossilized veins and decomposed blood cells that had to undergo massive work and rehydration to even be studied. But creationists lie. That's a fact of life.What I don't understand is how they can determine the age of the Earth when a fair portion of it was based on a set of laws of physics that can't be determined. You're missing half of the equation and no way of figuring it out. Rationally, that would mean you cannot come to an outcome.

quote:

---

The purpose is not to be able to actually determine the age of the earth -- they already "know" what that is -- but to make reality wrong.

---

Alright, I can accept that. But say a creationist's argument about a 6,000 year old Earth was challenged to prove it empirically. How would they deal with the problem of missing variables in the equation? If you lack the information of how the previous set of physics operated, rates are unknown, resulting in large hole in one's argument.

quote:

---

You're assuming a rational outcome is desired.

---

Of course. I'd love to see a YEC try to argue against why this doesn't completely invalidate their empirical arguments, but I don't think I'm going to get a bite. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.