"Eye Witness" claim of the YEC

[seer]

Let's discuss the "Eye Witness" claim.

I would put forth ANOTHER eye witness claim -- that NATURE (creation itself) gives a DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT via geology, genetics, paleo-anthropology, biogeography, and astrophysics.

What do y'all think?

K54

These are not "eye witness" claims by definition. All of the above must be interpreted through preexisting assumptions. And since science is an ongoing discipline who knows what conclusions it will come to tomorrow. There are after all paradigm shifts.

[HMS_Beagle]

In addition to the YEC apologist jargon terms, "just-so story", "science falsely-so-called", ... whatever...

There is the rhetorical trick that would make the most expert advertisement writer jealous -- the claim that the Genesis stories give an "Eye Witness" account of creation. The assumption is that Elohim was "there" at "time zero" and since the Bible is absolutely correct in terms of both theology AND science AND that their "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is the ONLY possible one, then no evidence; historical, scientific, anthropological, linguistic, or theological can be correct if it contradicts their "reading".

Confer Section 4 of the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith.

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

Let's discuss the "Eye Witness" claim.

I would put forth ANOTHER eye witness claim -- that NATURE (creation itself) gives a DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT via geology, genetics, paleo-anthropology, biogeography, and astrophysics.

What do y'all think?

K54

Creationists have a very distorted definition of "eyewitness" much different from the rest of the world.

According to Dictionary.com the definition of eyewitness is "A person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it."

A written account describing how a person supposedly saw something is not an eyewitness account. At best it is second hand hearsay, i.e. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

That the account is hearsay doesn't automatically make the description wrong but it does mean that the description must be independently verified before being accepted as accurate.

Many Arthur Conan Doyle detective stories have "eyewitness" accounts of clients meeting with Sherlock Holmes but that isn't evidence Sherlock Holmes was a real live historical figure.

[klaus54]

In addition to the YEC apologist jargon terms, "just-so story", "science falsely-so-called", ... whatever...

There is the rhetorical trick that would make the most expert advertisement writer jealous -- the claim that the Genesis stories give an "Eye Witness" account of creation. The assumption is that Elohim was "there" at "time zero" and since the Bible is absolutely correct in terms of both theology AND science AND that their "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is the ONLY possible one, then no evidence; historical, scientific, anthropological, linguistic, or theological can be correct if it contradicts their "reading".

Confer Section 4 of the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith.

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

Let's discuss the "Eye Witness" claim.

I would put forth ANOTHER eye witness claim -- that NATURE (creation itself) gives a DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT via geology, genetics, paleo-anthropology, biogeography, and astrophysics.

What do y'all think?

K54