simple answers to simple questions
Ken Ham's temple of ignorance asks a simple-minded, leading question. We should still answer it.
In the temple of ignorance that is Ken Ham's Creation Museum, there's an exhibit which asks what should hypothetically be a question designed to peak your curiosity and give credence to Young Earth creationism as seen in the image above.
Allow me to take a whack at this. One view feels completely unconstrained to follow the evidence and take the facts to build up an open-ended story of how our world and our universe came to be. The other desperately insists on trying to cram anything that looks even vaguely factual into the framework of a big collection of religious punditry and mythology that spans from the Bronze Age to the twilight of the Classical World. The former view is based on the tangible and the verifiable. The latter is based around a preconceived notion that its supporters say is a sin to contradict.
But this is just a superficial answer. The so-called "facts" used by groups such as the ICR and Answers in Genesis aren't scientific at all. From geology, to astronomy, to biology and even history, they mercilessly mangle scientific models with all the respect and skill of an insane axe murderer dismembering his first victim. And when that doesn't work, they just plain make things up and insist they're somehow scientific by ripping meaningless out of context quotes from scientific journals and using them as citations.
After their next testament to close-mindedness, they proceed to vigorously pat themselves on the back and openly engage in daydreams of how all of modern science is on the run from the sheer might of their asinine arguments. They then go on to their only real skills, semantics and self-aggrandizement, and ask these bizarre questions, fully expecting that what passes as solid evidence for them will be just as compelling to others. In reality, that couldn't be further from the truth.
