Evolution v Creationism

[Lemur]

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.

You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. Thus your "outside our sensory perception" formulation trips over its own feet (and are there non-sensory perceptions?)

I think you're referring in an oblique and unclear way to spiritual reality versus the physical world. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).

Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.

From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.