Your post reminds me I have been listening to lectures by Jason Lisle, Ph.D in astrophysics. I looked him upon the web and was fascinated to see the comments. Some said he was not using science because he starts with the Bible; which is irrefutable. He believes in six day twenty-four hour creation about 6,000 years ago. Of course they are starting from a belief, the refutable position, the Bible is wrong.
The words of Bahnsen sum up the need to argue presuppositionally. He starts with the irrefutable position the Bible is God's Word and is True. Since you start with the refutable position, when pushed it to its ultimate supporting belief, you are the same as the people above.
When one starts with the Bible and is pushed and shoved to his belief, he can demonstrate its reliability. That is not possible with any other world view.
Evidence is not the be all to end all. All of us interpret the evidence based on our world view. For me the fossil record is fantastic support for Noah's Flood. For me carbon 14 in diamonds, coal, oil, and fossils is fantastic conformation of a young earth. Instead of using Oocam's Razor you come up with a rescuing device and invent something to explain these.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
