Kyle Butt is a Young Earth Creationist. If there were no other reasons to discount his credibility, that one is easily enough.
Every branch of science refutes YEC. It is logically, reasonably, scientifically, and demonstrably untrue.
If Butt was willing to lie about the age of the Earth, he's willing to lie about everything, and he did.
DF
Speaking of lies or lying about the things I thought it was a very interesting part of the debate when Kyle, in the process of debating with Blair Scott, got the Atheist of the Year to pronounce openly, in public debate, that just as many proclaim in situational ethics, that it is fully permissible (morally acceptable) to lie. A method to the means so to say. One of the best or biggest laughter times came when, after all this talk about it being permissible and justifiable to lie, Kyle inquired of Blair, have you lied tonight?
As for science and scientist and Kyle and the Apologetics Press they have many scientist on their list and site which refute other scientist. The credibility of the scientist or person, I find, depends on the position they take. Their particular credibility is usually determined, in the minds of others, as to if they personally believe in God or not. For instance Apologetic Press believes their credentials are not only valid but highly esteemed. Those who advocate Atheism, Evolution, or argue that there is no God naturally dismiss their credentials and pronounce them bad scientist.
Amazing that all their studies (many hold doctorates) and work is all disqualified if they have a personal belief in Christ or if they participate and contribute to Apologetic s Press. There are many articles over there at that site that are scientifically oriented yet I realize and know they are not accepted as valid by Atheist and some other scientist. Their validity is determined not by their education or experience but mainly by if they believe in Christ or not. If so that is such a biased response and non-scientific in itself.