I know I ask a broad thing, but I would appreciate much if you indulge conversation on the matter.

Think about it, science has basically based itself around the theory of evolution.

The main evidence for young earth creationism ( and I'm sure Fred or Ikester will correct me here if I'm wrong.) is the christian bible itself.  This, combined with Bishop Ussher's chronology puts the creation of the earth at around 4004 BC.

My own personal view is that the Big Bang theory is a better description of the early universe and follows the observable facts better.

The main evidence for young earth creationism ( and I'm sure Fred or Ikester will correct me here if I'm wrong.) is the christian bible itself.

My own personal view is that the Big Bang theory is a better description of the early universe and follows the observable facts better.

Scientific evidence? None that science would accept.

The main evidence for young earth creationism ( and I'm sure Fred or Ikester will correct me here if I'm wrong.) is the christian bible itself. 

My own personal view is that the Big Bang theory is a better description of the early universe and follows the observable facts better.

Okay, I see that many of you who believe in a young earth claim that secular science won't accept your evidence, one of the reasons being that because if they did, it would throw a questionable, if not fatal, light on many scientific theories.

Now, why is this?  Why did science became so secular, and, according to YEC, filled with erroneous theories?

Why do so few scientists believe in a young earth?  And I think this touches on: Why do people become secular in the first place?  I know some of you claim your beliefs are obvious, but if a young earth and/or the existence of your deity are obvious things, why would anyone oppose/disagree?  I think because, although many YEC followers may find it obvious (due to their religious upbringing perhaps), many non-religious people don't.

Now, I know you might say that yes, to a person raised away from the truth of God, it wouldn't be something obvious; but that would be fallacious, and I'll try and explain why.  Firstly, in respect to myself, I wasn't raised apart from God -- it was present in my family, just not the extent of many American/Islamic families. 

I attest with complete honesty that as a child, I was reputed to be very questioning, and I was really.  I was always very critical of everything, religious belief not excepted, by cause of no outside influence I'm aware of.  And secondly, it would be fallacious because you presume without showing that there is any truth away from which I was raised.

I would add that ever since the industrial revolution, religious belief has seemingly waned obscure throughout most advanced nations, particularly those European (where once the Christian faith predominated).  I know this isn't the case in America, and I have a link which addresses that, and this entire issue.

Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth?  And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?

present your side...

Why do people become secular in the first place?

Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth? And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?

1) Carbon 14 in coal, diamonds, natural gas (C14 has a half life of 5600y, so it should long have decayed into N14; yet we virtually always find C14 in stuff that is supposed to be millions of years old). See thread.

It seems to me that this argument could easily be settled by doing a study of the correlation between C14 in coal seams relative to the level of Uranium therein.  I'm not sure how likely a mainstream scientist is to get funding for that, but one of the creationist institutes really ought to give it a go.  It would be great ammunition if no correlation existed.

And what secular science institute would take the findings into consideration? Remember, all creationists are liars (according to "all" evolutionists forums and websites).

Where I live, there aren't any young-earth creationists.  Every religious person I've met believes in evolution and an old universe, and not in the literal translation of the Bible.  So, I find this whole idea of a young earth very foreign, and it seems contrary to everything I've ever learned about science and the universe.  My community is very secular and very liberal, though, much unlike where this theory heralds in the U.S.

Now, it would be very unfair to dismiss it all without hearing your guys' side, so I hunted down this forum, and I ask you now to please, if you have some spare time, present your side.  I will probably debate some points with you.

I read in another thread that you guys believe your theory has a lot of traction in the science community (which was strange to me, because I'd never heard of it, and I'm an avid science enthusiast), so I googled around, and found this list of credentialed scientists who oppose YEC: all named Steve.  This seems contrary to that claim.

I know I ask a broad thing, but I would appreciate much if you indulge conversation on the matter.

You already have decided to have a tainted-bias view of all who would believe YEC.

For a well known scientist to change his views in favor of young earth. Is a guarantee to the end of his career. And any papers, books, conclusions, plus any degrees become useless. And are thrown out. So there is a peer pressure to conform and accept, or be removed and discredited.

Sorry, no one that runs this forum is Islamic. But I'm sure you meant that as a slur.

So excuse us while we treat others as we are treated. You can blame this attitude on recent events here, where some evolutionists decieved, lied, etc... And were caught and banned for it. Just about every person that has come here and started out just like you have, ended up doing the same exact thing in one form or another.

I only take to be true about 10% of what ever a evolutionist says. Just as I'm sure you think the same way about any creation believing Christian. And you can blame this attitude on previous encounters here, and else where for that.
People who are cronic liars, and represent what is against God. Will say and do anything to acheive their goal. Which includes faking what they believe. Like what evolutionist do for entertainment, and out right untruth as shown here: [three links]

So what would you say the goal of why you started this thread?

Physical evidence for a Young Earth isn't that hard to find, if you look for something that doesn't quite fit the evolutionist explanations.

I said "Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth? And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?" and you gave me, I think, quotes from the bible. Could you please address these questions another way?

From my perspective, the Bible is not veracious, which is why I asked you to respond differently.

But I don't believe these things.  Their veracity is a thing you assume.  What I ask is, can you answer my questions in another way, with a more reputable piece of evidence than religious text?

I cannot accept the biblical claims in that text as true, unless you can show through evidence it accords with contemporary educated consensus on the matter(s) (like how all people are inherently self-centered).

To summarize roughly why I find the Bible not veracious: As I understand, it has undergone countless revisions at the hands of many authors, some anonymous, over the span of about a thousand years(?), and, considering its nature, it can hardly be considered an unbiased representation of historic fact.

You were given non-biblical physical evidence that the earth is young.

There are many things in your world view that you assume to be true as well. Do they hinder your faith?

There is no doubt that you cannot accept the bible as being true. If you have negative volition toward God, he will not reveal himself anymore to you than he already has through creation.

Do you want to know God?

If a person writes down the truth about history, bias has nothing to do with it. The truth is the truth, and there are many biases in what you believe. Its a matter of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.

So, as I understand you, that layer upon layer of unmolested strata ( I'm talking a thousand feet of the stuff, ya know) means "gap theory"?

Sorry, sir, but that is not the case. It would mean that for all those millions of years . . . NOTHING HAPPENED . . . no rain, no snow, no wind, no sun, nothing.

So, is that your statement, that nothing happened ofr "X" millenia?

How did any science get corrupted? Theories, unproven, became considered to be axioms, then proof was implied, though still unproven, and because of the axiom status of the theory, resulting in people giving blind faith to often illogical theoretical processes.

Oh, dear . . .did I just describe Evolution?

Evolutionist presume Z,X and Y happened over Q period of time and not necessarily in the order required for success.

Creationists see X,Y, and Z happening in six days and in the proper order for success.

And you think that no Christian has [examined their beliefs with scrutiny]? I have. I used to be an evolutionist until too many gaps went unexpalined, the odds went thru the roof _against_ success, and all the "experts kept changing the parameters.

Think: Laws of Thermodynamics. The one about "entropy".

What have you to prove a truth from those sources [my beliefs]? An assumption based on what? An opinion? Based on what? A theory based on ??????

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, the accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, so the contents of the Bible are both historically and factually accurate.

Don't try to convince yourself, let Creation convince you.

Your reasoning is self-defeating

[The opposition likes to] condemn without fair trial

All you've stated is your biases _against_ accepting the creation evidence. Your mind is closed. You have condemned the creation story without fair trial.

If only it were a geological anomoly, then your comment about my evidence would be true, but the same anomoly is found all over the world in sedimentary rock layers, and more ecently, in the newly formed sedimentary rocks and fossils at Mount St. Helens.

Just think, rock forming in a quarter century, fossils in the same period, and just outside that innundated area, in the ash zone, no fossils, no new rocks.

I don't think I agree with this.  From everything I've seen of science, if someone offers compelling evidence as to a new theory, no matter how absurd it may seem at first, it will be considered, and evaluated.

Some questions:
Why is it the only two areas in the world in which there is any doubt over evolution are certain areas of the United States, and certain Islamic controlled states?

How do you know whether I assume things or not?  Because, as far as I'm aware, I don't.   The word assume goes hand in hand with the next word you use: faith.  There is nothing I have "faith" in, faith being belief without evidence.  Everything I believe I have considered with scrutiny.

But I don't believe these things.  Their veracity is a thing you assume.  What I ask is, can you answer my questions in another way, with a more reputable piece of evidence than religious text?  I cannot accept the biblical claims in that text as true, unless you can show through evidence it accords with contemporary educated consensus on the matter(s) (like how all people are inherently self-centered).

To summarize roughly why I find the Bible not veracious: As I understand, it has undergone countless revisions at the hands of many authors, some anonymous, over the span of about a thousand years(?), and, considering its nature, it can hardly be considered an unbiased representation of historic fact.

Ghostrider1,

(Not all quotes done in quote boxes cause of quote limit)

"Yes, you were. The evidences are the same for both Creation and Evolution, the _PRESUMTIONS_ based on those evidences are the difference."

I don't think you understand what happened.  I asked Fred Williams two questions; he responded with quotes from the Bible.  I asked him to respond in another way; he said he thought Bible quotes were good enough.  Then 92g said he did respond differently; I pointed out that to those two questions he clearly did not, and Fred said as much.  Now you claim he did.  What?  This matter is pointless.
What exactly are you talking about?  And whatever you are talking about, you make the mistake of assuming scientists presume anything.  The suffix "sume" does not exist within the realm of science, only theology and fantasy.  If something is not supported by observable fact, like has been shown thus far in respect to YEC, it is not science.
Certainly some have, but I severely doubt many of you young Earth types have, at least honestly.  Indeed the only way one can become a YEC follower is if they completely disavow all contemporary science.  Every realm of science yields an avalanche of evidence contradicting YEC, and yet you say you have scrutinized your beliefs.  Do you really think all the professional thinkers of this world are mistaken?

"Logic? It went on vacation and never returned."
So much is obvious.

"Do they, or is it just the way you see things?"
Is it possible to see with eyes other than one's own?

"Are you saying that a bias in favor of promoting falsehoods is better than promoting truths?"
Of course not.
That was obviously not the context.  And no one has yet addressed my liberal happiness observation, just as no one has yet addressed many of my observations and questions from the previous page.  What is more moral that alleviating human suffering, and the suffering of other life?
Staggering hypocrisy.  I base my beliefs on the scientific consensus which has birthed a world of electricity, internet, happiness, equality, space travel and instant communication, while you base yours on a two-thousand year old religious text that would rather you spend your type sacrificing virgins and slaughtering infidels/h*m*sexuals/opposing religions/people who work on the sabbath*.
*Old Testament
Show me they have been proven, because I've never seen anything objective supporting that claim; and please, tell me, by what contorted form of logic do you deduce that because some biblical revelations resemble reality, depending on how liberal your translation, all biblical claims correspond entirely with reality.  Try taking that to court, and it might end up like Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Believe me, I tried all manners of convincing.  I really did.

And please all YEC followers, research into 'Cargo Cults' and you'll get an idea as to how susceptible humans really are to religion and mysticism.  Though perhaps susceptible implies the wrong meaning, because (I realize just now you won't believe what I'm about to say) religion has to have evolutionary benefits (some aren't hard to imagine: kill rival religions, have many children, don't worry if you're unhappy this life, cause you're going to heaven!).  Religion can, despite some of its more abominable byproducts, beget happiness, fulfillment, a communal feeling and other survival based benefits, which is why it's so ubiquitous.

It is obvious from history that religion has its survival-based, and therefore natural-selection based benefits, counting those I just said.  I mean, once conscious apes developed the ability to ask the big questions -- Where did Grandpa go when he died? -- religion perhaps became necessary for those early creatures.  Very necessary; they may very well have lived an unhappy, and therefore less fruitful (and therefore less likely to be naturally selected) life if not for religion.  You may even say religion helped the conscious apes through the really hard part of their evolutionary lifespan.

But not anymore, and that is the point.  We no longer need it.  We are, most of us,  beyond that kind of sentimental fiction, and it does humanity no good to persist in delusion; and thankfully, when looking at Europe and Japan, we are dissolving those archaic delusions at an increasing rate.
I admit that the reasoning there was weak, which is why my very next paragraph addressed the possibility of your being correct, but it was certainly not self-defeating.  Although in the strict logical sense it wasn't self-defeating, it certainly wasn't very strong, which is why I also encouraged you to submit your evidence for review, but to consider scientists' opinions in response objectively.
I disagree, and find that statement hypocritical, for it is the creationists who never fairly address the scientist's arguments, assuming a priori they are wrong (which you do do.  YEC followers enter every debate convinced wholly that their position is infallible, that god created the a young earth no matter what the opposition says, which is ascientific).
Actually, all I stated was in fact the world's consensus as to history from The Enlightenment to present, but somehow that makes it my mind that is closed, and me who has condemned without fair trial.  How do you deduce that, when I am here right now putting you on fair trial, trying to open my mind as to why you believe what you do?
Cite evidence.  Show me.  Show me these theories are irrefutable.  And I reiterate what I said:

"... there are several very cardinal, very difficult to refute fundamental evidences behind the age of the universe. You address them too seldom, and I will provide a link describing them, and I would like to see your take on them. I just think you shouldn't try and poke holes in the Scientist's arguments rather than topple them altogether, which is what you really have to do, lest they accuse you of the gap strategy."
Theists like to ask : What if?  What if you are wrong, and you will pay for it forever?

But this atheist asks : What if?  What if -- just really imagine -- what if this is it?  What if the only life you get (not that life is something so apprehensible, a pathetic four-letter English word could embody it's magic) you squander living under fictitious religious dogma, when your biological brains are capable of so much more?  So much more beauty?  There's always time, and there's no reason to let any barriers withhold your vision of the universe.  I came here not to gloat, and I came here not to hurt.  There are anthropological reasons as to why religions exist; look at Cargo Cults.  I just really hope you'll consider my question with as much conviction as I've considered yours.

Then Answer me two question.First, do you believe Socrates said what the books say that he said ? Second, how do you know those are true ?

I guess we will have to disagree in peace, Ghostrider.  And in no instance did I re-write anything you said; if you refer to my editorial brackets I used for clarification, the reader knows that the words aren't yours because they are in editorial brackets.

My apologies Deadlock.  I just mentioned the two big areas I know where that happens.
I'm not familiar with this.

Fred, how can you convince me then?  It seems the only way one can come to believe in YEC, especially from my standpoint, is to commit a leap of faith.  All I'm saying is, the people who spend their very lives studying, being in awe of the universe, of nature itself, denounce YEC.  I absolutely fail to understand how you can think they would stunt the understanding of their passion.

My uncle has a phd in Zoology, and I can tell you firsthand the man is pretty much a freaken genius.  He gets off on nothing more than seeing the strange ways life has evolved and telling me and my brothers stories about how some obscure bird evolved some strange habit that's beneficial in some completely unimaginable way.  You say it's good design; he disagrees completely, because he has seen the failed designs of those creatures that are now extinct.  And not only that, design was proven to be unscientific in court.  There isn't some mass conspiracy guys.  Scientists are just guys who love learning about the world, trying to grasp the wonder, and when they see people who claim their life work is fraudulent, people trying desperately to shut out the facts, it freaken pisses them off.  This is probably why there's so many people standing up nowadays, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Ghostrider makes the common misunderstanding that there is chance involved in evolution.  In respect to life, the only part that chance may have played at all was the origin, and that is something entirely separate from evolution (something still puzzling biologists).  It is something very directed toward that which allows life to survive, directed naturally, and that is all.  Indeed survival is the only thing evolution is about.  Evolution in a nutshell: genes that are better at surviving predominate, and thus are those we see today.
Ok, you guys, I just wanna tell you my whole outtake on this personally,

Evolution, the old earth and universe, these things are blindingly obvious to the students of nature.  They really are!  Only when you abandon natural phenomena for the supernatural, which is not science, can you convince yourself otherwise.  Your theories don't gain scientific traction because of this, as all science really is anyway is the study of what we can learn from nature.

All of you YEC followers were raised Christian.  All of you.  And if you hadn't been, and hadn't been raised in another faith, you would definitely not believe what you do today, and you would regard religion as I do: an evolutionary phenomenon that is beginning to fade away.  Something that undoubtedly had its evolutionary benefits when mankind was more primitive, but something that doesn't anymore.

You were, as many unfortunate children were, indoctrinated.  And not the namby-pamby indoctrination you try and accuse schools of doing, but real indoctrination.  Your parents and family and everyone impressing upon you their faith from a very young age, and it got so it infected your very way of thinking.  Neuroscientists are right now discovering the ways the brain's chemistry can change from things like this.  You older YEC followers, if you have children or nephews etc., are no doubt guilty of this act yourselves, even if you consider it impressing the truth instead of indoctrination.  Look at the documentary Jesus Camp, and tell me otherwise.  That is indoctrination, and an evil hypocrisy.

But it isn't your fault.  Religions, the ones that didn't go extinct, are very very good at indoctrination, just as they are good at avoiding science and criticism.  You could say they have been naturally-selected, as per meme theory.  Especially the ones that have survived this long, so you wouldn't expect their followers to have a weak faith.  If you look through the Bible or the Koran, there are very specific passages designed intently to combat criticism, and not by a deity.

I predict that unless something crazy happens, like Islam or Christianity takes over the world (probably won't happen), in five-hundred years, less than ten percent of the earth will possess traditional religious beliefs.  If you look at current trends thriving in the advanced nations, it isn't far fetched.  Indeed if all nations were like Japan or Sweden, the world would already be that way.

And as to the issue of Cargo Cults Ghostrider, something I urge all of you to look into by the way, their brains are genetically identical to ours.  No difference.  If, by some unimaginable miracle, you or I ourselves were born into their environment, we would have turned out the same.  Three thousand years ago our ancestors were the same as theirs, and evolution doesn't work quick enough (indeed it may not have worked at all, considering new theories as to how evolution applies to humans) for our brains to be any "smarter" than theirs.  We are equally susceptible.

Thank you if you read this.

Fred, how can you convince me then?

All of you YEC followers were raised Christian.

I guess we will have to disagree in peace, Ghostrider.  And in no instance did I re-write anything you said; if you refer to my editorial brackets I used for clarification, the reader knows that the words aren't yours because they are in editorial brackets.

Still, the words were mine and what _I_ meant. Would you want me to re-write your words?

My apologies Deadlock.  I just mentioned the two big areas I know where that happens.
I'm not familiar with this.

Fred, how can you convince me then?  It seems the only way one can come to believe in YEC, especially from my standpoint, is to commit a leap of faith.

Have you not done this veryt thing in order to accept what men guess, yes, guess happend so long ago? And even more so when they change the meanings of those guesses regularly?

All I'm saying is, the people who spend their very lives studying, being in awe of the universe, of nature itself, denounce YEC.  I absolutely fail to understand how you can think they would stunt the understanding of their passion.

I am reminded of the verses of a hymn we sang in church this morning: "Oh, Lord, my God, when I stand in awesome wonder and consider all thy hands hath made."

So we never admire the majesty of the Universe? Heck, we sing about it!

My uncle has a phd in Zoology, and I can tell you firsthand the man is pretty much a freaken genius.  He gets off on nothing more than seeing the strange ways life has evolved and telling me and my brothers stories about how some obscure bird evolved some strange habit that's beneficial in some completely unimaginable way.  You say it's good design; he disagrees completely, because he has seen the failed designs of those creatures that are now extinct.

Wouldn't those be the "missing links"??? and why hasn't he gain incredible fame as finding them?

And not only that, design was proven to be unscientific in court.  There isn't some mass conspiracy guys.  Scientists are just guys who love learning about the world, trying to grasp the wonder, and when they see people who claim their life work is fraudulent, people trying desperately to shut out the facts, it freaken pisses them off.  This is probably why there's so many people standing up nowadays, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I know that Dawkins has delared war on Christianity and seeks to destroy it.

Ghostrider makes the common misunderstanding that there is chance involved in evolution.  In respect to life, the only part that chance may have played at all was the origin, and that is something entirely separate from evolution (something still puzzling biologists).  It is something very directed toward that which allows life to survive, directed naturally, and that is all.  Indeed survival is the only thing evolution is about.  Evolution in a nutshell: genes that are better at surviving predominate, and thus are those we see today.

Your reasoning is flawed.

A) Evolution requires positive mutation and a gain in genetic info and there is none.

The chance involved is the mutated creature has to have a compatible mate to reproduce in kind. Ask a gambler what have two identical hands in a game of poker does to the odds.

C) if there is a gain in genetic info, then we should, according to evolutionary schedules, all be ferns, which have the highest number of genes.

D) All genetic code is flawed, plant or animal doesn't matter. Osti, the Iceman of Switzerland, has been checked to see if he is genetically human, but no one has checked to see what percentage of his genes are damaged and then compared that to modern man and the damage in our genes.

Ok, you guys, I just wanna tell you my whole outtake on this personally,

Evolution, the old earth and universe, these things are blindingly obvious to the students of nature.  They really are!  Only when you abandon natural phenomena for the supernatural, which is not science, can you convince yourself otherwise.  Your theories don't gain scientific traction because of this, as all science really is anyway is the study of what we can learn from nature.

Science: noun; knowledge. That's what "science" is.

All of you YEC followers were raised Christian.  All of you.  And if you hadn't been, and hadn't been raised in another faith, you would definitely not believe what you do today, and you would regard religion as I do: an evolutionary phenomenon that is beginning to fade away.  Something that undoubtedly had its evolutionary benefits when mankind was more primitive, but something that doesn't anymore.

And you are wrong.

I wasn't raised as a Christian. I was agnostic as a youth, in the eastern beliefs as a yong adult (the 70's) and an evolutionist as a child until I began to question those pesky missing fossils.

I became a Christian at  age 31, after my second marriage.

You were, as many unfortunate children were, indoctrinated.  And not the namby-pamby indoctrination you try and accuse schools of doing, but real indoctrination.  Your parents and family and everyone impressing upon you their faith from a very young age, and it got so it infected your very way of thinking.  Neuroscientists are right now discovering the ways the brain's chemistry can change from things like this.  You older YEC followers, if you have children or nephews etc., are no doubt guilty of this act yourselves, even if you consider it impressing the truth instead of indoctrination.  Look at the documentary Jesus Camp, and tell me otherwise.  That is indoctrination, and an evil hypocrisy.

You're absolutely right. They took out prayer in schools and then forced the religion of evolution onme and the other kids.

But it isn't your fault.  Religions, the ones that didn't go extinct, are very very good at indoctrination, just as they are good at avoiding science and criticism.  You could say they have been naturally-selected, as per meme theory.  Especially the ones that have survived this long, so you wouldn't expect their followers to have a weak faith.  If you look through the Bible or the Koran, there are very specific passages designed intently to combat criticism, and not by a deity.

What you say about religion parallels what we see in the Evolutionist groups.

I predict that unless something crazy happens, like Islam or Christianity takes over the world (probably won't happen), in five-hundred years, less than ten percent of the earth will possess traditional religious beliefs.  If you look at current trends thriving in the advanced nations, it isn't far fetched.  Indeed if all nations were like Japan or Sweden, the world would already be that way.

And if you give a false prophecy, will you submit to stoning (the Old Testament sentence for false prophecy)?

And as to the issue of Cargo Cults Ghostrider, something I urge all of you to look into by the way, their brains are genetically identical to ours.  No difference.  If, by some unimaginable miracle, you or I ourselves were born into their environment, we would have turned out the same.  Three thousand years ago our ancestors were the same as theirs, and evolution doesn't work quick enough (indeed it may not have worked at all, considering new theories as to how evolution applies to humans) for our brains to be any "smarter" than theirs.  We are equally susceptible.

I never said they were physically different, but like you, the result of your uncle's influence (yes, influence. He set the ground rules for your environment) to indoctrinate a young mind on a one-on-one level, these people are the result of environmental issues and indoctrinations.

Thank you if you read this.

I can’t convince you, it sounds like your mind is made up despite the evidence. You already worship at the alter of your uncle Fester. I could give you plenty of PhD scientists who believe in creation, in fact all the great scientists of the past believed in a Creator, but I wouldn’t expect this to convince you either. Evolution boils down to common sense. We don’t need smart PhD scientists to tell us the truth about origins. Everyone knows the universe, world, and life were all designed. The evidence is powerful and undeniable. To think something as complex as the eye evolved down 40 separate paths via mistakes in the DNA coupled with a blind selection process, that genetic information can somehow arise naturalistically, that you are related to the banana in your fridge, requires an incredible amount of blind faith.
All?  Wrong again! I’d say at least half of the scientists I know who are creationists were raised believing in evolution. I already told you that I came to reject an old earth because of science, not religion. Abotu the age of 30, when I saw both sides of the evidence instead of one side (I was indoctrinated), I realized the earth was very likely less than 50K years old. Soon thereafter I accepted the Biblical timeline of roughly 6K years, due to the accuracy of the Bible on all other matters. The 6K years fit within the 50K time limit. As I have discovered, while the Bible is not a science book, it is always accurate whenever it touches on matters of science.

Then came the mitochondria clock of 6K years, then the Helium clock of 6K years, giving credence to the historical record of 6K years from the Bible.

So where does this leave us? You seem completely disinterested in engaging our arguments. You ignore them and move on to some other mantra. The truth is, the reason you and your uncle and all your academia professors love evolution is because you want no part of a Creator you would be accountable to. You cherish your sins, and don’t want to give them up! We’re all in the same sin-filled boat, the only difference is that Christians have accepted the life jacket that has been tossed to them, in the person of Jesus Christ, who bought us with a price by dying for our sins. We all deserve to go to hell, which is a real place of everlasting torment. You can deny it exists, but if it is real, and if what I tell you is the truth, your denying it will not make it go away. God is most of all love, and he suffers greatly every day because of those he cannot convince to turn to Him. God is also righteous, and just, and those who refuse to turn away from their evil lives will feel the justice part of God who will separate them from his light, into everlasting darkness. Saying you won’t worship a God who sends people to hell: 1) shows you misjudge the righteousness of yourself (which I believe is Satan’s most effective deception), and 2) will not make the reality of hell go away.

Fred

I can’t convince you, it sounds like your mind is made up despite the evidence.

You already worship at the alter of your uncle Fester.

We don’t need smart PhD scientists to tell us the truth about origins. Everyone knows the universe, world, and life were all designed. The evidence is powerful and undeniable.

To think something as complex as the eye evolved down 40 separate paths via mistakes in the DNA coupled with a blind selection process, that genetic information can somehow arise naturalistically, that you are related to the banana in your fridge, requires an incredible amount of blind faith.

All? Wrong again! I’d say at least half of the scientists I know who are creationists were raised believing in evolution. I already told you that I came to reject an old earth because of science, not religion. Abotu the age of 30, when I saw both sides of the evidence instead of one side (I was indoctrinated).

You seem completely disinterested in engaging our arguments. You ignore them and move on to some other mantra.