Replies

Have you also read articles that contradict Young Earth Creationism?...have you never seen scientific evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

Of course I have. There are some things that I still have problems with, but the list is pretty short. The two biggies are the distribution of animal species and orders on the earth (e.g., Australia) and how the heck did light from millions of light years away get here if the earth is less than 10,000 years old? These are two questions that I wish Creationists had better answers for. That's why Setterfield's theory was/is so exciting, despite the continuing problems with it. Otherwise, we're pretty much stuck with the "apparent age" argument, which has its own problems.

My "list" of problems with evolution is much longer however. For instance, from a young earth view, dark matter, solar neutrinos, short period comets, stable planetary rings, unstable galaxies, uniform 3K background radiation, etc., do not pose problems.

...and how the heck did light from millions of light years away get here if the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

What does the age of a planet have to do with light coming from an older distant object? If a new planet is formed tomorrow, it too will receive the same old light.

The two biggies are the distribution of animal species and orders on the earth (e.g., Australia) and how the heck did light from millions of light years away get here if the earth is less than 10,000 years old? These are two questions that I wish Creationists had better answers for.

This is my point. Do you believe that your knowledge of the distribution of animal species is incorrect, or do you believe that Young Earth Creationism thoery needs to be changed? With a scientific theory, the answer to this question is simple - you change the theory to make it fit the facts. However, if you are starting off with an immutable theory, and contradictory evidence appears, don't you end up with a contradiction?