[plain talk]

All empirical evidence supports an old Earth. If the Bible requires a young Earth, we must reject Christianity. That’s a pretty friggin big deal.

most evidence points to an old earth. The Bible does not require one to believe in a young earth to accept the gospel. Therefore it is not a big issue except to young-earthers, antagonistic atheists and people with too much time on their hands.

[Larry Lucido]

Exactly. We old-earth creationists are quite happy to let the debate lie. Others seem to want to project a lot.

[editor-surveyor]

"most evidence points to an old earth."

You mean the "evidence" that you wish to acknowledge?

All of the visible evidence on Earth perfectly fits a 6000 year maximum age.

Were the earth older than 6000 years, we would have essentially no agriculture, since we wouldn't have any soil; if it has erroded at the present observed rate, it would all be at the bottom of the oceans.

The amount of water on Earth perfectly fits a 6000 year age, and certainly nothing older, and balances with the water contributed by Small Comets. Were it much older, it might be dry as a bone from the loss of water caused by tectonic subduction.

This thread would be as long as "War and Peace" if I were to list all the clearly visible things that can only be supportive of the Bible's description of a young Earth.

[GodGunsGuts]

==most evidence points to an old earth. Quite the contrary. Old Earth arguments are not based on evidence, but rather on Old Earth assumptions.