[Fichori]

"Non-Christians, such as scientists in Indian or China, don't support the idea of a young earth because the scientific evidence simply is not there."

Saying something does not exist because you have not seen it is not empirical evidence that it does not exist, but is entirely speculative opinion.


"On the other hand, the evidence against a young earth is overwhelming."

I agree wholeheartedly with you; When you only consider the evidence against YEC, it is overwhelming.


"The same goes for the purported "global flood" about 4,350 years ago. It is a religious belief, not an event supported by scientific evidence."

If you only consider Evidence against the Flood, then the evidence, would be, once again, overwhelmingly against the flood.


You might want to do some research on this before commenting, but one theory holds that the Grand Canyon in Arizona is a direct result of the recession of the Global Flood of "about 4,350 years ago".


You must be fully aware that the Evidence for/against Evolution is inextricably linked.
When empirically evaluated, it is, metaphorically speaking, a self terminating two headed monster.

[tokenatheist]

So evidence is now a bad thing? And speaking of ‘theories’ another theory holds that the world is secretly ran by a lot of lizards from space.

That ‘theory’ has more evidence then the one that says the Grand Canyon is less than 5,000 years old.

‘theory’ is used in the colloquial sense, not the scientific.

[Coyoteman]

You might want to do some research on this before commenting, but one theory holds that the Grand Canyon in Arizona is a direct result of the recession of the Global Flood of "about 4,350 years ago".

Look up the definition of a theory. It is not an "idea" or a "guess" when the term is used in science. A theory is the highest form of documentation -- as there is no way within science to "prove" something.

Calling the idea that the Grand Canyon is 4,350 years old and was created by Noah's flood a "theory" is absolutely incorrect, and is designed to falsely equate that "idea" or religious belief with a scientific theory. Sort of like the old, "they're both theories" nonsense when comparing the theory of evolution and ID.

Also like the attempted redefinition of "science" so as to include various religious beliefs. Didn't Behe have to testify in the Dover case that his definition of "science" was broad enough to include astrology? And this is all done to try to sneak religious ideas into science, and hence into the science classes.

Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves: co-opting the terms of science in an effort to gain false respectability for non-scientific ideas or religious beliefs. In many cases lately this is done to fool school boards.

See my FR homepage for some good definitions of these terms.