I'll try to respond to more when I have more time, but I would like to say that my life's interest from my youth has been science, specifically the physical sciences, and it isn't true that almost every field of science that deals with the natural world is reliant on the belief that the world is old.
As a matter of fact, I'd wager that very little of any of the sciences require an old universe. The only one that I know of is the science of naturalistic origins.
-Jesse
coyote tells you [[The current religious ideas concerning origins (and there are several thousand internally contradictory ideas worldwide) are based on revelation and scripture and pure speculation — in other words, nothing.]]
Which is nothing but a bald faced lie and shows that he is ignorant of what ID science actually does forensically. He shows his hand by choosing to ignore the facts and instead spout nothign but biased propoganda- I have many sites such as Demski’s, Behe’s, and several ID sites which directly and soundly refute Coyote’s petty insults and accusations if you care to check them out- two excellent sites which refutes scientific claims and exposes the pure hype and lack of scinetific substance in wild origins claims are trueorigins.org, and creationsafaris.com
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm
Neither of which rely on “pure speculation” as coyote accuses them of- but then again- when a person like Coyote has nothign of scientific substance to offer in support of their argument for Macroevolutioin, they must rely on ad hominem attacks.