[Fester Chugabrew]

Clearly the two beliefs, YEC-ism and Last Thursday-ism, are equally indistinguishable, both intellectually and philosophically. And equally indefensible with respect to any material evidence.

Perhaps, but why should evolutionism fall outside the same indefensible proposition? In other words, what makes "one-billion-yearism" any less susceptible to the fact that our observation of time is limited?

[js1138]

Our "observation of time" is limited to the immediate present. All references to the past are based on memory, evidence, and interpretation of evidence. Individual memory is compelling to the individual, but in fact is not particularly reliable. Any police training group can happily demonstrate that witnesses frequently fail to recall key elements of an event correctly.

Over the centuries we have developed correctives for human memory -- methods of gathering evidence and interpreting evidence.

There is an interesting tidbit along those lines. Married couples remember thei own past better when they are together than when they are apart. Having multiple sources of evidence is better than having a single source.

[balrog666]

Perhaps, but why should evolutionism fall outside the same indefensible proposition?

The former (YEC-idm, Last Thursday-ism) is a statement of belief in something intrinsically untestable, insupportable, and outright ridiculous. The latter (evolution) is supported the natural history of our planet as well as every science known to man.

In other words, what makes "one-billion-yearism" any less susceptible to the fact that our observation of time is limited?

Another non-sequitur. If some god(s) created the universe Last Thursday in a manner so that it looks just like it was created 14 billion years ago by the Big Bang or the Big Bang happened 14 billion years, how would you expect to tell the difference? And, so why would it make any difference?