Two issues with your statement.
Genesis and the four of the first five books of the Bible are generally believed to have been written by Moses. One of the five books that Moses wrote says that God told Moses to record certain historical facts. The "presumption" therefore is that Genesis and the history of the earth which predated Moses, is part of those historical facts.
That Moses was raised a prince in Pharoah's court also lends credence to the fact that Moses would have been literate and able to write.
As far as the overwhelming evidence, it really boils down to two evidences.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic." - Authur C. Clark
"Genesis and the four of the first five books of the Bible are generally believed to have been written by Moses."
Weeellll, ec-tually, that ain't 'zactly true. See "Asimov's Guide to the Bible."
"The "presumption" therefore is that Genesis and the history of the earth which predated Moses, is part of those historical facts."
As I tried to argue in the note to which you reply, God gives us explanations we can deal with. I very much doubt that people in Moses' time could deal with light years or units of a billion years.
"That Moses was raised a prince in Pharoah's court also lends credence to the fact that Moses would have been literate and able to write."
Which doesn't mean that he was in any way equipped to deal with some of the things we now know that God did. Moses had no idea, for instance, just how big the universe is. He didn't even know what the stars are.
"As far as the overwhelming evidence, it really boils down to two evidences."
No, there's a lot more than that. For instance, there is the matter of second- and third-generation stars. There is the matter of the sheer numbers of layers of fossil rock. For all of those to have occurred in 6,000 years would shrink the era of the dinosaurs down to, I don't know, a day or two, probably.
"Speed of Light. We haven't figured out how light can travel the distances, it would have to travel to reach us, unless the universe is very old. But the fact that we can't figure it out, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the timeframe specified in the Bible."
I don't think you've studied Descartes' treatment of the notion that God is an evil deceiver.
Every attempt to explain away the geological evidence and fossil record boils down to an argument that God is an evil deceiver. Since God is not an evil deceiver, those arguments cannot be valid.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic." - Authur C. Clark
"Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Gregory Benford
False. This has been explained to you before.
and levels of contamination and leaching.
Wrong. This has been explained to you before.
The kind of radiometric dating that was most common was Argon dating, but Creationist experiments, proved false the assumption that all Argon boils out of lava.
Wrong. What they "proved" was that if you're a dishonest creationist who fails to clean his sample properly so that he'll get a bogus "result" he can use to try to dishonestly ridicule Argon dating as "inaccurate", then you'll expose yourself as a charlatan.
Thus much of the dating that has occurred is assumptions built upon assumptions built upon assumptions built upon a technique now known as flawed.
Horse crap. Why are you repeating this lie, when the facts have been pointed out to you previously? Do you do it out of dishonesty, or incompetence? Please answer that question.
Also please answer the question that has been posed to countless of you "dating methods doubters" repeatedly, never with a satisfactory answer (and usually with no answer at all): If these dating methods are allegedly so unreliable and/or based on so many faulty "assumption", then WHY DO MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT DATING METHODS -- BASED ON INDEPENDENT PROCEDURES AND "ASSUMPTIONS" -- ALL GIVE ANSWERS THAT MATCH EACH OTHER? That's a mighty big "coincidence" for what you claim are wildly inaccurate methods, wouldn't you say?
Is the clue phone ringing yet?
Speed of Light. We haven't figured out how light can travel the distances, it would have to travel to reach us, unless the universe is very old.
Because it couldn't, but that's no problem, because it is that old.
But the fact that we can't figure it out, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the timeframe specified in the Bible.
You have a very vivid imagination.
Read some of the physics threads and you will quickly discover that our theories of how the Universe came to be are in shambles.
The fact that the theories seem confusing to you is not the same thing as the theories being in confusion.
We just don't know.
Actually, "we" know a great deal, even if you don't.
Even the best theories today, rely on things like space inflating at faster than the speed of light
...which is a well established fact, and contrary to your mistaken implication, it violates no physical laws whatsoever.
and abundant dark energy.
So?
DannyTN, I've repeatedly asked you to stop repeating nonsense from creationist sites as if it even remotely approached a reliable source on scientific issues, and instead go *learn* some actual science (from actual scientific sources -- creationist tracts don't count). Why have you repeatedly ignored my advice? We really do have better things to do than correct all of the misconceptions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods that you post.