[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Mr. Farrell is a bit.....passionate in his viewpoint.

Being Creationist is not the same as being a flat Earther.

• It is obvious that the Earth is round (squashed sphere). Even before humans were able to go into space, this was shown via sound science with shadows at a particular time at two locations. Furthermore, on flat land, and especially on the ocean, looking around you to the horizon looks as though it's a circle. If 'horizon views' on flat land or water look as though they are circles, you could conclude that the Earth is a sphere (with people looking as far as they can until their view is tangent (or close to it--the Earth's mass bends the view a bit) with the sphere).
• Macroevolution on the other hand, is extremely far from proven, and sometimes they have to include very unsound science for their hypothesis to work. (i.e. this isn't technically Macroevolution, but long ageism. The universe is larger than it should be if the big bang happened when scientists believe it did and the energy and material expanded at the speed of light (roughly c if not c). This is explained by having space expand faster than the speed of light, which doesn't violate relativity. But space expanding faster than c hasn't been demonstrated, much less proven. It was practically conjured up from thin air simply to explain why the universe is as large as it is while being 'only' some 13 or so billion (American) years old.

[AntiKev]

The problem with your second point is that the science is known to be in its infancy. We’re learning new things every day, and there are many big mysteries yet to be solved. They’ve been studying evolution for what? About 150 years yeah? I’m going to paraphrase Men In Black (yeah I know, bad movie to quote in a science thread but there’s a really good quote that explains the viewpoint). “A thousand years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”

We see evolution in (Human) behaviour, why can’t it exist in biology? The problem with the “young Earth” theory is that it doesn’t stand up to scientific inquiry either. But the difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are always willing to entertain a new theory if it is supported by facts, creationists are not.

[AntiKev]

Just wanted to add “I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.” - Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

[bennowens]

My theory is that the speed of light has a minor defect over large distances. In fact the galaxies that we view that are farthest from us appear to be rapidly going away from us. In fact they are stationary. The “Red Shift” is due to the slight speed defect of light and not from differing speeds of separation. There was no big bang and there never will be one. The universe is steady state with galaxies continually dying and being created.