Replies

In order for the earth to be 6000 years old, you would have to invalidate whole branches of knowledge. Are you sure you want to call in question areas of science that have produced real, concrete, and directly observable results? I'm not even talking about geology here.
Yes, I am. These "observable results" make many invalid assumptions. One of them being uniformity. Another biggy is that the geological column is correct. These "branches of knowledge" invalidate themselves in many cases and "scientists" go back to the drawing board to try to come up with a better theory that will explain the impossible. Evolution says in the beginning nothing exploded. And out of nothing, there was molten lava that got rained on for millions-billions of years ( a figure that crawfishes all the time), and whalah- one day, we had man- all by chance, all contrary to the rules of reason. Evolution is a fantasy. It is not science.

You know, I really don't want you to lose your faith in God. Apparently, your faith is very dependant on the notion that the earth is 6000 years old. Mine isn't, so I have room to question it. Rather than lead you astray, I'll simply end this discussion (on my part) and simply say 'Go with God'.

These "observable results" make many invalid assumptions. One of them being uniformity.

I've long tried to figure out why creationists keep accusing scientists of "uniformity". Science does *not* presume "uniformity" in the way that creationists mean it, and haven't for well over 100 years. Geologists, for example, are well aware of such non-uniform occurrences as floods, earthquakes, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, and so on. True "uniformitarians" haven't existed for ages.

Another biggy is that the geological column is correct.

Are you somehow asserting that it's *not* "correct"? That the geologic column doesn't actually exist or something? Or that it's somehow a fake? If so, who piled up all those rock layers to fool us?

These "branches of knowledge" invalidate themselves in many cases

Examples, please.

and "scientists" go back to the drawing board to try to come up with a better theory that will explain the impossible.

Which "impossible" things do you think scientists are trying to explain? I know a few who are trying to explain impossible things like vapor canopies and global floods, but they're hardly representative...

Evolution says in the beginning nothing exploded.

Um, no, it doesn't. Would you kindly tell us where you "learned" this?

And out of nothing, there was molten lava that got rained on for millions-billions of years

You sort of left out a few steps...

( a figure that crawfishes all the time),

"All the time", eh? Please inform us of the last time the accepted age of the Earth was modified by over 10%.

and whalah- one day, we had man- all by chance, all contrary to the rules of reason.

Evolution is not "chance". Again, you might want to learn more about it before you attempt to dispute it.

Evolution is a fantasy. It is not science.

You have yet to make a case for such a belief. Note that attacking an oversimplified, inaccurate representation of it is not a refutation of evolution itself, it is a fallacy called the "straw man attack".