Evolution is incorrect

I'm thinking that it was a mistake for me to enter this debate. As you/I said "I am entitled to what I believe." Yes, you certainly are, but in a debate you must support your beliefs with logic and evidence. The only support you offer is this theory about a world wide flood and it's affects on strata. You gave the scientific theory for strata formation yourself: "Evolutionists say that strata (like the strata revieled in the grand canyon for instance) could have only been layed down over millions of years." You attempt to prove this false by saying: "however we have all seen what volcanos and flood waters can do in days, and even HOURS. Take for instance Mt. Saint Helens and it's last eruption. In a matter of hours, 9 to be precise, it layed down 600 feet of sediment at it's base. Well, that would be a good possible explanation for the strata around volcanos, but what about the strata all over the rest of the world? They're so dense they must have taken billions of years, right? Well, what about flood waters? Yes, i AM suggesting the possibility of a world-wide flood." But, that proves nothing. It is a second explanation at best, one that unfortunately is rejected by modern science. Let me give you an example, if I said that the sky is blue because of the reflection off the world's oceans, this seams to be a sensible theory. However, it's just not true. The real reason the sky is blue has to do with the wavelength of light, scattering and diffraction (http://math.ucr.edu...) My false, but logical, alternate explanation in no ways comprises the true theory. Next, your continued criticism about radiometric dating is the result of your admitted lack of understanding. Of course this sort of dating cannot accurately predict the age of a 20 year old rock! I said that it could predict the age of the Earth (~4.5 Billion Years) to within 1%. This means I'm admitting that it can be off by about 45 million years! While this makes little difference compared to the age of the Earth, it makes the technique totally useless for measuring much smaller times. As you yourself said that "I never said that I didn't agree with the science behind isohron dating" but that it can be incorrectly applied (I think I paraphrased accurately). And you are absolutely right, trying to apply it to a 20 year old rock is very incorrect. Using it as geologists do (since they determine the age of the Earth, NOT evolutionists), do is perfectly acceptable. I stand by my comments that it is not logical to "believe in the science behind carbon dating," which predicts fossils well in excess of 50,000 years (as you agreed), and also believe the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. I guess your right when you say that "I'm closed minded." It is true that I will only consider theory and logic that is internally consistent. I will not consider whether or not 2+2=5. As for your literalness of the Bible stuff, I cannot speak for Muslims, but I can tell you that there are plenty of Catholics (and other Christians), including myself, who do not think the Bible should be read literally. God's splendor is undiminished whether or not it took him 7 days or billions of years. I do not believe that the Bible was intended to be a history text. It's wisdom and power is true regardless of the petty details of the context in which it was written.