Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Please, explain to me the point you have in believing something that a) is invented by men-Cars were invented by men. Airplanes. Computers. Antibiotics. I believe in them because I've seen them work. Believe it or not, men (and women) are pretty clever, especially when they turn down the volume on faith and start thinking objectively. True, but you misunderstand my point; why believe in something that men created yet cannot prove? You can prove airplanes, computers, antibiotics because they are there in front of you yet you cannot prove what they claim on evolution etc. Why do you still believe what they say? To be perfectly honest, you clearly do have faith as you have faith in men's words yet do not see any evidence for their claims yet still believe.no real evidence is presented- over 40 types of radiometric dating which consistently cross-verify each other. Since each method uses a different half-life, they couldn't get the same result if one is wrong. They have also been cross-checked on the short-term with known historic events, ice core samples, tree rings, etc. Cross-referencing known continent rates of movement to identify the supercontinent formations clearly seen in strata all across the world, showing a minimum of hundreds of millions of years. Current concentration of atmosphere could not build up in a mere 6000 years, and oxidation of iron rich rock down to a specific point clearly shows a long period of time where there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Not to mention Helioseismic calculations and the lightspeed scenario I mentioned in the last post. Have you seen all this raw data? Have you managed to access the real evidence and see all this for yourself? Or have you just read all of this in books over a period of time and in scientists biographies and textbooks?) the "facts" are alterered throughout the years-As time goes on, science gets much more precise. The old estimates get revised as better technology and more data comes in. The whole reason the estimates change is because science self-corrects when more evidence appears that contradicts old assertions, religion generally refuses to do so. We know we don't know everything, but we learn more every year.So basically, each time something new comes to light, the previous estimate was false which means that the estimate you have in your head at this moment of the age of the earth is most likely false. What an interesting belief you have; its not only false but also inconsistent and comes from men who fail to present the "raw data" that backs up their whole system.Here is a challenge; prove to me using real evidence that the world is the amount of years old that you believe it to be. Prove to me the age and, if you can, show me the raw data that proved this to you in the first place. Whilst the age of the earth is not a major plank in my platform of beliefs, I believe it to be young. There is no scientific measurement of the earth's age whatsoever - furthermore, scientists come up with a new estimate all the time and expect us to believe the newest guess. I do not believe that I have stated at any time in our debate that the earth is 6 - 10 thousand years so I am unsure as to where you have accquired this statistic. However, tell me simply where you have accquired the evidence for your beliefs, please.