Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"why believe in something that men created yet cannot prove?"Do you believe that an antibiotic or medication that you have never used does not work because you have never personally seen it work? That electron microscopes do not work because you haven't seen the "raw data" that explains the principles on which the device was designed? How easy is it for you get this so called raw data that explains how your computer codes information in pulses and sends it out of your country to a satellite which beams it down to my server and comes up on my screen? I'm not talking the principles that explain how all of this is possible. The principles are what I've been showing you. But you doggedly refuse them if they don't coincide with your own beliefs and experiences. You haven't provided any raw data of your own. That paper you sent me covered a lot of topics but never once showed how this information was confirmed. And that Bible of yours is even worse. No raw data there, no way outside of its own claims to show that it is anything but an "invention of man". You have provided nothing that stands up to your own critiques. Nothing. "yet you cannot prove what they claim on evolution etc."You cannot prove anything that Rev. Williams claimed. That the Bible claimed. I have shown you links from several different sources and fields, have used logic, have given you countless keywords that you can research on your own. If we were having a discussion about something that didn't disprove the Bible, say geography or economic systems, I doubt you would be so demanding. "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."To an extent this is right. Do you have a clue how many things are going on in the world every day? I don't have the time to watch every recorded session of congress, or be in the room for their untelevised meetings, so I can't help but have a little faith in news reports concerning their decisions assuming it holds up to the scrutiny that I do have the time to put in to it. I can't be in the room every time my bosses discuss my work so I can only have faith that they are accurately dictating their assessments of me when the talk to me. Economics, food preparation, medicine, my cat's activities when I am absent, these are all things that I have to ultimately take on some degree of faith when I come to conclusions about them based on the limited, but available data. The difference between my faith and that which you display is that when appropriate, logically sound evidence from multiple unassociated sources tells me that my beliefs are wrong, I am willing to adapt. My faith in evolution is not blind, it is based on a vast amount of evidence presented to me and it stands up not only to my own scrutiny, but to every attack I've ever seen made against it. But your arguments supporting the Bible are based on your refusal to accept that you have been conned, that virtually nothing in it is confirmable by science, history or logic; that several parts of it have actually been disproved, that the only reason to hold on so strongly to it is that it appeals to your heart. "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?"Actually, I have run the numbers for a radiometric confirmation, but no I didn't collect the sample or have anything to do with determining the established 238U half-life. But I have been actively pursuing education for a while now, seeing how everything fits together across disciplines, I know how many scientists there are out there and how thoroughly they examine each others work, I have seen friends go through the very frustrating and difficult process of peer review and have consulted with and learned from researchers who have made original contributions to their fields. You, are you an experienced historian who has seen confirmation of Biblical events? Have you ever done a biology lab or a geology practical? Have you ever logically analyzed the discrepancies between the world's religions using objective methodologies? I can't say I qualify for the first question, but I have experience with the other two. How much time have you put in? "...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."First, the amount of change has declined drastically as research has improved. The most up to date estimate is 4.567 billion years, in which about two million years were added. This is nothing compared to the range of estimates presented in Rev. Williams' time. We've gotten a lot better. And the estimate might be updated again tomorrow, but as long as the evidence is sound and peer-reviewed I have no problem updating to work alongside the best evidence. Religion does have this problem. They not only have confidence that what they were told was true, but they are actually opposed to in-depth analysis of the data or adapting to the ever advancing world (hmm, maybe they don't have so much confidence after all). "What an interesting belief you have;"What? The belief that we don't know everything, but we learn more every year? How is this any different from growing in knowledge from child to adult? You yourself almost certainly had wild notions as a child that you later had to correct as you grew up and learned more about the world around you and became more mature. Human society does the exact same thing, except for those parts of it who are afraid to admit that they might have been wrong. As far as your challenge: not unless you can do it (to confirm whatever age you like). I have already provided link after link, already dumped numerous hours into a very long article, and watched you try to debunk them using standards you can't live up to. The information is out there, but there is no point showing it to you if you so stubbornly refuse to accept it just because you made up your mind years ago. As far as 6-10 thousand years ago, that is the age range provided by every young Earth creationist I've ever heard of and is based around Biblical "evidence". If you are arguing for a young, created, Earth that is older than that, you'd be possibly the first one I have heard of.