Gah seperate posts are too hard to quote.
"I know. I understood Rath. What I meant was that the numbers have constantly grown over the ages, so it leaves breathing room to the theory. Remember, we're all human. So anything you pretend I have, such as wanting to fit things into my worldview, or bias, you'll find the exact same thing on the other side, hence the constant need for more time. If the universe is on a different scale, then that's much more breathing space.
If you're fair you'll understand what I mean. People have started out religious and have become atheist, some started out atheist and have become religious. Did they get smarter or dumber one way or the other? I don't think so. We're all just looking for answers. Why the prejudice? Remember, I have lots to learn, and will be the first to admit when I'm wrong. I'm looking at both your posts and you make great points. Keep in mind, I graduated in Software Engineering, not physics, not biology, not chemistry. But the topic is important to me, so I'm trying my best to understand both sides. My strength is not in technicalities, but in the big picture, though I am making an effort."
The universe being 13.75 billions years old is based on the assumption that something we have observed as a constant has always been a constant. The universe being in the thousands of years old is based on.... what exactly? To me it seems that you're taking it as fact that the universe is much younger and then twisting the evidence so that it can fit into that world view. As I said the big bang is not based upon the age of the universe, it's based upon the observable fact that all matter in the universe originated from a point and that it is now travelling away from that point. Also I do not believe that creationists are any more stupid than atheists - indeed some of my creationist friends are amongst the smartest people I know (and boy do we have fun drunken arguments on this very subject), I simply believe that they are not being scientific in their approach.
"See? Great use of scientific reasoning on a biblical account. So it is possible to use science to verify biblical claims. Why when using it to counter it's legitimate, but not in defense...
So, apparently there has been a lot of research done on that on the creationist side and in fact they have found many anomalies in the fossil record, things that shouldn't appear in one place appear there in masses. It can mostly be explained due to the washing out by massive waters and depositing them in an unusual region, where you would not expect them (e.g. mountaintops, sea creatures in deserts). Did you also know that the process involved in the flood is an excellent means of fossilisation, if not the best? Apparently, there's a way to make fossils using home appliances that you can do at home (I think it's part of a kid's program or something). You make a mix of mud and water and make it tumble in a drier or washing machine, I can't remember which. The other mechanisms explained by the secular model leave place to erosion and predation to destroy the bones and structures found in fossils. Enlighten me here again, I'm limited on the secular explanation of fossils (for now)."
Fossils are relatively rare compared to the number of creatures that have existed because fossils do not form particularly easily. If the biblical flood did happen a single distinct geological strata with mixtures of fossilised flora and fauna of all types would be found. Instead there are distinct geological eras with distinct flora and fauna - you will never find dinosaur bones at a Cro-Magnon site for example.
