Thanks for sharing. Am glad that you weighed up both sides of the arguments, considered the options and formed your own opinions. Too often nowadays a lot of young kids have a certain opinion drummed into them. Am not just talking about religious beliefs in particular but parents/teachers can influence many personality traits in children.

I myself rejected religious teachings. I used to attend Sunday school and extra bible study classes on a weekday evening. I had a keen interest in science and was told that dinosaurs were all nonsense put there to entertain & educate us. Plus they kinda said that gays were bad and I was having issues with that. It was then that I decided it was not for me.

Well that's silly. There are two verses in Job that point to the dinosaurs. (what most people think to be)

It seems we have very similar views on these perspectives.

One thing i learned that the majority of atheist do is read the Bible so they understand how to debunk Christian's viewpoints. Most Christians on the other hand, have not done research on evolution/natural selection. For those that have, good for you, but it is foolish to debate something without knowing both sides of the arguement.

I would like to see this. Everyone who says this always gives me already disproven arguments from dishonest creationist websites.

Does it?  I don't know much about the denomiation.

I never really grew up in a church enviroment so i really only know what people tell me and read about... so i don't know much about Presbs.

The whole young earth arguement is pretty much redundant nowdays. Scientists have performed countless tests for decades. Radiometric dating yields hundreds of seperate tests alone, and have always had the same result... 4.54 billion years old.

Young earth creationists always argue in factors such as the slowing decay of isotopes, but no evidence points towards it. If it did our results would very varied from a few thousand years old to a few hundred trillion years old. So that counts out the radioactive decay arguements young earh creationists always argue about.

Add to that data we have obtained from dating metiorites, heliosiesmic verification, etc all seem to support our best estimates.

...What is different is different between the two sides is that scientists hold no emotional/theological attachment to 4.54 billion years old, if the number were to increase or decrease then they would happily accept the new number based on the new evidence. They just want it to be what they believe the evidence suggests. Where as it is hard for a young earth creationists to accept a different number to what they believe, despite what evidence is available.

Your side is biased by satan and his lies and tricks.

Here's all the proof for young earth creationism we need:

^and wesslewoggle wins the debate lol

the only way to truly argue is to know both sides of the argument. knowing just one side is useless.

I know both sides. I examined the arguements for young earth creationism for a debate once and none of them seem logical or watertight. For example they say recorded human history started at ~4000BC and they see this as an arguement for for a young earth. But I'm sure man existed far before this and it is possible to see this from many of the relics left behind. Another arguement is people from history who claimed the earth was only a few generations old, but people back then did not have recorded lineage so how would they be able to even suggest this? Also the one about the speed of light and the decay of radioactive isotopes are always in their.

I mean none of these have enough evidence to back them up, but much more evidence exists to disprove them.