Genuine Questions.

You realize that scientists thought that the earth was old long before Darwin published Origin?

I'm afraid your confidence doesn't come from science, then. But I would ask what you think the "evolutionist theory" is? Rather than "bankrupt", I see evolution explaining more and more phenomenon. Every month, PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, lists about 600 new papers supporting and using evolution. That's a lot of papers for a "bankrupt" theory!

This is one of the pieces of data that falsified young earth creationism in the first place, by helping falsify the Flood. The Flood is necessary in order explain the geological column of sedimentary rock.

But geographical distribution of animals can't happen as it does if all animals radiated from the Ark's resting place.

Many creationists invoke land bridges. But that doesn't explain why only marsupials are in Australia and only tenrecs (an order of mammals) is in Madagascar. Yes, kangaroos can hop there and perhaps beat the placental deer and horse there before the land sank again, but what about the marsupial mole and the koala? They can't move that fast and beat the deer and horses!

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a lack of good answers for your two questions may have been evidence against a Flood?

Heh... where did you get this "scientific evidence"? Published books or AiG?

Do forgive us, as evolutionists. It is just that we hear the same arguments again... and again, so we fall into our own trends.

And the physical evidence is taken and organized by what institution? (for those of you who know the answer, it shall soon appear upon your screen)... science.

Also, young earth creationism is also yet another scientific theory, located in books and websites, which is not directly in the physical world, like every other theory.

All science is but of assumptions, theories, and explainations.

However, we argue that the young earth creationism argument is flawed, and should not be counted as a valid explaination for what it preposes to explain. Theories explain evidence and are treated as true until evidence surfaces that contridicts it. Then, the theory must be revised, in order to better explain the world around us. But, as of now, the number of contridictions in the young earth creationist argument grow constantly, as more and more evidences they present can not be used in this case.

I will explain to you why such websites we have prejudice against:

The average young earth creationist continually repeats the same theories and evidences in order to gain support for their case. We have heard the name Answers in Genesis so many times, and so many times it is proven to be wrong in explaining the evidences.

Congratulations. That is the weakest scientific argument I have ever heard.

You have basically said that because there are gaps in our knowledge concerning a subject, then that proves that that subject does not exist. Mankind would not have discovered much if it had applied this principle.

Please do not take offence at this, but your arguments seemed to be based on prejudice as opposed to a desire to seek the truth.

You don't get scientific evidence in books or websites. The only evidence is in the physical world itself.

What you get in books and websites are theories, explainations, and viewpoints. You need to test this material yourself not blindly rely on it because it was written by someone with a string of letters after their name. Likewise you should not blindly reject material because it is proposed by someone (AiG) who you have some kind of prejudice against.

For your information, I have only just discovered the AiG site. (After my original post).

You will excuse me if I am not moved by quantity of paper as opposed to actual scientific evidence. Evolution is bankrupt because while it comes up with lots of explainations and theories, it does not come up with the necessary evidence that shows a workable mechanism for evolution. In other words evolution is good at writing checks it can not cash.

I think you are getting this backwards. The flood was recorded a long time before anyone knew about or needed to explain geological columns. The column is just part of the evidence left behind by the flood.

Since that time I have been doing some pretty heavy duty research into the actual science of the subject. I am now fully convinced in a young earth creation. I have found that a lot of what I had previously nominally believed was wrong. Most of it influenced by compromise with evolutionist theory. My research is ongoing, but at this point I am now confident enough to state that both the evolutionist and old earth creation theories are scientifically bankrupt.