b) If you are an Evolutionist you of course believe in a very old earth based on our timescale, you think the Bible is irrelevant (even inaccurate), science trumps everything (whether you want to admit it or not, similar to a religion in that you have faith in it whether it’s assumptions are proven or not), you are against any form of Creation because it puts God in the picture above science.
As requested here is how I differ and how I match the proposed evolutionist stereotype.
1. The weight of evidence from a vast multiplicity of sources assures me of an Earth that is billions of years old. No other plausible explanation comes close.
2. The Bible is irrelevant to practically all science discussions, but it is certainly not irrelevant. As the vital scripture of a religion followed by a substantial part of the world's population it important in cultural, social, spiritual and political ways. Setting aside its religious significance it has importance as a work of myth, history, philosophy, poetry and the like.
3. Science trumps everything if we are talking about practical, proven methodologies for investigating the nature of the universe. If we are talking from a wider perspective there are plenty of "fields" in which science has no contribution to make.
4. I have zero faith in anything. I consider faith to be an affront to the essence of humanity. As a practical matter I accept certain concepts, "facts" and observations as being the most probable. I have noted and discovered, through practical work, that science is especially good at providing plausible explanations with sound, corroborating evidence.
5. Since I have no idea how the universe began, or if it even did begin, I have no particular view on Creation. I don't rule out the possibility that some "entity" did the Creation, but don't see any pressing reason to think this likely. I do find the notion that the Creation was enacted by the Christian deity is whimsical and, unltimately, rather sad.