Because the evidence is very limited to what you call evolution and is non-conclusive.
Your fellow YE creationist (who actually has knowledge of the evidence, disagrees with you. He says there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And as I said, he's actually familiar with the evidence.
and there's a much better alternative explanation.
Without scriptural support or scientific evidence, you're really left with nothing but faith in some men's wishful thinking.
The idea that we evolved from monkeys and over billions of years is ridiculous.
No kidding humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They are far too evolved in a different direction to give rise to humans.
By degrees? Yep. Pacing is another story. Most people don't realize that evolution proceeds at different speeds (although it remains gradual).
When tsunamis or earthquakes occur, is this gradual?
In the sense that punctuated equilibrium is gradual. The tsunami doesn't appear a hundred miles away, and then appear on the shore without having been at every point between the two. Likewise, evolution may take a very long time, or a few decades in one notable case, but not without doing so by graduated changes, regardless of the time it took.
When Himalyas rise up as India collides with Asis, is this gradual? Yes, it is. A few centimeters a year. If Columbus made his trip today, he'd have to go a about a meter farther than last time. Is that gradual?
This is what changes the earths landscape.
and since this has perhaps occurred over billions of years this doesn't mean it's been gradual,
Yes, it does. We've been around to watch it moving. Continental plates move a few centimeters a year. If it happened in a thousand years or so, the frictional energy would have boiled the seas.
it most likely has occurred instantly at various times in history,
Nope. For reasons of physics as well as observed behavior of plates. We even have magnetic evidence of very gradual movement from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
However, it is clear that humans did not evolve from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a chimp nor a human.
You like to say common ancestor. I prefer common creator.
Christians all recognize the Creator; you just don't approve of the way He did it.
All I need is what the Bible tells me and that's good enough.
Nope. Since the Bible says nothing about how the mountains came to be, all you can do is insert your own ideas and attribute them to God.
You need millennia of rock studying and fossil digging to come to your conclusions.
As you learned, the evidence is overwhelming. The only way to dismiss it is to suppose God faked evidence for great age.
No. Atheists just found a way to take God out of the picture and although you're not an atheist you purport their doctrine.
No. You purport their doctrine. They say that the Bible is incompatible with evolution. So do you.
And for a long time most of your scientists were atheists, believing in science over God.
Darwin, for example supposed that God just created the first living things. You've been badly misled.
I like your cartoon. Does this not apply to science also?
Yes. Science looks at the evidence and tries to find a theory to fit it. YE creationism starts with a man-made assumption and tries to find evidence to support it.
I'd consider Evolution a religious doctrine as well.
Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it. I'm always surprised that YE creationists have so little respect for religion that they want to drag it down to the level of science.
The same thing holds true for any field of study (including theology). Before science matured, there were certain assumptions made regarding earth age being young (including scientist) as the study of rocks as well as archaeology and radiometry being relatively young disciplines.
Actually, YE scientists rejected a young Earth long before radioisotope dating, just on the evidence Komatiite mentioned.
Because the Bible doesn't specifically give us earth age, it was reasonable to consider the earth to be of a young age since the time of Adam is all the Bible gives us. What do you think God was doing all those years before He created Adam since you obviously believe in an old earth?
Being God. You think time is a constraint on Him. But it is not.
He just started the evolutionary process billions of years ago and didn't do anything in between?
You're thinking of deism. God is intimately involved with every particle of this world.
Doesn't that sound pretty absurd?
It would if he was a creature, limited by time. Is that what you think?
Science has certainly evolved in its knowledge and understanding but so has theology.
Tell,me about the important breakthroughs in theology lately.
"Once, a few hundred years ago, people trusted in the clergy. The clergy insisted that the sun revolved around the earth.
You do know that the Church never made that a doctrinal statement, right?
Galileo (a believer in Jesus), provided proof that this was not true. Note that the Bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth—this was just a tradition of the authorities at that time. Galileo took issue with the leadership—he did not have an issue with Jesus or the Bible. But, the result was that people began losing trust in the Bible (the supernatural), and began to trust science instead (the natural)."
Galileo was persecuted largely for political reasons. The Pope had even given him cautious approval to continue his work, until he got himself involved in politics. But even then, the Church never made geocentrism a doctrine.
Some Catholic clergy and many Protestant clergy like Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted that a geocentic universe was part of Christian belief. But it was never Catholic doctrine, and I suspect it was never the doctrine of Lutherans or Calvinists as a group.
Indeed, Aristarchus of Samos had, long before Christ, shown that the Earth goes around the Sun. This knowledge was lost during the Dark Ages, but shows that heliocentrism is a lot older than you were told.