I'm curious which things you think are improbable on the creationist side. Here's a short list for reference:
1. That around 6,120 years ago, the main continents were elevated above the seas from a previously water covered globe.
2. That around 6,120 years ago, ALL organic material and all the original "kinds" of plants and animials were created within a four day period.
3. That based on #2 dinosaurs were contemporaries with man.
4. That around 4463 years ago, there was a global flood that wiped out all land creatures except those upon Noah's ark. (some also contend that the mid-ocean ridges are the referenced "fountains of the deep" and the source for the water)
5. That most layers of sedimentary rock are the result of the global flood and the subsequent mudflows from unstable soils.
As a creationist, I happen to believe that everything in the list above is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. I have never seen any evidence that has shown (without assumptions) any of these things to be false. So when you say that "The fact that all this stuff on both sides is so improbable" I'm curious what, and why you feel that way.
Here is a little outline of me:
1. In a post-fall world, I am just very sceptical about science when it comes to ulimate conclusions, though it is very handy on lots of less ambitious things.
2. The ability to "know" is, like strength, tied to the willingness to receive from the Lord. Scientific brilliance is nice, but not the essential kind of trust we are called to. "Knowledge" of how needs are satisfied, sickness healed, sin forgiven, the world mended and the enemy defeated are such redically different kinds of things than "proving" six days of creation by science, I lean less on science. EG, knowing how God made manna was irrelvant and unexplained.
3. There is lots of corroborating evidence of YEC. But, it is spotty, since it is a big planet with lots of unexplored geology. A coal seam in Montana may have some facinating things, but then, what about those limestone caverns that may need more time to erode or the many hectares of water-eroded peaks in China that don't seem to have a point source to account for the erosion or enough time for the rain to do it?
4. I also just plain get tired of tit for tat between TE and YEC -- perhaps the Lord anticipated that as well when He made Himself the Word and wisdom itself. You say what about this tree in a coal seam and they say what about this varve in Japan? Enough already.
5. Some of the creation science points to things like the Big Bang, in terms of the energies involved and the bizarre calculations needed to model the event. If you can't really model it with any probability, do you really have any business saying that you know, by science, that it happened in six days?
6. Quite frankly, this way of constructing the problem is self-serving for YEC. It creates a stanard that TE can't meet, but which God can. (But, that doesn't mean it is wrong. )
7. I am just not as up on some of the science as you seem to be. Your first few points are just foreign to me.
8. Doubting science also is a little more compatible with not taking yourself too seriously -- and may I never be accused of taking my self too seriously! You can kind of snipe and jest a little more easily when you question the reliability of just about everything.
