bennie,
The evidence is often a matter of interpretation. Interpretation depends much on your perspective or what you expect to see.

If you suspected that the flood Noah’s may be historical reality, what evidence would you expect? Thick layers of sedimentary rock over much of the land’s surface; remains of plants and animals that were trapped in the sediment, often protruding through different layers of sediment; fossils of sea creatures found on the continents.

Fossils in themselves can even suggest catastrophic occurrence, as is it not easy to form a fossil in the first place. Have you ever buried a dead animal in the ground? If you dug it up a few months later, what might there be? The flesh probably rotted to nothing and possibly a skeleton, which may also disintegrate after more months. It takes special conditions to form a fossil, especially the ones we often find displaying intricate detail, for example, fish scales, etc. Mud must cover the animal, perhaps seal it away from oxygen, and harden quickly. A great flood, with the accompanying turbulence and soil movement might just be the perfect conditions to account for the evidence.

As for the age of the earth, evolution theory demands long time periods for life to evolve.

Several possible chronometers (off the top of my head) come to mind which give maximum ages of the earth much too small for evolution to occur, for example, measuring the rate of salination of the sea; the increase in distance of the moon departing the earth; the shrinkage of the earth’s magnetic field. Extrapolating these measurements backwards in time and you soon arrive at impossible situations: sea with no salt, moon close to the earth, an impossibly strong magnetic field.

Explanations must be found for incongruity. Radiometric dating methods are favoured by evolutionists as long ages result.

Consistency across dating methods (and even within one) is not found across the board. Evidence is selective, and interpretations are usually theoretically or philosophically driven. No one stood there with a stop-watch

"Is there any evidence the universe or even the planet (or even a little bit of the planet) is merely six thousand years old?" - Bennie

No. But there is evidence, administrative priesthoods, as opposed to shamanism, began in Sumer, 6,000 B.P.

Would Hydrogen atoms be older than heavy elements, given Sol is a third generation star?

Dan,

<<If evolution means that all living things have descended from a common ancestor, then science as departed from that which has been observed, and jumped towards the realm of philosophy.>>

So if something can't be observed then we disregard it completely? Based on this flawed logic, you would have to disregard many other scientific theories too, yet Creationists remain strangely silent on those...

We've observed micro-evolution, therefore given the age of the Earth (which is an irrefutable fact mind you), there is nothing to suggest that one species can't evolve into another.

If we had observed one species evolve into another, then that would be evidence against evolution. Therefore, to disregard macro-evolution based on those grounds, is illogical and would be a dangerously stupid thing to do in regards to science and progress.

<<The evidence is often a matter of interpretation. Interpretation depends much on your perspective or what you expect to see.>>

And there is no way to interpret any evidence to support Creationism other than to say: “God must've done it” - which you could apply to anything, rendering it meaningless.

<<If you suspected that the flood Noah’s may be historical reality, what evidence would you expect? Thick layers of sedimentary rock over much of the land’s surface; remains of plants and animals that were trapped in the sediment, often protruding through different layers of sediment; fossils of sea creatures found on the continents.>>

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

It is a fact that there has never been a world-wide flood. We know this from the evidence.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Particularly: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#implications

So no, the fossil record absolutely does not support the Flood in any way.

Why would the different layers of rock just happen to bury the more primitive and ancient life first?

Why would there be fossils of ancient deep ocean creatures at the top of Mt Everest?

<<Fossils in themselves can even suggest catastrophic occurrence, as is it not easy to form a fossil in the first place.>>

Strange to see you admit this. Especially when the whole 'Gaps-in-the-record' argument assumes that fossilisation is prevalent.

...Continued

Continued...

<<As for the age of the earth...>>

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

*Ocean Salinity

This method of aging has two major problems: -

1) It assumes that the rate in which salt is added to the ocean has always been the same.

2) It doesn't take into account the processes that remove salt from the oceans.

Even still, based on this method of dating, the Earth would be hundreds of millions of years old – not thousands.

*Earth's Magnetic field

This too is based on old, incorrect data. The Earth's magnetic field varies in intensity.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

*Increasing distance of the Moon

At a rate of about 3.8cm per century, the moon would have been about 45% closer than it is now after about 4.5 billion years. But this assumes that the rate in which the Moon is increasing in distance has always been static.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

<<Explanations must be found for incongruity. Radiometric dating methods are favoured by evolutionists as long ages result.>>

No, radiometric dating is used because it is the most accurate.

<<Consistency across dating methods (and even within one) is not found across the board.>>

While they may give different readings, those differences are relatively small.

There are many different types of radiometric dating, all of which are based on different clocks and different principals, and they all point to the same magnitude of age.

<<Evidence is selective, and interpretations are usually theoretically or philosophically driven.>>

Here you go again, trying to drag scientists down to the same fundamentalist level of Creationists.

The evidence is there for all to see and review. There is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood, or a young Earth. Yet there are mountains of irrefutable evidence for an ancient Earth and evolution - nothing that contradicts them.

The only philosophically driven belief here, is the Creationist's rejection of evolution. As I mentioned above, Creationist's don't have a problem with all the other 'unobservable' scientific theories.

<<No one stood there with a stop-watch>>

No one had to.

AJ,
I’ve just finished reading the biography of Neil Armstrong by James R. Hansen. In it he says that the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of about an inch-and-a-half per year. This is quite a bit different from the figure you quoted.

But thanks for your counter arguments.

To answer to the question at the very top of this page, “Why does the evolution-creation debate persist?” One simple answer is that there is such a lot of interesting stuff to debate.

"LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

MSNBC July 2007