Biblical Flood: Actual Event or Myth

I obect to evolution because I looked into the subject quite a bit many moons ago and found the science to be anything but settled. The easiest way to disprove evolution would be to find evidence of a young earth. I thought the Deluge would contribute to this but it may be easier to just address the young/old earth evidence.

As far as definitions would you agree that evidence of a young earth, say 200,000 years or less would be a severe blow to evolutionary theory? I think those are the easiest points to discuss....Deluge & young earth.

 

So what if the earth is only 3 or 4 billion years old? Still plenty of time for evolution.

 

Who gives a shit what you believe? What is there evidence of? People can and will believe anything. That doesn't make it true or even worthy of debate.

 

This points one of the problems with teaching creationism in schools. @flabengal is ignoring phyical evidence such as astronomical observations, radiologic data and many other documented and proven measure that show the universe is 12+billion years old and the earth is 4+billion years old. Wishing it away or using a book written by uneducated herders 3000 years ago (and modified aout 1600 years ago) as a basis for argument is a fools erand and arguing with them gets nowhere.
Likewise while evolution is still technically a theory, it is well enough documented to only leave argument for the details such as what mechanisms were effective at different times and how it's rate varied over time and why. There can be abolutely no debate that life began 3 billion years ago and has continually morphed and evolved to what is populating the earth today. Genetic decoding proves that beyond a doubt.
That DOESN"T dismiss the place that faith in god can have or even tha god was/is the prime mover of the universe. Those who wrote the bible would have thought 90% of what we accept as perfectly normal and understandable as magic or miracle. There is no reason (unless you are a fundementalist who believes in the inerancy of the bible) to allow the stories and myths used to explain the wonders of god to a primitive society to rule over our education today.
Faith and religion are NOT able to explain the real world and what makes it work...they are there to give the faithful a window into the presense of god and a guide to how to act. To try to make it a science text does a great disservice to those who wrote it and to the god/s they were written to become close to.

 

Universal Gravity is a theory also, if people are interested in an example of a theory widely accepted as proof. I would think that flabengal would defer to the "experts" after his rants on the Stephen Hawking thread.

 

Disputing evolution through evidence against natural selection would be one way to do it.

Or we can look at the age of the earth. If the earth is not extremely old then evolution would not have time to take place.
I will make a case, I have to brush up on the subject a bit.

 

If it's 1 or 2 billion I don't think it would disprove evolution. The earth would have to be much younger to really blow up evolution as a theory. At least, in my mind it would....

 

Where did I say you should give a shit what I believe? What an odd question...

Evidence? That's what I am in the process of looking up. What's the rush, man? If you got something to do then move on....this is going to take a while.