Seems to me, that if you really wanted evidence for a 7 day creation, the first thing you would need to do, from a scientific standpoint, is determine whether or not the possibility for a 7 day creation even exists eg; does God exist.
I noticed that no evos have had the ability or desire to investigate that. Kind of makes the entire discussion appear disingenuous.
Perhaps you can give us an idea of when you intend to begin serious research into the matter. I gave you whole bunches of proof above via the testimony links. Using the line 'I don't believe in God' is of no value to your argument at all. It's like me or CTD or Bex saying we don't believe in fossils, even though there is plenty of proof, physical proof, of fossils. Fossils and things like that are very important to the idea of evolution, but if you encountered that response (we don't believe in fossils) everywhere you went you'd be very frustrated and would probably say at a certain point, 'I am dealing with blind idiots'. Yet you seem to think it's ok to use the 'I don't believe in God' line when there is more proof of God and his work available to you than there is proof of a fossil record.
I don't think I ever said that I didn't believe in God. I know I have said that I do. I just don't think that the existence or non-existence of God is relevant when discussing the mechanism of creation. We can both concede that God did it. It is how He did it that is our difference of opinion (for lack of a better word). A 7-day creation event that follows Genesis chapter 1 and 2, should leave things in the geology/biology record that would distinguish it. A world-wide flood would leave a geology/fossil/biology record that should be pretty easy to distinguish. Yet, the Christian geologists looking for that Flood event 150 years ago, couldn't find it, for example.
Does that proof of God's existence consist of those testimonials you provided? Testimonials are not "proof" unless they can be corroborated by other people. They tend to be based on perception of the testifier. I read some of them and they are intriguing at face value. The problem is that when trying to get deeper information other than the perception of the person delivering the testimonial I have gotten stonewalled. There is the assumption that because I want to do more investigation that I think they are lying. That is not the case at all.
I have written to Bill Kent about his healing and to get permission to look at his medical records and talk to all his doctors regarding the healing. I also find it interesting that God decided to only partially heal him. We'll see how this pans out.
Do you have other proof of the existence of the God of the Bible?
If the God of the Bible and the salvation provided by His Son were "proven", would that necessarily prove the 7-day creation 6000 years ago?
I'd say it's pretty obvious by now that you have made a quite conscious decision to ignore and deny the evidence and that at this point your arguments are pretty hollow as a result.
Providing counter arguments and rebuttals (with evidence) is not "denying the evidence". It is questioning the validity or interpretation of the evidence. Concerning the 52 minute video that Bex provided, the man making the presentation made one completely incorrect statement by using outdated estimates when actual measurements have already shown those estimates to be incorrect. Those measurements are a matter of public record yet he relied on 50 year-old estimates instead. That doesn't say a lot about his credibility.
Simple investigation of his other claims showed them to be incorrect facts, incomplete (purposely?) facts, or true facts inappropriately applied to the question of the age of the earth.
How does my disagreement with their "evidence" make my arguments "hollow"? What does one have to do with the other except in your perception?
