Creationists aren't born Creationists.

They study, review, research, and then they make an educated, intellectual decision to become Creationists.

Evolutionists are propagandized with false information shoved down their throats throughout all of their years of school. They don't study. They don't review. They don't research.

Instead, they simply believe.

Creationists have to overcome years of conditioning and false evidence before they can reach their conclusions.

Anyone interested in seeing how hard it is to propagandize properly, watch this video and see how many inconsistencies exist in the evolution literature itself. It doesn't matter though, they just keep on pumping it out.

http://urlbam.com/ha/K


Now, I'm an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) so I don't interpret all of the evidence that seems to support young-Earth as evidence of a young Earth, rather, I think it is evidence of a re-creation:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

I also believe that some evidence for an old Earth is properly interpreted as "old", although the dates are probably skewed to fit in with their desired model (to make it fit together in a publically-consumable package.

Nevertheless, I don't have any respect for statements like this:

"According to well-established antidisuniformitarianism presumptions, precambrian wood could not possibly have evolved, so don't even think about it. Vast forests of precambrian trees once spanned the entire supercontinents of Pangaea 1-b (modern Quebec) and Gondwanaland Junior (modern Tasmania), thereby providing shelter and life-giving closet space for the thriving anaerobic bacteria of those long gone days.

The entire fragile Proterozoic ecosystem was later wiped out when Earth passed through a temporal anomaly, causing all of the once-living precambrian trees to instantly transform into many billions of fossilized candlepins."

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Precambrian_wood


The reason I don't respect it is because it is just a bunch of statements.

This guy is just saying, well, this happened this way and this worked that way, and that's that.

I am pointing out here, with all sincerity, that so much "evidence" that you link to, and that I've read over the years that is supposed to "support" evolution actually does a discredit because it is the same as this stuff above:

Just a bunch of statements (JBS).


This is true of so many of the links you've made to the talk origins website. They are notorious for making statements about how thing "were" and how they "happened", with nothing credible to back them up. And when they are referenced, the referenced material is as goofy as the material referencing it.


These are my observations. So in part, we're in agreement to a degree with some of the real evidence, but information that seems to support old-Earth is being over-interpreted to support evolution, when the two are completely different subjects.