First I just want to respectfully point out that I think you might be confusing evolution (which explains the diversity of life) with cosmology (which seeks to understand the origins of the universe).

Evolution is no more than a hypothesis or theory

Another clarification. A “theory” in science is a very different thing than say a “theory” that a detective might have on CSI.

If you have a minute you might want to read this explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Government schools should teach both sides.

By both sides what do you mean exactly? Since there is no scientific Theory of Design how would a science teacher go about teaching it? And if we were to teach “creation science” which creation explanation would we teach? Why for example couldn’t we teach astrology or Hindu cosmology? Or why not the Muslim creation story?

Doesn’t change the fact that the Universe is a little more than six days old from the Big Bang. (Let there be light ring a bell?) Unlike Darwinism, space-time dilation actually is science. As far as evolutionary theory, narural selection is a proven fact. Transpeciation via mutation is an improbable, unproven, unfalsifiable (and hence unscientific) hypothesis. And spontaneous biogenesis is an absurdity.

Unless you believe in God, of course. The only way life on earth could have devloped via Darwin’s methodology would be By Design.

My general opinion is that there is probably something to it, but that the climate change people overstate the certainty of their models and the effects on the climate the changes they want might have. I am also, however, open to the possibility that they are wrong altogether.

Substitute the words “climate Change people” with “Darwinists” and you get the point exactly…each are discussed as if they are certain facts not subject to question or criticism and anyone who raises serious science based questions about either issue are equated to Holocaust deniers and knuckle dragging neanderthals!

As to the Grand Canyon slam…is it not true that the Colorado River could never have carved the Canyon since the source of the river is below the highest points of the canyon so..at a minimum there had to be an inland sea present for the water to be high enough to carve your billion year old canyon? And is it possible the canyon could have been caused by a sudden rush of water from a dam burst of an inland sea which carved the canyon suddenly? If you say no to the second…please present your evidence to prove the impossibility of the scenario I suggest!

Second…have you studied any of the terrain changes, canyon creation and strata formation to the hundreds of feet that geologists insist would take billions of years which were formed in mere hours when when Mount Saint Helens exploded…That sir…is my evidence to prove there is a possibility that drastic terrain, strata and other changes can happen in a matter of days not billions of years…does that prove Evolution to be completely wrong? no…but it shows another possibility and reason to reinterpret the evidence…and my evidence is observable!

In the second paragraph…you prove my point…you simply brush aside all the people I mentioned without giving them a fair hearing or looking at any of their work…

Just investigate one of the folks I mention…Dr. Robert Gentry…if you have the guts…take the time to study his findings on the Palladium Halo conundrum he has presented Evolution Science with. Of course…instead of dealing with his findings and working to explain the contradictions to evolutionary theory they present…they responded by stripping him of his Job in the government and have since denied any research grants and funds because his “evidence” runs contrary to the old earth theory of evolution.

I ask you…is it science to take one theory as fact and ignore an alternate possibility without considering the evidence for that alternate theory?

My faith is my faith and faith doesn’t need science to show me the truth…I’m not a scientist…but I’m an investigator and I know there is evidence…and there are theories based on evidence that may or may not be true…it’s the interpretation of the evidence that is always a problem unless you can duplicate an experiment and observe your hypothesis in action….that’s impossible with Evolution…I don’t really care if Evolution is true or not…it won’t effect my faith…but I’ve got a problem with the idea that the interpretation of any body of evidence is infallible…and Evolution has proven to be beyond fallible!

As to this Gem:

For every piece of evidence they provide, there are a 1000 that work in the opposite direction.

In this you acknowledge the evidence to support the possibility of a 9000 year earth and dismiss it by saying there are a thousand that point in the opposite direction….I say…fair enough…I acknowledge the evidence that points in the opposite direction and have never questioned it…here or elsewhere…there are two issues here

1)It is possible the interpretation of the evidence you site is wrong and that the evidence sited could have been generated by a different means.

2) Does the 100s of pieces of evidence you site negate or eliminate the evidence that exists to the contrary…and should the evidence that contradicts Evolutionary theory be ignored completely?

Parting Shot:

To say that the opinions expressed by the scientists you’ve listed above (ie, Noah’s flood created the Grand Canyon) are in the minority, would be the understatement of the century.

Isn’t that exactly the arguement that the global warming crowd uses to dismiss their critics? Thanks for proving my point that the two issues deserve to be discussed in the same breath…

Your final sentence lays bare your refusal to even consider an alternate interpretation because of you bias against religious fundamentalists and your inability to take an unbiased look at problematic theories.

Pot meet Kettle!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Have you ever read a good book on YEC or heard a presentation on it? I don’t think I need to tell you that the media and university profs are not trustworthy.

It is a logical fallacy to say that something is true because it is popular. 95% of scientists have been wrong about a lot of things in the past…humans have this problem with group think and if you watch Expelled! there is little tolerance for minority opinion.

Also, it is a logical fallacy to say something is true because an expert says it is, if that expert is biased (and they clearly are) and have personal reasons to believe in evolution and the associated theories given that they are all athiests.

If you look at the actual evidence, there is a lot that fits much better with a young earth model. And a lot of the evidence depends on your assumptions about what happened in the past. Some observations may seem to support evoultion/billions of years if you accept certain assumptions, but the same observation may support a young earth with different assumptions. The Ice Cores are a good example of this.

Here’s just two examples I would like to have someone explain in an old earth perspective, because they should not be possible if dinosaurs have been dead for 65 million years.

Dinosaur blood found in a fossil:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

recent unfossilized dinosaur bones
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp

It has been tried numerous times and rejected every time because it “wasn’t good science.” One intelligent design article did manage to sneak through into one journal (I can’t remember which one) and it caused all sorts of problems – not because of any inherent problems with the science, but because it didn’t agree with the favored evolutionary framework.

That is an old canard that always is mentioned in creation/evolution disagreements, but is meaningless in real life.

“I have hope because I’m a sinner saved by grace. That’s my whole reason. It’s not because I can refute evolution (I can’t) or because I can prove the Flood (I can’t) or because I can make evolutionists look silly (I don’t)”

The fact is…Creation Science doesn’t refute or disprove the possibility of evolution…nor does it intend nor need to. The whole point is…Evolution can’t do it either…because evolution is a theory based on evidence that noone questions exists….it’s the interpretation and the insistence that one interpretation is beyond question when it can not be observed while an alternative is therefore bunk when it can not be proven to be false.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

We know that because we can track the shifting of plate tectonics through several different measurements including satellite imaging and measuring the rate of sea floor spreading at the bottom of the ocean.

This whole point requires the assumption that tectonic plates have shifted from the beginning at the same rate…I would point you to Doctor Walter Brown and his theory to explain the possibility of an alternative to billions of years of gradual continental drift.

As to peer reviewed articles? I refer you to Doctor Robert Gentry and the book burning mob that chased him out of “Respectable” scientific circles and have blackballed him for testifying about the possibility as suggested by his finding of Palladium Halos frozen in place in granite which supposedly took thousands to millions of years to cool when Palladium has a half life of seconds…the fact that these halos are frozen in granite would be equivalent to freezing carbon bubbles within water instantaniously…

as for geographical sciences disproving a young earth…if you knew anything about what you are criticizing…there is an entire field of geological study that questions many of the most basic assumptions of geologic evolutionary theory…again…I point you to Mt Saint Hellens where there are thousands of geologic formations that were created almost instantaneously that were previously hypothesized to take billions of years…and their formation and the time it took for that formation is a documented fact…Evolutionary geology can’t even come close to documenting any of their old earth theories!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

For example, if the earth were around 10,000 years old I’d be able to see the coast of Spain from New York City. We know that because we can track the shifting of plate tectonics through several different measurements including satellite imaging and measuring the rate of sea floor spreading at the bottom of the ocean.

You’re assuming they move at a constant rate.

All these supposed ‘disproofs’ of YEC are because the scientists use their evolutionary assumptions to interpret observations.

How do you explain this C14 in diamonds if the Earth is so old?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds