Biased or not, theory of evolution is supported by more than one type of dating method. And not only does biology require the billion year old earth to be explained, geology does too. Some rock and mountain formations cannot have formed in 10,000 years. These estimates were made independent of each other (biology and geology), but they both came to the same conclusion.

That website you have linked to based their "evidence" for a 10,000 year old earth on scriptures alone. Nothing else. In fact, they have no evidence at all except for the words of others. Remember, people once claimed the earth was flat too, and that the sun revolves around the earth. Why are their "words" not taken as evidence that the world is flat?

The billion year old theory is backed by thousands of fossil discoveries as well as geology, most independent of each other, hence not influence by one another, yet they came to the same conclusion.

Which seems more rational?


To dear Creationists,
Does your religion condone incest?

One in a million, or billion, chance, is still a chance. The chemical that interacted with one another that ultimately led to the formation of DNA had not one interaction, but a few hundred, maybe million billion interactions. So the formation of the first DNA (or RNA) is not actually surprising.

Comparing it to a pen, paper and novel is not appropriate because the DNA did not form from a one off reaction. It most likely formed one after the other. Eg: Bases formed, then other bases, then the Hydrogen bond, then the helix etc.

The more appropriate analogy would be to drop the pen on a different paper several trillion times, then rearranging those strokes created in several trillion different ways, and there ought to be at least one or two of those arrangements where there is a recognised word formed.

And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_synthesis

It is actually an increasingly important technique that facilitates medical treatments.