I have some time on web so will attempt to answer a question or two, I thought number 6 was a very good question.
What would it take to convince you that evolution is the means by which all species were “created”, over the course of billions of years (this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some amount of evidence you’d require)?
Well, the claim of the ToE is that every design we see came from a common ancestor, that mutations can be added to make new morpholgies such as limbs etc.
Rather than the fossil record, which itself is a circular argument, I would be convinced of the whole claim of the ToE, not by a bacteria flagelum example, but a real example which is equivalent to the claim.
So a new limb, or a mutation which is an added information which produces a new design. Not more than five toes, not less than five toes - but infact a new functioning design.
The extraordinary claim is that all designs can happen. A giraffe has a sponge in it's brain to stop it's head being drowned, and when it goes up, to stop it fainting. That is one example out of thousands, as to why mutations alone are a poor explanation, to me personally, because you need the whole design. If there are rudimentary mutations that are kept - where is this in the fossils, without the argument being;
Evolution is true because of fossils showing it.
This is fallacious because what we first have is the fact of the fossils - which don't support evolution.
You can't use the fossils NOW that we all know of them. Where are examples of designs being dropped for new ones. Where are examples of the process that led to the giraffe design?
How old is the earth (roughly
It is not know to me. The bible says it was void and desolate, I have no idea if God used literal days or not, I have no way to discern.
And how old is the universe?
Again, I pretty much don't care, but the light seems to suggest billions of years. This is an evidence for an old universe, but that doesn't mean the earth had to be there.
What is about evolution that you believe is inconsistent with “god” using it as a means to create new species over millions over years?
I just on't think it fits. He could have use it but this position immediately put the believer in the weak position and naturalism in the strong position. Disbelief has abounded because of throwing out what the bible says, but I believe the bible is true - and that special creation happened when God spoke.
Why does the evidence of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc all make it seems as if the earth and the universe are much older than your beliefs say they should be? Is it a “test” or “joke” of some sort from “god”?
Because of the philosophy of first assuming that the present is the key to the past, as proposed by Lyell, (uniformatarianism).
Infact the facts don't suggest this because physical processes such as fossilization and formations, don't require millions of years. Also the strata has no soil about the lines, which you would expect if there where many floods, but infact one giant flood causes this particular strata by which direction it is going. There is no proof only general consensus over a long period of time amongst scientists, which in itself isn't a strong logical position, just an appeal to popularity.
No debating please, I have no time to answer, I might respond to the O.P creator if I can but I'm not getting into silly heated arguments.
this is why I can only give brief opinions/beliefs.
™ Version 4.2