The cosmos, the earth, and life on earth do provide evidence in agreement with the Biblical account of creation. You may disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but it still exists.
This is an assertion. You do not support it anywhere. You do not show a complete alternative interpretation. You simply say they exist.
I agree whole heartedly. I hope you also agree that a person who accepts mainstream scientific explanations does so as a consequence of accepting the limited paradigm of methodological naturalism which is a philosophical approach to knowledge and understanding. I hope you also agree that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
This is partially true and partially a repeat of things you've said and not supported before. You might want to take specific "scientific explanations" to appropriate threads (or create one) and show what is wrong with them.
I think the evidence for this is overwhelming, but I don't think that Darwin's theory that all species came from one ancestor does have overwhelming evidence. I think much of this evidence can easily be argued from an opposing paradigm.
Then take it to a Biological Evolution thread and show the evidenfce and how you "easily" argue it from another view. You have been getting off easily for too long AOK. Now you have to support what you say.
I do advocate that the textbooks should be factual, and I advocate that contradictory evidence to theories be presented. Is that unreasonable?
This is not unreasonable one you show the contradictory evidence and support your interpretations.
Do you like others in this forum call people "idiots", "misinformed", "ignorant" just because they interpret the evidence on a broader filter than philosophical naturalism. I think that is the crux.
There are threads to support this. Time to use them.
™ Version 4.2