This is the last post I'll make here (sorry for being off-topic!). I do have a bias, but it is not an anti-evidence bias. AGAIN, it is all a matter of how you interpret the evidence. I don't reject any evidence at all, and neither do creationists. If it is seemingly in conflict with the Bible, I investigate to see how one could interpret it to fit the biblical account. And I haven't been stumped yet, at least with some help.
As Michael Shermer said, you can way all the evidence, and it comes out to about 50/50. You have to make a leap of faith one way or the other, and clearly y'all have made the leap confidently enough to insult anyone who has an opposing view and use vague arguments against what they haven't even said (like all YEC's never use inductive reasoning). So I bid you good day, I'm off to read my Bible. I wouldn't mind if Jesus saw me reading His Word when He comes back.
Another challenge unmet, time to confirm bias instead of ask questions concerning personal infallibility.
Also, where did Shermer say that? seems out of character.
They really do need to teach critical thinking in Texas, fortunately my JC is doing that very thing, due to an obvious gap in outcomes relative to other similar college students.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. — Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen