rem:
I guess I just don't have the energy for such debates anymore... I wish I did because you sound like an interesting person to discuss these things with.
I know what you mean. Not the energy so much but the time, in my case - I'm taking two college courses this semester, and they're both tough ones. On top of that, evolution/creation is way down low on my priority list of things to spend my time discussing.
I do have to say that you are waaaay out of your league when you recommend www.icr.org as having ANY valid arguments. It's quite embarassing, actually.
Trust me, I wasn't really recommending it. I have lots of problems with what they say. I was using them more to point out that even the young-earth creationists do come up with theories to explain the data. Some things they say seem to make some sense, a lot does not. I'm not about to come to firm conclusions on this until I can consider it much more deeply - which may be a long way off, if ever. As I said, it's not a priority for me. Even if you could absolutely prove that the first 11 or so chapters of Genesis never happened, it wouldn't make a difference to my faith. That part of the Bible work just as well as allegory as they do if they were literally true; man's sinful state and separation from God still exist, and the need for a Savior is just as real - even if man evolved.
Let's just say that I hope you take some science courses right away because you seem to be teetering on the edge of being seduced by pseudoscientists who resort to blatant dishonesty to further their agenda.
Naah, it's just an area where I've elected to reserve judgment in favor of other priorities. I read voraciously, and my two main areas of reading are Christianity and science. I not only keep up with Christianity Today, Discipleship Journal and Moody Monthly, but I also regularly read Discover, Science News and the Skeptical Inquirer. See? I'm well-rounded!!
crownboy:
NeonMadman, Did you visit the ICR center? The Mt. St. Helens scenario has been debunked many times before. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html
No, I didn't visit the ICR center, but, just out of curiosity, I attended a presentation by an ICR geologist last week, and that's where I heard the Mt. St. Helens thing. It was the first time I'd ever heard that particular argument, and I thought it was pretty interesting. Thanks for providing the contrary reference, though. I'm printing it out and will try to find time to read it tonight.
At the same presentation, I also purchased a book called Starlight and Time, which purports to explain why we can see the light of distant stars if the earth is only a few thousand years old. It was an interesting topic for me, since I think that is one of the biggest holes in the young-earth creationist position. Hope to get around to actually reading it soon (ah, but the pile of to-be-read books is so high...)