There is global evidence. Even fossils of fish found on Everest which would require a flood of global magnitude.
Yup yup. Biggest task is asking if each question if is fits the definition of empirical adequacy. Do not speak to fact unless it fits the definition because it leaves a gap that someone could fill with nonsense. Also ask these things of a statement. Meaning, origin, morality and destiny. If it satisfies these then proceed with standing firm on itThe rock at the top of Everest is Qomolangma Limestone. It used to be seabed.
Science only really makes more questions, doesn’t really answer much: the more you learn, the more you know there is to learn.
If you ever find yourself near glen rose texas, there is a place called the creation museum. It is a neat little place and only costs a few bucks to get in. Glen rose is/was a bit of hot bed for fossilized dino tracks and such. The state park there has dino tracks in the river that you can go see if the water is low enough. The museum has a fossilized dino track with a human footprint in it that they said would have had to be made within hours/days. Supposedly they did scans on it to look how the layers are compressed to legitimize it.
The fact that evolution is a theory hardly invalidates it and that argument should not be used. Gravity is also a theory. As is a spherical earth and the heliocentric model of the solar system.I'll note though, science is observable and repeatable and evolution has yet to be shown to work and is still a theory. We all have a religious belief, be that evolution or creationism. If you believe in the scientific impossibility that life evolved from non life and a primordial soup I'd suggest you step back and maybe listen to the other side as well before throwing judgement.
I've spent hundreds of hours searching and reading both sides arguments to come to where I landed now. Everyone would benefit by doing the same.
Very accurate and succinct.Truth is, nobody really knows.
Young earth, old earth, doesnt change my faith.