Creationists do not make sense

[Tiberius]

Where we disagree is that you think one form of life suddenly appeared and all life evolved from as opposed to God creating all the kinds from the beginning.

Nowhere have I stated that I think one form of life suddenly appeared. I expect what happened was a natural process, panspermia or abiogenesis seem most likely.

Of course we also disagree on time because your view needs a lot of time to occur otherwise nobody would believe the theory is true whereas Biblical creation does not require a lot of time. My view is consistent with us not seeing, for example, dogs changing into anything but dogs, etc., whereas your view hopes to see such a thing someday.

I regret to inform you but we do see *organisms* changing; you even admit this. The fossil record shows this, and we've seen the same with bacteria in a lab. Creationists always seem to accept that 1.0 + 0.01 = 1.01, but then are surprised when you show that if you add 0.01 enough you reach 2. Microevolution you accept, but to not accept macroevolution is to simply deny the fact that many small changes add up to larger changes, namely those that result in speciation.

But since you've brought up consistency, let me list some things that your view aren't consistent with:

1) The oldest fossils are those of small undeveloped creatures. As you go up through the geologic column, you find more and more complex forms of life preserved. If these organisms were all created at the same time, why are they separated like this?
2) Nowhere in the fossil record do we see the sudden appearance of multiple forms of life. Indeed, the Cambrian "explosion" (which can be said to be the closest thing to this) took several million years.
3) All dating methods confirm that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life first began around 4 billion years ago. The scientific estimate for the start of the universe is 13.7 billion years ago. How does this not contradict your view of a "young" Earth?