[dragonwriter]

> The age of the earth, according to a reasonable interpretation of the Old Testament, is likely to be 6000 (Masoretic text) to 8500 years (if you rely on the Septuagint versions).

So, when you say Christian creationism is “evidence based”, you mean a “reasonable interpretation” of a text with a whole litany of direct internal inconsistencies, and which itself has no evidence (leaving aside personal faith) of being anything other than a collection of mythology, supports it and not, you know, actual material evidence?

[Egret]

Christians and some prominent secular scientists agree that the origin of life on earth is a miracle. One group posits a Divine miracle. The other a secular miracle. Abiogenesis is foundational to the secular origins account. Before abiogenesis occurs, the mechanisms of biological evolution cannot be invoked. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner called abiogenesis both impossible and implied it was a miracle. Francis Crick implied it was a miracle. Fred Hoyle, atheist, calculated a probability for abiogenesis of 10 raised to the power of negative 40,000. Eugene Koonin in about 2012, invoked the multiverse as an infinity to try to make abiogenesis seemingly plausible. He calculated the probability of the RNA world hypothesis at less than 10 raised to the power of negative 1000. It has been labelled the hardest problem in biology. The most celebrated atheist of the twentieth century, Anthony Flew, left atheism when he realised the impossibility of abiogenesis and became a theist of some sort. If you need a miracle to explain abiogenesis, as these secular authorities have said, then the secular origins account is not as rigorously "scientific" as some might suppose.