first of all I want to thank you for having replied to my recent comment in such a calm, kind and patient manner. It has confirmed to me once again that atheists, as different in their world views from my own as they may be, sometimes possess the very "Christian" attributes of kindness and patience, etc., that we, the believers, aren't exactly always famous for.
Probably a large part of the world doubts the existence of our God at least in part due to to our failure to behave the way He would want us to.
But you have to see our dilemma: We're up against a huge construct, the matrix of science, that has left very little room for an excuse for living for our kind, the ones you refer to as those possessing "medieval" views. While others may refer to religion as the matrix that holds certain people captive (and I strongly agree when it comes to many of the dogmas of the established churches and religions), what bothers me is that a large part of what is being conveyed as "facts" on behalf of the scientific community is in actuality a far cry from the right to be referred to as thus, and is often only a theory at best (if it is based on observation) or (if not) some paradigm based on yet another assumption that we are never told how vague it actually is.
In my opinion, the authority that a lot of our current science apparatus is based on, is raw power: man power fueled by the gigantic flow of resources poured into the effort to uphold and elaborate on the philosophy and theory that has become the only acceptable one in our society. In my opinion, it is comparable to the force dictatorial regimes such as the Soviets under Stalin, the Nazis under Hitler or the Communists under Mao have used, to only name a few, and coincidentally, the paradigm of Evolution is the one common factor between those regimes and our supposedly free democratic world.
Thus you can perhaps understand how frustrating it may be to fend against your giant construct when all we, the Creationists have, is one chapter of a Book that is supposed to give us the only alternative, which seems totally absurd in the light of what the scientific community claims are the facts.
I want to thank you also for pointing out the one argument which in your opinion speaks in favor of the existence of our God, and you're doubtlessly right that without having personally experienced the Presence and Power of such a God, I would not be wasting my time on writing this.
One thing however, you seem to have ignored completely about my previous comments, and that is the issue of the discovery of information as a necessary ingredient for any formerly conceived as "simple" or even simplest life form, and the fact that never in the history of mankind has any force or process been observed that should have brought forth information from lifeless matter without an author.
It is here where the Bible gives us a clue that confirms this. It starts out with the same three words as that infamous first chapter of the Bible that makes those who take the rest of the Book literally the laughing stock of the scientific community, "In the beginning...," but then continues with the thought, "...was the Word." A word (Greek: logos) is a means to transmit or convey information, and the German Creation scientist Dr. Werner Gitt has elaborated on this further in his book "In the Beginning was Information."
So, we - the community of believers in the Author of that Information - know that at the beginning of creation (you may prefer to call it the universe) there was, evidently, Information. And I'm talking information not of the kind that a bunch of chimpanzees could have randomly produced by hacking away on typewriters for gazillions of years (very lousy argument, btw.), but specific information necessary to produce a functioning universe with complex life, written in the specific language or code that the existing receptors of that information were (and continue to be in every cell of your body) able to process. we're not talking Hamlet here, but something far more complex.
Now, you and your distinguished colleagues from the science community tell us that there is nothing that a few billion or trillion years could not accomplish, along with a little bit of luck, and, well, perhaps the aid of an infinite amount of parallel universes to keep trying their luck at this cosmic casino, which happened to enable ours to hit the jackpot.
In other words, the difference between your Gospel and ours is, "In the beginning there was time." Lots of it. I mean really, lots and lots of it. So much time in fact, that it is totally impossible for us to comprehend it, seeing that even the alleged 6000 years of world history the Bible comes up with seem like a dozen eternities to us. So much time that it would sound utterly ridiculous to even start arguing against it.
The power of your argument then lies in, as I stated above, in the sheer power of numbers:
1. The astronomical sum of money that has been poured into keeping the evolutionary science apparatus alive over more than a century (Apparently the Vatican isn't the only entity dedicated to financing religious beliefs). It would probably be no exaggeration and perhaps even modest to speculate that a dollar or ten or even a hundred for every year that is supposed to have passed since the Big Bang may have been just what kept that theory being drilled into every earth child's head for the past 70 years.
2. The legions of employees of those resources: teachers, media personnel, professors, palaeontologists, archaeologists, geologists and members of other sciences who only stand a chance to last in their profession if they obediently allow their findings to confirm the existing paradigm (What happened to some of those who didn't can be seen in Ben Stein's movie "Epelled - No Intelligence Allowed!"
3. And, as mentioned before, the number of years it is supposed to have taken for "all of this" (= Evolution) to have taken place. - A number, by the way, which seems to be subject to the same sort of inflation over the decades as the currencies that keep the theory blasting in living rooms and class rooms alike.
Let's be honest, Scott: We are very easily impressed by numbers. With numbers that you and your colleagues come up with, it's easy to stay calm. I'm having to struggle to even pay my rent, because nobody wants to support a lunatic who seriously believes in the biblical account of Creation. It is definitely safer to swim with the current of the mainstream of the evolutionary matrix. - Especially since I'm not part of the machinery of the religious establishment matrix, either.
The only thing I've got going for me is a God Who couldn't care less about numbers and all the odds against Him and His Cause. He has always, throughout history (the history that you wouldn't seriously grant us, because you've read dozens of book that told you "It wasn't really so...") - well, throughout what we believe to be history, in that case - won His battles with one or two or a handful of people against largely superior armies.
If I'm wrong and you're right, then the wielders of the sheer power of wealth, mass and numerical superiority may have the world for good, and our brand of lunatics will disappear before long (especially since it's our brand of people that is coming dangerously close to be branded as the sort of "terrorists" that are to blame for all the evils in this world, soon to justify a new, global kind of holocaust).
However, if - against all the astronomic odds - I and my brothers and sisters should turn out to be right, after all, it shall be the meek, not the dinosaurs, who will inherit the earth.