Oh trust me, I do. Atheist misdefine it as believing in something without evidence - even in spite of the evidence. That is wrong. Most dictionaries say "without proof." Because science cannot provide absolute proof, faith is required. Again, to be precise, I call faith without evidence "blind faith." Blind faith is quite frankly stupid and irrational. Faith is trust based on evidence and it is completely rational. We could not live without it
Fine. Here's what you need to do - provide your evidence that your insane ideas about a young universe/earth are true?
Now, let's be very, very clear. Disproving evolutionary theory (if you could) would NOT, by default, suddenly prove that creationism were true. Do you fully understand at least this much?
It's important, so I'll say it again - we are NOT NOT NOT in an either/or situation. If evolution were disproved tomorrow, this would NOT mean that creationism must be true. It would simply mean that we'd be back at square one with a big mystery to solve. If evolution can't explain it, then what is the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?
A hypothesis could be presented that it was God but like all hypotheses this would have to be supported by evidence.
All you have done on this thread is try (and fail miserably) to show a flaw in evolution and BB theory. In actuality, this is entirely irrelevant anyway to your assertion that there's evidence that God created the world in the way Genesis describes.
So, without any reference at all to evolution or BB theory (which according to you are wrong anyway so can be dismissed as evidence of anything) PLEASE PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT A SUPERNATURAL DESIGNER CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EARTH, AND THAT THE BIBLE CAN BE RELIED ON FOR IT'S EXPLANATION OF HOW.
I want evidence that I can check and test, please.
I really doubt that you're capable of truly understanding what I've just said, so again - if evolution and BB theory are wrong, then they prove nothing. They therefore should not be mentioned when talking about evidence of how the world came to exist.
If your position is not blind faith, then you should be able to freely provide such evidence.
Blind faith is quite frankly stupid and irrational As is wilful ignorance, which you are displaying in bucket loads on this thread.
I know that. That's why I use his quotes. He believed in evolution so his criticism of the fossil record is more credible
Erm, no. He is not criticising the fossil record, he is saying that it shows
one mechanism of evolution better than another. To try and use this academic observation to try and support your own ridiculous claim that evolution predicts "millions and billions" of transitional fossils, but we don't have them therefore evolution is not true is blatant and shameless dishonesty.
You could mate with Neanderthals but they are a different species. (Creationists predicted that, by the way.)
Neanderthals? What Neanderthals? Oh - the sub species that existed 600,000 years ago? Those Neanderthals? 
Not that this has any relevance whatsoever to the point I was actually making.
No, I'm not assuming intelligent design. It's unnecessary here
Then you have not understood the implications of your own analogy. "Meaning" is imposed by an external factor - what external factor has imposed the "meaning" that can be changed by random mutations?
Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Let me put it another way. The fossil record SHOULD be important evidence for evolution and was, in fact, predicted to be so. But because that prediction failed and the fossil record does not support evolution, they have to minimize it and say it is unimportant. That's what is really going on. Make sense now?
Well, it would if it was remotely true. It's not. The fossil record remains importance evidence of evolution. It's just not the be-all and end all.
Yes it is. Geneticists say that DNA is not just analogous to a code or language - it IS a code. (Hence the name "genetic code.") There is letters, words, grammar, syntax and information
They really don't, you know. A "code" in the strict sense of the word simply means a system of symbols designed to represent various things. These sentences I'm writing are a code using the symbols of the alphabet. A "code" is a system of communication and for that to make sense you need intelligent communicators.
Now, you could say that the exchange of information that is required throughout the universe in the forms of chemical reactions, and so forth, are based on a "code" - in so far as if X happens then Y will. If we sentiment beings recognised this pattern and then name them X and Y, then you sort of have a code. But all we're doing is creating a code to explain for ourselves the pattern we've recognised and using it to make predictions.
It's called the "Genetic code" because we've recognised the patterns within it and named them and produced our own code to explain them.
So, the "code" in DNA is as much a "code" on that level as the one that's needed to make dog shit brown.
Sorry but you are simply wrong here. I'm not saying there is meaning as in Divine purpose or anything. But if a strand of DNA is instructions to make a gene and a mutation occurs, most of the time it is benign, often it is harmful and rarely it is beneficial. In all known cases, even when a mutation is beneficial, it is still a broken gene with lost information. In the instance of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, it happens to help it to survive but the organism is actually less fit than before
But even "lost information" in that sense is new information - because it changes the gene. Why can't you understand that?
My son used to make a lot of Lego models. Let's say he completed one, but I removed a solitary brick. Now it's true that he would no longer have a complete Lego aeroplane, or whatever, but he would have a new "thing" that happened to be made of less bricks. By taking away a brick, I've added information in order to create a new model - an aeroplane made out of less bricks with a hole in the wing.
For your analogy to make sense, we have to conclude that the assemblage of Lego bricks was MEANT to be a complete aeroplane and that taking away a brick means that it's no longer what it's intended to be.
In my analogy, yes - that would be true. My son is an intelligent(ish) designer - he wanted a complete Lego aeroplane. But evolution isn't aiming for anything specific - a nose doesn't evolve because evolution wanted one, it's just how things ended up. Evolution has no goal - it is what it is.
Can you see?