That both sides are equal is your opinion. I disagree.
Sure, it's my opinion. I never said otherwise. You are free to disagree. However, if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove it.
I've provided a ton of evidence for an old earth.
And all of it is based upon the same types of assumptions used by the other side of the argument, which is precisely WHY I say they are both equal.
No one has every shown any evidence that these assumptions are incorrect. And the assumptions line up with things we know about the universe.
These same things are true for assumptions made by the other side of the argument as well. That's what you just don't get - your assumptions aren't any better (or worse) than those made by the other side.
Your presumption that you assumptions are somehow better is where you continue to go wrong.
On the other hand, you have provided no evidence for a young earth.
Nor do I need to do so, since I'm not arguing in favor of one. I'm merely pointing out that your argument isn't any better because it contains the same fundamental flaws.
That's necessary for your argument that both sides are equal to be true.
It is not necessary to argue for either side in order to show the sides are equal. You wish that were the case because you consider your side to be superior and you want to attempt to degrade any argument made for the other side, but that's just too bad, because I'm not arguing in favor of the other side.
At this point we have a ton of evidence that the earth is old (for the sake of argument lets say that all of it is based on assumptions) and no evidence (even assumption based evidence) that the earth is young.
No, what we have is you arguing in favor of an old earth based upon the same assumptions commonly used to argue for a young earth.
You desperately want someone to argue against you and in favor of a young earth, but the fact that no one here is presently doing that is irrelevant. Why?
Because I've already shown how you use the same assumptions in your arguments they do in theirs. That's all I need to show to establish your arguments are no more effective than theirs would be. Despite your insistence otherwise, I don't need to argue for the other side to show how your own arguments are flawed.
Again, for your argument that both sides are equal to be true, there needs to be scientific evidence of a young earth. There isn't any.
My argument is that both sides are equal because the arguments for both are based upon assumptions. Therefore all I have to do is show how your side uses those assumptions, which I have done successfully (you even admit it yourself).
I don't need to provide evidence for the opposite point of view of yours to show that yours is based upon assumptions. It's completely irrelevant and unnecessary.
So I'll say it again: Your argument is flawed because, based upon what I've already shown and by your own admission, it is based upon assumptions. There is absolutely ZERO need to argue for the other side in order to show that.
The ONLY way for you to overcome your argument being no better than the opposition is to attempt to argue without using assumptions. Unless or until you can accomplish that, you're done here.
"The science supports both sides equally." Huge problem.
Actually, my position is this: The arguments for both sides are based upon equally problematic assumptions. I have absolutely shown that is the case, and you have absolutely failed to present anything for your side that isn't based upon assumptions.
Go ahead, though. I'll give you another chance. Give one single argument for your side not based upon assumptions. ONE.