Propaganda? I've offered FAR more evidence on this subject than you have. How is your spewing of nonsensical young earth gibberish anything but propaganda?
Clearly you don't understand propaganda.
I'll offer a very simple explanation and do no more because I'm not wasting any more time on it:
What you have done is use a form of propaganda commonly known as the "bandwagon" argument, which is essentially where you say "everyone agrees on (whatever) the same as I do"
This is a logical fallacy as the number of people who agree on something has nothing to do with its status as being "right" or "wrong".
You are also fond of using propaganda known as the "appeal to authority" which is essentially where you say "these scientists (or whomever) think like I do and we agree on (whatever)".
This is also a logical fallacy as whoever you are appealing to isn't any more infallible than you are.
I don't believe that the scientifically accepted age of the earth is correct because everyone thinks it is. I believe everyone thinks it is because that is correct.
Wonderful. Now you're using a technique called the "circular argument" wherein the conclusion is used as a part of the argument, i.e. this theory on the age of the earth is correct because everyone thinks it is, and that's because it's correct.
If you can't see the logical fallacy in that, nothing is going to help you understand any of the others you're fond of.
Young Earth theorists don't even agree on the age of the earth.
There are a lot of things all scientists don't agree on - that doesn't make them right or wrong. That's why we have multiple theories for many scientific phenomena.
Think about the arguments you made, before you realized they failed to hold water and took them down.
The arguments still hold water. They aren't there because I don't wish to engage in a debate with BL.
Biologists have argued that the rate of apparent evolution requires life to have been developing for at least 3.5 billion years.
The theory of evolution is flawed in and of itself, so it can't serve as a accurate barometer for another theory.
Compared with theories deserving of acceptance as legit, it's so full of holes it might as well be Swiss cheese. Many of those holes involve the theory of evolution's inability to explain many of our abilities as **** sapiens - things like self-awareness and speech - which aren't present in other species.
But then, I'm not here to debate these things. I'm just offering some food for thought.