You asked for explanations and support. Here's just some of it. I hope you're open-minded enough to actually read what i've said, although i doubt you will. oh well, at least you will know that Christians have plenty of evidence with which to back up our faith--and we're not afraid to give it, either!
*How did the whole earth flood back in Noah's days? *
It rained A LOT.
come on. don't try to argue that one. there's plenty of support for the fact of the Flood:
1) The climate in the pre-flood era was different than after the flood.
2) The only possible explanation for most fossils is rapid deposition from a catastrophic event. The worldwide flood is the only satisfactory explanation for the evidence.
3) Oceanographers took core samples of sediments in the Gulf of Mexico that included fossils shells from one-celled plankton called foraminifera and made an interesting discovery. They discovered that at locations in the core samples that represent thousands of years ago, the salinity in the water was suddenly reduced based upon the shells locked-in permanent record of the conditions. This reduction in salinity could only be caused by a huge fresh water deluge.
4) There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . ."
5) Stories of the Great Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark.
*The fossil record supports billions of years, not 6000.
Can you prove the fossil record wrong?*
What fossil records specifically refute a younger earth? For starters, to support the theory of evolution, even Darwin required there to be certain transitional fossils to prove the connections he was trying to make. however, science has yet to provide a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one kind of plant or animal into another.
Many sceintists are beginning to support the idea of a Young Earth. The geological evidence also increasingly supports a shorter lifespan for our planet, such as:
1)Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
2)The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
3) Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
4) Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?
5) Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?
and, my personal favorite:
6) In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.
*Can you prove carbon/argon/potasssium dating wrong?*
For starters, not only is carbon dating only applicable to organisms, it is only accurate for a few thousand years back. these methods of determining the age of the earth are based on a collection of questionable assumptions which have caused this method to be so controversial and, on the whole, unreliable.
*Can you prove the missing links wrong? Why do we have the Neaderthal man, homo erctus, and Lucy? *
okay, that's what-- THREE deformed corpses that you think represent an entire phase in human evolution? that's not enough to support a "link."
The anatomical peculiarities of the Neanderthal men are known to exist within the normal boundaries of human variation potential. Also, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many of the Neanderthals suffered from a Vitamin D deficiency. This caused their bones to grow soft and deformed. This has contributed the popular hunched-over ape-man misconception.
*Can you prove the Big Bang wrong?*
Yes. The law of cause-and-effect. Science is so big on saying "nothing happens without a physical reason." What caused the Bang? Science just can't get around that question. There are other scientific proofs that refute the Big Bang theory as well, besides just that one rule that is simply COMMON SENSE.
*Can you prove evolution as a whole wrong?*
I accept microevolution but macro is ridiculous. the time it would take merely to form the proteins that are the building blocks for life is impossibly long, and the odds against these building blocks randomly forming in the right time frame are monumental.
even if they had managed to piece themselves together with a speed that defies probability as well as science, the time it would take for those tiny proteins and amino acids to evolve into a human being is also far beyond the realm of possibilty if you accept what scientists say is the age of the earth.