For those two questions in specific, no I wasn't.
You were given non-biblical physical evidence that the earth is young.
How do you know whether I assume things or not? Because, as far as I'm aware, I don't. The word assume goes hand in hand with the next word you use: faith. There is nothing I have "faith" in, faith being belief without evidence. Everything I believe I have considered with scrutiny.
There are many things in your world view that you assume to be true as well. Do they hinder your faith?
If by negative volition you mean disbelief, you are correct, and how could He, in respect to myself, reveal Himself anymore than He has through creation, when the events as to "creation" suggest otherwise?
There is no doubt that you cannot accept the bible as being true. If you have negative volition toward God, he will not reveal himself anymore to you than he already has through creation.
Do you want to know God?
You make two assumptions in this quote: one being that you purport to know the very mind of the creator, as if an infallible mind may be understood by a fallible mind, and second that he "revealed himself... through creation" when to me he most certainly did not.
And as to whether or not I want to know god, if I thought there was a god, I would certainly want to know him.
As to whether it has been truth written about history, that is exactly what I claim has not happened, a claim you did not address. And as to your opinion on bias, the only bias I can imagine being good in any way is a bias toward that which is not true (a bias I think I possess).
If a person writes down the truth about history, bias has nothing to do with it. The truth is the truth, and there are many biases in what you believe. Its a matter of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.
The quotes you give me from the Bible seeming to relate to current events or past events are either liberally translated, in my opinion, or blatantly false. For instance, the world in a state of decay? I think it is quite the opposite, for despite the condition in third world countries (which can be remedied!), the world is much much much happier than it has ever been, especially throughout Europe and nations like Japan.
I believe what I do not because I have closed my heart to God, as you say, but because I have opened my heart to the truth.
Believe me, I tried. I tried to re-convince myself of God, but I just knew in my heart that it wasn't true. I can no more convince myself of any god than I can convince myself of Santa Claus, or fairies. Anthropology makes it painfully clear how susceptible humankind is to religion and mysticism. I earnestly encourage you, for example, to do some research on 'Cargo Cults', and draw your own conclusions.
I will say two things. First, it may be that something did happen over that time, but we just don't know what yet, or that something we don't yet, or may never, understand prevented what we would have expected from happening.
So, as I understand you, that layer upon layer of unmolested strata ( I'm talking a thousand feet of the stuff, ya know) means "gap theory"?
Sorry, sir, but that is not the case. It would mean that for all those millions of years . . . NOTHING HAPPENED . . . no rain, no snow, no wind, no sun, nothing.
So, is that your statement, that nothing happened ofr "X" millenia?
Second, you are right, despite what I say. I, of course, look at the situation as I will, but your view I think in this instance can be equally valid, if your evidence proves veritable. Get it out there! Rub it in your local university's face, and see how they rebut. But when they rebut, consider their rebuttals objectively. Indeed, if your evidence is veritable (which I personally doubt, but I don't know), it would challenge the accepted age of the world and universe.
Can you in any way prove this? As I myself believe, and the evidence agrees with me, science was freed from the clutches of fallacious religiosity and mysticism -- thanks be greatly to The Enlightenment -- which birthed an era embracing reason, science and philosophy more so than ever has been previously, when but for no sect, Humanity truckled beneath fascist theocracies. And this enlightening coincided with, be it no surprise at all, the industrial/technological revolution and, for virtually every advanced nation, the beginnings of secularity. Indeed, I may inscribe it as the secular revolution, for Europe, Japan, Canada and I think Australia now host religious demographics of approximately thirty-percent or less. You can see this in the link from my previous posts.
How did any science get corrupted? Theories, unproven, became considered to be axioms, then proof was implied, though still unproven, and because of the axiom status of the theory, resulting in people giving blind faith to often illogical theoretical processes.
Oh, dear . . .did I just describe Evolution?
Addressed to all YEC followers, I think you really have to challenge things greater than certain geological anomalies like Ghostrider1's, because right now there are several very cardinal, very difficult to refute fundamental evidences behind the age of the universe. You address them too seldom, and I will provide a link describing them, and I would like to see your take on them. I just think you shouldn't try and poke holes in the Scientist's arguments rather than topple them altogether, which is what you really have to do, lest they accuse you of the gap strategy.
I'll also just post the Wikipedia article for your consideration.