Solo said:
I am fine with being a child of God who believes His Word without hiding from the truth behind a humanistic liberal belief system. I do not need to walk in the deception that satan has "enlightened" his children with. They will one day see the foolishness of believing the lies and deceptions of satan instead of heeding the Holy Spirit when reading the Word of God.
The six literal days of creation and the seventh literal day of rest is plain in the scriptures. Only those who have a different agenda than the truth must twist and ignore the written words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Genesis also is very clear on the creation of each animal, fish, plant, and man to the point that anything other than this description of creation is a lie.
The pharisees and the scribes thought that they had it all together too, but they did not believe Moses, the prophets, and Jesus himself so you are in good company.
While what you are saying is conceivably true, I would ask whether this kind of response really aids the cause that you are presumably advocating for. I will lay my cards on the table: I am a Christian and I reject young earth creationism. However, my real point has to do with the way that you (and a lot of others) argue for the YEC position: by suggesting that those who believe otherwise are under the spell of the devil or have consciously or otherwise adopted a "liberal / humanistic" belief system.
I think that adopting this kind of posture gives the impression to your audience that you have abandoned a "let's reason together" position. It is also easy to assume that those who deploy such rhetoric do so because of the fundamental weakness of their position. In short, I think you will get a lot more mileage out of addressing the real issues such as:
Why should we read the Bible in the literal way that you do (I understand this degree of literalism is a fairly recent, largely American phenomena)?
Is it really believable that so many experts are involved in a vast conspiracy (of arguable intentionality) to support a theory (evolution) if the real evidence is inconsistent with evolution?
I fully admit that a real technical understanding of the science behind evolution is probably beyond all of us on this board. By the same token, I would hope that you would consider the possibiliy that the original writer of Genesis never intended his writing (the creation part) to be a factual narrative.