First, what does this mean: "Faith is the demonstration of your prejudice"?
Second how do you discount things like radiocarbon dating and fossils? If God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, then where did everyone else come from after them? Was incest acceptable back then because if there was only Adam and Eve and they had children, then either Adam was doing it with his daughters, incest and cheating on his woman, or Eve was doing it with her sons, incest and cheating on her man. So what you are saying is that less than 6000 years ago incest was OK? But gay marriage, and believing the earth is older than 6000 years old and dinosaurs is not OK? Let me think about this. How does this make any sense at all? Are you all Republicans?
You are referring to the answer given to the question: How old is the world?
There is an abundance of evidence indicating a possible range of dates for the age of the world. Because of pre-judgment (prejudice) coming from a belief system already in place, a minority group of scientist believe in evolution and will only consider evidence showing extremely long ages. Because of belief in creation others give weight to the evidence indicating a shorter age to the world. I have noticed that those believing in creation do have a tendency to try to explain why the long age evidence might be misjudged, but I've also notice that those believing in evolution won't deal with the short age evidence (though with a few exceptions).
You claim a discounting of radiocarbon evidence. I did talk about it in the article. Radio carbon only has a maximum age range of 30,000 years, so it doesn't gain you what you desire anyway. See: Is Science the Source of Truth? Another article, Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating, discusses the difficulty of radiometric dating. A web page, Radiometric Dating documents a number of difficulties with reliable dates from all forms of radiometric Dating.
In the outline Does Science Refute the Bible? I cover radiocarbon dating and fossils, showing that these evidences don't demonstrate what people typically claim. There are a number of articles on dinosaurs on this site and not one claims dinosaurs did not exist. See: The Bible and Dinosaurs as an example. You see, it is your prejudice coming into play. You assume that believing the Bible means not accepting dinosaurs.
One does not have to assume that only Adam and Eve were able to reproduce as you mistakenly assert. Adam and Eve could be and were exclusively married to each other. Their children could and did find marriage partners among their siblings. See: Who did Adam and Eve's children marry?
Now why would a person's political party affiliation reflect his ability to reason? Who now is not making sense? Are you saying that only Democrats believe in evolution and don't think homosexuality is a sin? From what I know, political leanings don't reflect moral or religious beliefs.
I do find it fascinating that you connect acceptance of homosexuality with evolution.
I find it fascinating that you are so full of yourself and usually the religious nut jobs are totally Republican or so it has seemed. So just as you are allowed your thinking, I am allowed mine so far, unless, of course, the religious Republicans take control and then we must believe as we are taught by them and your foolish notions will be all the rage in the schools, which not only do I find frightening, I find it repulsive.
And this is a reasoned counter-argument?