why this is important

[Enoch2021]

 

Well I've never met an atheist who was actually willing to sit down and have an honest, open-minded debate and listen to the evidence presented.  In most cases, they think we're ignorant, dumb and pathetic for believing in a 'sky-daddy', talking donkeys, the Ark, etc.  I would love the chance to have an open debate where we exchange information.  If anyone is willing, please let me know lol

You must be very careful.  They have some very sophisticated arguments, some of which frankly have no good responses- -  we just don't know, but they can make you stumble.  Particularly those atheists who are former Christians in ministry, e.g. John Loftus or Dan Barker.  Sometimes it's best to let them go and work out their own destinies and let God deal with them.  

 

 

They haven't ONE good argument WHATSOEVER!!  My 10 Year Old Daughter can whittle them down to faint blatherings with simple Critical Thinking Skills.

 

You're gonna see some of those here in a few minutes

[alphaparticle]

 

 

Well I've never met an atheist who was actually willing to sit down and have an honest, open-minded debate and listen to the evidence presented.  In most cases, they think we're ignorant, dumb and pathetic for believing in a 'sky-daddy', talking donkeys, the Ark, etc.  I would love the chance to have an open debate where we exchange information.  If anyone is willing, please let me know lol

You must be very careful.  They have some very sophisticated arguments, some of which frankly have no good responses- -  we just don't know, but they can make you stumble.  Particularly those atheists who are former Christians in ministry, e.g. John Loftus or Dan Barker.  Sometimes it's best to let them go and work out their own destinies and let God deal with them.  

 

 

They haven't ONE good argument WHATSOEVER!!  My 10 Year Old Daughter can whittle them down to faint blatherings with simple Critical Thinking Skills.

 

You're gonna see some of those here in a few minutes

 

I think the best arguments are those which tear down the arguments believers can present. It's a lot harder to defend a lot of positive claims than to find holes and flaws in arguments being presented. Every argument we have there is a weakness to as far as I am aware. I suppose that is the extent to which belief is more than just assent to truth claims, but also based in experiences with God.

[LookingForAnswers]

Well I've never met an atheist who was actually willing to sit down and have an honest, open-minded debate and listen to the evidence presented.  In most cases, they think we're ignorant, dumb and pathetic for believing in a 'sky-daddy', talking donkeys, the Ark, etc.  I would love the chance to have an open debate where we exchange information.  If anyone is willing, please let me know lol

 

I have had many good discussions with atheist where we exchanged our views.   If have found believers to be just as dismissive (just read some of the threads on here) as any atheist.   If people would just exchange their ideas without trying to tear down those that refuse to agree with them you could have many more open, civil discussions.

[gray wolf]

That is the true meaning of a debate (discussion).  Listen to the premises and see if you can establish truth.

[gray wolf]

 

 

Well I've never met an atheist who was actually willing to sit down and have an honest, open-minded debate and listen to the evidence presented.  In most cases, they think we're ignorant, dumb and pathetic for believing in a 'sky-daddy', talking donkeys, the Ark, etc.  I would love the chance to have an open debate where we exchange information.  If anyone is willing, please let me know lol

You must be very careful.  They have some very sophisticated arguments, some of which frankly have no good responses- -  we just don't know, but they can make you stumble.  Particularly those atheists who are former Christians in ministry, e.g. John Loftus or Dan Barker.  Sometimes it's best to let them go and work out their own destinies and let God deal with them.  

 

 

They haven't ONE good argument WHATSOEVER!!  My 10 Year Old Daughter can whittle them down to faint blatherings with simple Critical Thinking Skills.

 

You're gonna see some of those here in a few minutes

 

Maybe I am just a little feeble minded in my old age, but I have been stumped.

[gray wolf]

The teleological argument originated before the concept of evolution of course, as an alternative explanation. One thing one must consider with the watchmaker scenario is that If there is a designer, then by necessity all surrounding objects are also designed (rocks, grass, earth). Although objects in nature can be awesome, can we really say a magnificent sand dune for example is designed?

What seems obvious to you or me might not be to the unbeliever. They can find holes in our arguments, particularly the argument from design, which is why I don't use it. The world has changed since Paley's day-- for better or worse.

You're getting confused between "order" and "Specific Complexity"

"Order" is or can be: abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd. "Sand Dune"......... Nature Construct.

"Specific Complexity": The Declaration of Independence. "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct.

Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN".

"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.

Do you mean Specified Complexity as described by William Dembski? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

I guess, Yes.

Although I didn't do any Math with it. It was sort of intuitive....I looked @ a "Sand Dune" and then a "Sand Castle" and said...yep, I got it.

I didn't think that I needed to sit in my attic for 300 years with a scientific calculator, a severe case of rickets, and really bad coffee breadth to figure it out.

Am in Error?

[gray wolf]

The teleological argument originated before the concept of evolution of course, as an alternative explanation. One thing one must consider with the watchmaker scenario is that If there is a designer, then by necessity all surrounding objects are also designed (rocks, grass, earth). Although objects in nature can be awesome, can we really say a magnificent sand dune for example is designed?

What seems obvious to you or me might not be to the unbeliever. They can find holes in our arguments, particularly the argument from design, which is why I don't use it. The world has changed since Paley's day-- for better or worse.

You're getting confused between "order" and "Specific Complexity"

"Order" is or can be: abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd. "Sand Dune"......... Nature Construct.

"Specific Complexity": The Declaration of Independence. "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct.

Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN".

"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.

Do you mean Specified Complexity as described by William Dembski? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

I guess, Yes.

Although I didn't do any Math with it. It was sort of intuitive....I looked @ a "Sand Dune" and then a "Sand Castle" and said...yep, I got it.

I didn't think that I needed to sit in my attic for 300 years with a scientific calculator, a severe case of rickets, and really bad coffee breadth to figure it out.

Am in Error?

[gray wolf]

Sorry burped. What may seem intuitive to you or me may not be to the unbeliever. And as pointed out earlier they will find weaknesses in our arguments. I have found this to be especially true for the argument from design, which is why I don't rely on it. The world has changed since Paley's day for better or worse.

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

Tristen,

 

I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'.

 

In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle.

 

 

You said “In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle”

 

I assume when people post that they do so to provoke discussion. Even in the body of your post, the bias I described is evident; describing a tension between what you label “'the science'” (presumably meaning secular scientific interpretations) and life in God. I’m trying to encourage you that the tension only exists due to indoctrinated secular bias. If you strip down the secular position to its fundamental logic, the supreme levels of confidence in secular scientific models simply isn’t justified by the application of the scientific method. Creationist models are equally valid and reconcile the tensions you have described.

 

I think it would be interesting for you to self-analyse why you “have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research”. My experience has always been the opposite; studying science and engaging in research tends to reinforce my faith.

 

Sure, and you are of course welcome to see as you see fit. I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on. That being said, i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part. If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this. It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?

 

 

 

You said “I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on”

 

I apologise if I am still missing the point of your post. I’ve offered responses to the preamble and body of your original post.

 

 

“i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part”

 

I’m not sure what the difficulty is. Basically, my position is that those of us with any kind of secular upbringing have been, by and large, exclusively conditioned to think that the secular scientific models (Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry) are overwhelmingly supported by science – to the exclusion of all other ideas about the origins of the universe and the diversity of life. This conditioning is to the point where we are initially astonished that any rational person could seriously give any credence to the account of history as taught in the Bible.

 

However, once we arrive at sincere faith in Christ, we soon learn that the Bible is the highest authoritative resource of the Christian faith. We soon thereafter realise that some of the claims in the Bible are inconsistent with what we have been taught our entire lives to be true science. We have a number of choices; many reject the Bible and subsequently their faith, many try to offer imaginative reinterpretations of the Bible in an attempt to conform it to their confidence in the secular models, and some choose to re-evaluate their secular educations; subjecting the secular claims to closer scrutiny – rather than continuing to subscribe to the secular rhetoric regarding their models.

 

As someone who re-evaluated what I had been taught, I soon discovered that there is no valid reason whatsoever, to prefer confidence in secular models over confidence in the Bible; no reason in logic or science to have such a strong preference for one over the other. There are certainly lots of vague claims about how well secular models are supported by “libraries/volumes/mountains” of evidence, and how they have survived so much scientific scrutiny, and how predictably powerful they are, and how elegant they are etc. And lots of rhetoric about how creationists ignore these mountains of evidence and are unscientific etc. But when properly and thoroughly examined, I could find no logically-valid reason to justify considering secular models as superior to the Bible-based models. So I can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – without any legitimate, objective compromise to my scientific integrity.

 

 

“If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this”

 

For starters – we all have the same evidence. And if we creationists can interpret all this very same evidence to be consistent with the Bible-based model, then what is the basis of your disagreement. Have you found some superlative evidential support rendering the secular models beyond scientific question, or are you merely continuing to succumb to the rhetorical backstory pertaining to their ‘overwhelming and exclusive scientific support’?

 

 

“It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?”

 

No. We all necessarily make assumptions. And I don’t technically have an objection. I merely consider trust in the Bible to be of paramount importance to the success of Christian life. I think you need to be aware that a rational argument exists in defence of Biblical creationism that, in every logical respect, has equal scientific validity to the secular models. Your impression of the abject superiority of the secular models is causing you to question the clear teaching of the Bible. But the existence of a rationally defensible creationist position means that you can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – even when it disagrees with popular scientific dogma.

 

Okay Tristen, so if I understand you, your upshot is that you  think the evidence can be just as well interpreted by YEC as by the prevailing 'secular' paradigms. From what I have seen so far, I do not think that is true. There is a trivial sense in which you may interpret evidence in light of any model you wish (as some may decide no one has ever landed on the moon, and can think of a way to explain all the evidence that will fit that model), but in terms of best fit, with least ad hoc-ness, and so forth, I don't agree here. One of the reasons I have run into a sense of trouble this round is because I have gone back through some specific evidence for evolution and the case seems very tight to me. I think the issue is the details- that is where things start to become incredibly compelling. I have doubts that looking at creationist scientific accounts will end up being helpful to me. On the other hand, well, what do I do with Genesis in a non stupid way? I am finding there are many facets of this issue for me.

 

I don't think I'm adding anything new here, so it may be we don't have much else to say to each other. Up to you. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your views.

 

 

 

You said “if I understand you, your upshot is that you think the evidence can be just as well interpreted by YEC as by the prevailing 'secular' paradigms”

 

I find the phrase “just as well interpreted” to be highly subjective. How “well” an interpretation of the facts fits a model can be reliant upon the starting perspective of the individual – i.e. it’s a matter of opinion. My claim is that the YEC interpretations are rational – meaning that the conclusions are logically consistent with evidence, arguments and premise. And as such, creationist interpretations demand equal validity and consideration to secular interpretations. Rationality is the only objective standard since other measures can be influenced by human presupposition.

 

 

“There is a trivial sense in which you may interpret evidence in light of any model you wish”

 

All scientific investigation requires that facts be interpreted. Interpretation is a subjective process which can be influenced by human presupposition. The creationist position is that all of the evidence can be, both individually and collectively, interpreted to be consistent with Biblical creationism (i.e. from big picture to details). Why is it that when secular scientists interpret the evidence to be consistent with their own presuppositions, it is accepted as standard, but when I interpret the very same evidence to be consistent with my presuppositions, it is labelled “trivial”?

 

 

“as some may decide no one has ever landed on the moon, and can think of a way to explain all the evidence that will fit that model”

 

I disagree that your analogy reflects the debate. Insomuch as the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, the model should be considered rational. However, there is a difference between interpreting the evidence differently, and disregarding the evidence. In your analogy, there is evidence that would have to be disregarded as ‘invented as part of the conspiracy’. It’s not good enough to simply claim scepticism of one interpretation. You have to provide an alternative model to explain the facts.

 

I, as a creationist, do not disregard any facts. I simply reserve my right to question the secular-consistent interpretations, and propose a creation-consistent interpretation of the same facts.

 

 

 

“but in terms of best fit, with least ad hoc-ness, and so forth, I don't agree here”

 

But the issue is not about your agreement. Our opinions are influenced by personal presupposition. The issue is about whether a position is rationally defensible.

 

 

 

“One of the reasons I have run into a sense of trouble this round is because I have gone back through some specific evidence for evolution and the case seems very tight to me. I think the issue is the details- that is where things start to become incredibly compelling”

 

But did you consider that same “specific evidence” and “details” from a creationist perspective – or did you just believe what you were told in the context in which it was presented? Did you separate the facts from the interpretations and ask yourself if the facts themselves necessarily undermine what the Bible teaches – or did you uncritically accept the entire presentation as “incredibly compelling” without subjecting the claims to diligent scientific scrutiny?

 

I also have studied the issue at the level of “specific evidence” and “details” – and am happy to discuss any fact which you consider to be exclusive and “compelling” evidence of secular models. I won’t claim to be able to change your preference of models – because I cannot control your presuppositions. I only claim to be providing a position that is rationally valid; i.e. the conclusions will be logically consistent with the evidence, arguments and premise.

 

 

“On the other hand, well, what do I do with Genesis in a non stupid way”

 

If you wish to be rational (i.e. “non stupid”) in your assessment of the Bible, then you will have to learn to foster objectivity. That is, you have to learn to consider arguments in the context within which they are formulated – rather than judge them from the perspective of your own predetermined position. With scientific arguments, you will need to learn to separate the empirical from the theoretical; i.e. separate the actual facts from the interpretations, assumptions, speculations etc. – then determine if the facts themselves are necessarily inconsistent with “Genesis”, and if not, can they be reasonably interpreted to be consistent with Genesis.

 

I, as a creationist with formal scientific education, would be more than happy for you to subject the claims of Genesis to unbiased scientific scrutiny. The key is to be honest enough with yourself to be objective in your analysis - by removing your presupposed biases before examining each argument on its own merits.

 

For starters, lets assume that it is possible for an intelligent, rational, educated, “non stupid” person to have a sincere and thoughtfully considered position, even though it happens to be different from our own sincere and thoughtfully considered position.

 

 

 

In summary, as there is a rationally defensible creationist position, there is no legitimate reason (either in logic or science) for us to feel compelled to align ourselves with secular claims that contradict the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

 

 

“I don't think I'm adding anything new here, so it may be we don't have much else to say to each other. Up to you”

 

The only way to resolve the issue beyond innuendo (i.e. beyond claims that your preferred interpretations are “compelling”, whereas mine are only “trivial”) is to delve into the specific evidence. You indicated in another thread that you are reluctant to do this – and I don’t like pushing people into conversations they don’t want. But when you are motivated, I am happy to engage in that conversation – perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

Tristen,

 

I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'.

 

In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle.

 

 

You said “In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle”

 

I assume when people post that they do so to provoke discussion. Even in the body of your post, the bias I described is evident; describing a tension between what you label “'the science'” (presumably meaning secular scientific interpretations) and life in God. I’m trying to encourage you that the tension only exists due to indoctrinated secular bias. If you strip down the secular position to its fundamental logic, the supreme levels of confidence in secular scientific models simply isn’t justified by the application of the scientific method. Creationist models are equally valid and reconcile the tensions you have described.

 

I think it would be interesting for you to self-analyse why you “have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research”. My experience has always been the opposite; studying science and engaging in research tends to reinforce my faith.

 

Sure, and you are of course welcome to see as you see fit. I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on. That being said, i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part. If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this. It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?

 

 

 

You said “I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on”

 

I apologise if I am still missing the point of your post. I’ve offered responses to the preamble and body of your original post.

 

 

“i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part”

 

I’m not sure what the difficulty is. Basically, my position is that those of us with any kind of secular upbringing have been, by and large, exclusively conditioned to think that the secular scientific models (Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry) are overwhelmingly supported by science – to the exclusion of all other ideas about the origins of the universe and the diversity of life. This conditioning is to the point where we are initially astonished that any rational person could seriously give any credence to the account of history as taught in the Bible.

 

However, once we arrive at sincere faith in Christ, we soon learn that the Bible is the highest authoritative resource of the Christian faith. We soon thereafter realise that some of the claims in the Bible are inconsistent with what we have been taught our entire lives to be true science. We have a number of choices; many reject the Bible and subsequently their faith, many try to offer imaginative reinterpretations of the Bible in an attempt to conform it to their confidence in the secular models, and some choose to re-evaluate their secular educations; subjecting the secular claims to closer scrutiny – rather than continuing to subscribe to the secular rhetoric regarding their models.

 

As someone who re-evaluated what I had been taught, I soon discovered that there is no valid reason whatsoever, to prefer confidence in secular models over confidence in the Bible; no reason in logic or science to have such a strong preference for one over the other. There are certainly lots of vague claims about how well secular models are supported by “libraries/volumes/mountains” of evidence, and how they have survived so much scientific scrutiny, and how predictably powerful they are, and how elegant they are etc. And lots of rhetoric about how creationists ignore these mountains of evidence and are unscientific etc. But when properly and thoroughly examined, I could find no logically-valid reason to justify considering secular models as superior to the Bible-based models. So I can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – without any legitimate, objective compromise to my scientific integrity.

 

 

“If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this”

 

For starters – we all have the same evidence. And if we creationists can interpret all this very same evidence to be consistent with the Bible-based model, then what is the basis of your disagreement. Have you found some superlative evidential support rendering the secular models beyond scientific question, or are you merely continuing to succumb to the rhetorical backstory pertaining to their ‘overwhelming and exclusive scientific support’?

 

 

“It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?”

 

No. We all necessarily make assumptions. And I don’t technically have an objection. I merely consider trust in the Bible to be of paramount importance to the success of Christian life. I think you need to be aware that a rational argument exists in defence of Biblical creationism that, in every logical respect, has equal scientific validity to the secular models. Your impression of the abject superiority of the secular models is causing you to question the clear teaching of the Bible. But the existence of a rationally defensible creationist position means that you can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – even when it disagrees with popular scientific dogma.

 

Okay Tristen, so if I understand you, your upshot is that you  think the evidence can be just as well interpreted by YEC as by the prevailing 'secular' paradigms. From what I have seen so far, I do not think that is true. There is a trivial sense in which you may interpret evidence in light of any model you wish (as some may decide no one has ever landed on the moon, and can think of a way to explain all the evidence that will fit that model), but in terms of best fit, with least ad hoc-ness, and so forth, I don't agree here. One of the reasons I have run into a sense of trouble this round is because I have gone back through some specific evidence for evolution and the case seems very tight to me. I think the issue is the details- that is where things start to become incredibly compelling. I have doubts that looking at creationist scientific accounts will end up being helpful to me. On the other hand, well, what do I do with Genesis in a non stupid way? I am finding there are many facets of this issue for me.

 

I don't think I'm adding anything new here, so it may be we don't have much else to say to each other. Up to you. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your views.

 

 

 

You said “if I understand you, your upshot is that you think the evidence can be just as well interpreted by YEC as by the prevailing 'secular' paradigms”

 

I find the phrase “just as well interpreted” to be highly subjective. How “well” an interpretation of the facts fits a model can be reliant upon the starting perspective of the individual – i.e. it’s a matter of opinion. My claim is that the YEC interpretations are rational – meaning that the conclusions are logically consistent with evidence, arguments and premise. And as such, creationist interpretations demand equal validity and consideration to secular interpretations. Rationality is the only objective standard since other measures can be influenced by human presupposition.

 

 

“There is a trivial sense in which you may interpret evidence in light of any model you wish”

 

All scientific investigation requires that facts be interpreted. Interpretation is a subjective process which can be influenced by human presupposition. The creationist position is that all of the evidence can be, both individually and collectively, interpreted to be consistent with Biblical creationism (i.e. from big picture to details). Why is it that when secular scientists interpret the evidence to be consistent with their own presuppositions, it is accepted as standard, but when I interpret the very same evidence to be consistent with my presuppositions, it is labelled “trivial”?

 

 

“as some may decide no one has ever landed on the moon, and can think of a way to explain all the evidence that will fit that model”

 

I disagree that your analogy reflects the debate. Insomuch as the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, the model should be considered rational. However, there is a difference between interpreting the evidence differently, and disregarding the evidence. In your analogy, there is evidence that would have to be disregarded as ‘invented as part of the conspiracy’. It’s not good enough to simply claim scepticism of one interpretation. You have to provide an alternative model to explain the facts.

 

I, as a creationist, do not disregard any facts. I simply reserve my right to question the secular-consistent interpretations, and propose a creation-consistent interpretation of the same facts.

 

 

 

“but in terms of best fit, with least ad hoc-ness, and so forth, I don't agree here”

 

But the issue is not about your agreement. Our opinions are influenced by personal presupposition. The issue is about whether a position is rationally defensible.

 

 

 

“One of the reasons I have run into a sense of trouble this round is because I have gone back through some specific evidence for evolution and the case seems very tight to me. I think the issue is the details- that is where things start to become incredibly compelling”

 

But did you consider that same “specific evidence” and “details” from a creationist perspective – or did you just believe what you were told in the context in which it was presented? Did you separate the facts from the interpretations and ask yourself if the facts themselves necessarily undermine what the Bible teaches – or did you uncritically accept the entire presentation as “incredibly compelling” without subjecting the claims to diligent scientific scrutiny?

 

I also have studied the issue at the level of “specific evidence” and “details” – and am happy to discuss any fact which you consider to be exclusive and “compelling” evidence of secular models. I won’t claim to be able to change your preference of models – because I cannot control your presuppositions. I only claim to be providing a position that is rationally valid; i.e. the conclusions will be logically consistent with the evidence, arguments and premise.

 

 

“On the other hand, well, what do I do with Genesis in a non stupid way”

 

If you wish to be rational (i.e. “non stupid”) in your assessment of the Bible, then you will have to learn to foster objectivity. That is, you have to learn to consider arguments in the context within which they are formulated – rather than judge them from the perspective of your own predetermined position. With scientific arguments, you will need to learn to separate the empirical from the theoretical; i.e. separate the actual facts from the interpretations, assumptions, speculations etc. – then determine if the facts themselves are necessarily inconsistent with “Genesis”, and if not, can they be reasonably interpreted to be consistent with Genesis.

 

I, as a creationist with formal scientific education, would be more than happy for you to subject the claims of Genesis to unbiased scientific scrutiny. The key is to be honest enough with yourself to be objective in your analysis - by removing your presupposed biases before examining each argument on its own merits.

 

For starters, lets assume that it is possible for an intelligent, rational, educated, “non stupid” person to have a sincere and thoughtfully considered position, even though it happens to be different from our own sincere and thoughtfully considered position.

 

 

 

In summary, as there is a rationally defensible creationist position, there is no legitimate reason (either in logic or science) for us to feel compelled to align ourselves with secular claims that contradict the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

 

 

“I don't think I'm adding anything new here, so it may be we don't have much else to say to each other. Up to you”

 

The only way to resolve the issue beyond innuendo (i.e. beyond claims that your preferred interpretations are “compelling”, whereas mine are only “trivial”) is to delve into the specific evidence. You indicated in another thread that you are reluctant to do this – and I don’t like pushing people into conversations they don’t want. But when you are motivated, I am happy to engage in that conversation – perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.

 

 I get the sense in our exchanges there is a continual miscommunication of some sort. I think you are misunderstanding a lot of what I am attempting to communicate. An example is this continued implication that I am employing 'innuendo'. I am not sure why all my 'innuendo' bothers you so much insofar as I am reporting how things appear to me, and not attempting to compel anybody else to that view. This is how it is from where I sit. If you are certain otherwise, I can appreciate that. There is a trivial sense in which, yes, I think you are mistaken. If I thought you were right, I'd have your position. I don't have your position so by default you are wrong. However, some YEC I know are among the most intelligent people I know.

 

As far as the details in question, I am not comfortable falling into the role of doing apologetics for evolution on this site. You may take that as a cop out, and I wouldn't blame you if you did, but it is the way it is. i get the sense some things are on the edge at best, and having threads about the evidence I find especially compelling for evolution was something I considered, and then decided against having here. I also think it misses the point- it does for me.