hooberus
May I commend you for your honesty?
You said;
Persons desiring a systematic look specifically at the evidence against evolution may find the following helpful:
Which is a very fair reflection of the approach I characterised when I said;
This 'super-focus' is typically caused by approaching a subject with the intent of disproving it rather than understanding it and coming to a conclusion on its veracity after study. That way you focus on what seems to be a problem and don't get sight of the rather large body of interrelated evidence supporting it.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87781/1464924/post.ashx#1464924
If you feel that you can claim to have the spread of knowledge required to conclusively determine evolution is false by specifically reading material focusing on showing problems with evolution, then we have no common ground.
I feel only by learning a subject to THEN determine its veracity can one make a determination that has any chance of being based on the learning.
If one seeks only to look at evidence presented from one point-of-view, one is liable to have one's final determination based upon the point-of-view of the sources one considers - even if those sources are not particularly good sources but are selected solely due to their meeting the criteria of "look[ing] specifically at the evidence against evolution".
This is why it is so easy to show factual errors, misconceptions and selective selection of data in the sources you quote;
Denton;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
ReMine
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep99.html
I find your willingness to ignore evidence that casts severe doubts on the validity of a literal interpretation of Genesis curious to the extent of having some olde-world-charm.
Unless you are willing to argue for the created appearance of age, the traditional Genesis dates (even with a large +/-) for the creation of man, when it is viewed as a literal account, simply don't work. Ditto the Flood.
The dating methods that cast these severe doubts are multiple and in agreement; the very technologies you would seek to use in dating claimed parts of the ark or the cross you reject because they exclude a belief you had previously decided you wanted proven.
I do also wonder why you are still using websites that you have admitted (to me here in the past) fall sometimes short of decent scientific standards.
People with 'average' (i.e. basic) knowledge of history, if they read certain books, might believe the claims made in some books... you know, stuff like the Illuminati conspiracy theories. They might LIKE those sort of books and be under the impression that books (they read because they like) give them a level of knowledge equal to someone who has actually studied the subject.
When questioned about certain aspects of their acquired belief structure they will often claim that those who HAVE studied the subject and disagree with the conspiracists are engaged in some Illuminati (or god-dishonouring) conspiracy to deny the truth of the Illuminati's New World Order (or of Creation).
Someone who has studied history will often find the claims made by such conspirasists are easily disproved as they can see the errors or omissions the conspracist's claims are made on that elude the eye of the layperson - even the lay person who has read dozens of books that support their personal favourite beliefs.
And I am afraid that "creationists" are just another group of conspiracists.
They select material that will agree with the opinion they already have (as you have proved), even if this material will have errors in it an expert could easily point out (as I have proved in the past with you). On this basis they claim to be right, and that those disagreeing with them have ulterior motives (they don't WANT to believe in god, e.g.) or are part of a larger conspiracy.
If your claim to being right about Creation is based on reading an intentionally biased selection of material that, when examined by experts is found to be erroneous, you are welcome to it. It is as valid a claim as that description makes it sound. The method some conspiracists use of accusing those with opposing views of some motive or malign intent, is just as valid as it is based on accusation not demonstration of the veracity of the disputed facts.
I know you are sincere hooberus, but again I ask you why is your faith in god limited to him producing the world in a manner that sounded likely to a bronze-age person? Why does god have to fit the predetermined "Christian" box you grew up with as an accident of birth? Do you think if you were a Muslim you would be an Islamic Creationist?
http://www.geocities.com/evrimkurami/tanercloning.html
... or if born a Hindu, a Hindu Creationist?
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/3185_iforbidden_archaeologys_imp_12_30_1899.asp
... and which version is right?
Whilst your literalistic beliefs give you a too few years to explain the evidence, the literalistic Hindu belief that man has been on Earth for over 4 billion years is based on documents they will claim are far older in origin than the Bible and that as the Bible steals the whole god-man thing from Vishnu it's obvious which is original and accurate. But they have a hell of a problem finding evidence for their claim of over 4 billion years, just as you have a hell of a time ignoring evidence 'man' has been round a very long time.
If one is prepared to accept that god might not want people to believe in errant nonsense the very evidence around them contradicts, then rather than futile circular arguments, you can get on worshipping god as he may be, rather than as pre-packaged and sold to you by some monger of elitism.
Unfortunately you equate evolution with no god. Now, I might agree with you most of the time but there's plenty of people who don't, and their beliefs are not as easily mauled as literal interpretations of the Bible.
It all boils down to worship of a BOOK, really. Worshipping god I can get, but a BOOK? Of course, that's rhetorical puzzlement.
The fact that claims about the literalism of the creation account can ALSO lead to claims for other portions of the Bible supporting human elitism, the condemnation of others who do no harm to their fellow man, and make god seem partial, really hasn't escaped my notice.
It often seems literal Biblical Creationism is as opposed to the idea of god as some entity we all have a fair chance with, the idea that people can just basically be decent to each other and that they don't have to follow some exclusive faith-way, the idea that we are free agents provided we don't harm our fellow man, as it is to evolution. As the defence of such a form of Creationism becomes by its very nature the defence of a book that allows other claims to be made (rather than anything to do with god), it makes me wonder about the underlying motives of some.
I don;t think you make the claims you do out of this sort of intent, but what if some are using the faith of others to manipulate them? You don't have to go through too many well-known TV evangelists to find examples of this, so one cannot claim this does not happen.
Cyborg
Thanks for your answer. It can be an agree to disagree thing. I feel statements like "evolution is just as hypothetical and plausible as many other explanations and is subject to a range of other assumptions about early earth" really, really, in all honesty sincerity and nice smiley-laden disagreement, don't stand up to examination, for me. It is elegantly phrased and polite 'wriggle room'.
Making valid points about the problems with absolute determination of what happened when does not stop one from assembling a hierarchy of various claims to what happened and decide which one is most likely.
As you will almost certainly gather, I have spent a long time observing how people create 'wriggle room' for their personally cherished belief structures. If one would rather use "imagination" to fill-in-gaps, rather than draw conclusions from available evidence and assumptions, that's fine, but personally I don't see the superiority of "imagination" over "assumption" as assumptions are based on facts (even if it's wrong) and imagination needn't be.
To me any literal interpretation of Genesis as being a literal account is doomed; you don't seek to do that.
