The problem is that I agree with every word you said already, though I thlnk perhaps I should say it myself from time to time (I do say it though, but I'm not believed). I don't doubt any of that about the scientific mind and the scientific pursuit, though clearly that's how I'm coming across. The thing is you thlnk all that honest endeavor has arrived at truth, so that what you are really saying is that I should acknowledge THAT, their conclusions and not just their methods and motivations. This is where I get into the questions about the Historical Sciences that also brings ire and enmity down on my head. But the sciences of the past really don't have the safeguards of the hard sciences of the laboratory so that all the sincere honest scientific work on those sciences is ultimately subjective and can be wrong even if the whole scientific community agrees.
I do acknowledge that there are areas of study that pose a challenge to creationist views, but not really all that many and they are a problem just because there is no way to go back and find out the truth about them. We can't go back and find out if tree rings weren't always annual for instance, and that accepting today's experience of tree rings is a fair standard for judging what happened in the past. Interpreting the past in terms of the present is what creationists complain about as Uniformitarianism. It seems reasonable enough but if there were dramatic differences in the past they get ignored by this principle. The idea that a genetic bottleneck at the time of the Flood would produce the same genetic effects it would produce today is wrong but that won't be recognized except by a creationist.
Of course uniformitarianism makes sense to anyone who thlnks the Bible is bunk, as you do. I don't know if there is any other clue to a truly different past than the Bible, but from the Bible we have the description of a different climate, and the assertion that human beings had a longevity of eight or nine hundred years before the Flood and that after the Flood the longevity declined over the first few centuries but still reached into the hundreds. If I believe the Bible then I have to thlnk of the past as a different kind of place than we experience today, I have to thlnk of all living things as having a lot more health and strength and longevity than we see today. But to those who reject the Bible I'm just an idyut.
So yes, my intransigence is indeed the problem, but the intransigence comes from believing a completely different worldview, it's not just a set of ideas that could be exchanged for another set of ideas through more education. So if I'm to educate myself to accept your point of view I'm being asked to give up the whole basis of my point of view. I'm being asked to reject the Bible.
So there's no way to escape the insults. I can't be anything other than the ignorant bag lady you thlnk I am.
All I meant by the word "truth" was the lower-case meaning about something being believed to be true.
And I know that nothing in science is perfect, but although everybody here including you keeps chopping off my head for it, I thlnk the sciences of the past are less reliable simply because it's all determined from the point of view of the present, and at least in the case of geology what must have happened to bring about the observable inert results of it all has to be extrapolated and interpreted without any help other than what we already thlnk and know about the present.
I don't claim to be anybody, but I do know some things about the relevant issues. There are YECs who have academic degrees though if that's what's required.
I didn't question anybody's motives or agenda, quite the opposite, so please don't add that to my burden of supposed guilt.
There's only one creed in my boat, all Bible based, which includes the creed of salvation and the creed of creation and the Flood. If any of this is denied it's not my creed.
There is very little DEMONSTRABLE fact I can rightly be accused of denying, though I certainly question a lot of supposed facts in the sciences of the past (and only those.)
I'm talking qbout the distant past, not the recent past where you can hold the father responsible. You can't check anything in the prehistorical past, whatever you thlnk you know about it can never be verified in the past itself, you can only theorize about it in the present. Sometimes the clues are good enough so you can be fairly certain of your theory, but if in fact, for instance, conditions in the past were not like they are in the present and you don't take that into account how are you going to have an accurate idea about what really happened?
The Bible gives a picture of lots of differences in the past from what we experience today, so a YEC has to take all that into account.
It tells us there was a worldwide inundation so we have to take that into account. It tells us ppeople were living for nearly a thousand years before the Flood and still in the hundreds for a few centuries afterward, so we have to take that into account.
It tells us the climate before the Flood was very different from what we experience today and we have to take that into account too.
It tells us there was a great change in living things when the first human beings disobeyed God, that death entered the world at that point, which challenges evolutionjary theory, so we have to take that into account too.
The Bible was dismissed by scientists as a true picture of reality, so although we thlnk that was a bad decision we can't persuade anyone, but we do have to accept it ourselves.
There's only one truly scientific dating method and that's radiometric, all the rest are human speculation. James Hutton made up a story about Siccar Point that he took as evidence of ancient age, and eventually the whole scientific community was persuaded of the truth of one man's wild speculation. If anyone WANTED an interpretation to be true, he wanted that one to be true and apparently many today also do, but it's certainly flimsy scientific evidence.
Nevertheless that wild assumption was built on by others convinced of it and it carried science through to the objective radiometric method, which is the only one that has any real scientific standing. Nevertheless if the Bible is true that method is not even if we can't prove it yet.
Now within a kind as it diversifies into different species youâ€™d expect this variation to show relationships as mutations are inherited, just as in a familial relationship.
We may already have a problem with different uses of some terms. I don't thlnk in terms of mutations at all as a normal element in processes of microevolution/variation, and I am not sure if you are talking about microevolution/variation when you use the term "species" either. Sorry, it does get confusing.j
But you wouldnâ€™t expect to fit species of different kinds into a familial relationship of variation, since the kinds were created separately and mutations are random.
"Species" in the sense of microevolution/variations? And I don't know what to make of "Familial relationship of variation?" Sorry, again I'm not sure what you are talking about.
However that is not what we see, and the variation that is present in all species is consistent with them all being related.
Sprry, I'm completely lost.
And even though you seem to mean to clarify in what follows, I get even more lost.