Summations Only

I read your post and highlighted this sentence as the bit that was way wrong before looking further down the thread and seeing that Parasomnium had picked out exactly the same sentence.That's the bit that's most obviously wrong. And it's so wrong that my best advice to you is to get a book on the theory of evolution and start again from the beginning.

Which seems a very sensible admission.So what's your point?

No, we claim them as YEC positions because YECs do in fact hold those positions.And innumerable YECs have the same complaint as you do --- we shouldn't be arguing with all the other YECs, who are dolts, we should be arguing with the real creationism, as purveyed by them. How dishonest we are to be debunking Henry Morris when we should be debunking Duane Gish! And why are we going after soft targets like Duane Gish when we should be tackling the more substantive arguments of Walt Brown? And why are we wasting our time on small-time creationists like Walt Brown? --- are we too scared to face up to the cogent reasoning of Henry Morris? Yes.Your own picture of the Flood, as I understand it, is that the crust collapsed into a hydrosphere lying between the crust and the mantle. How was anyone meant to portray that as the true face of "flood geology"? You're the first and only person I've ever heard it from. And yet you chide us for instead focusing on the "silly, cartoonish" scenarios put forward by (apparently) everyone except you. How could we do otherwise? We'd never heard your version before, and we may never do so again from anyone else.

Some sort of evidence for it, rather than "I believe it on faith". That would be where the need for evidence comes in. Also, one mistake in Newton's Principia would mean that you shouldn't believe in gravity.But even if your reasoning was correct on that point, that wouldn't supply you with a reason to believe the whole Bible. It would supply you with a motive to do so, perhaps, but that's hardly the same thing. Well of course they're impossible, that's the whole point of making the claims. Walking on water is impossible, raising the dead is impossible. Donkeys can't talk, you can't part the Red Sea by waving a stick at it, humans don't undergo parthenogenesis. You can't turn water into wine, no plague can single out the firstborn, sticks don't turn into snakes ...If instead the Bible was a bunch of stories that went like this: ... then it would not have become the basis of a major religion. Its whole appeal is that it contains stories about things that are completely impossible.

Obviously, really really incredibly obviously, mind-numbingly, ball-shatteringly obviously, Coyote meant that most YECs wouldn't agree with you that the Earth was "no younger than 150,000 years". What is it with creationists and really really obvious things?I should be interested, by the way, to know how you came up with that 150,000 year figure.