To do so would be to indulge in intellectual dishonesty and deny the evidence, so no thanks.
Something which you already do.
An example of someone being intellectually honest would be Alate One who was a former YEC herself and candidly admitted to having a crisis of faith when she could no longer reconcile the scientific evidence with her belief system. Thankfully she realized that having faith and accepting the evidence weren't mutually exclusive.
The fallacy here is assuming the following: Because Alate One has come to reject that the earth was created within the past 10,000 years, therefore she is correct.
Which A) assumes that Alate One was being intellectually honest by coming to the conclusion that the position that the earth is young is false, and B) begs the question that the YEC position is false.
The problem is that you want EVERYTHING to be allegory. But no human being who ever existed speaks entirely in allegory, nor was the Bible intended to be read entirely as allegorical. It speaks in the way human beings speak, which is by using literal terms and figures of speech in their proper ways.
Noticing allegory in the creation account is hardly something I invented,
No one said it was...
it's been on record through the centuries
And somehow that makes the position correct?
Because that's an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy.
The problem is that when you reject the creation account in Genesis 1-2 as having actually occurred as described (which is done so by using figures of speech and literal terms side by side like we do today), the rest of the events in the Bible also go out the window as having actually happened.
and as many Christians can attest to, there's no cognitive dissonance with accepting an old earth/evolution with a belief in God.
And that makes them right?
Of course not.
That would be an appeal to popularity.
There's no such "science" that has done anything of the sort.
Why do you put science in quotes?
Special pleading won't get you anywhere in this discussion.
Science is defined as:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
("Science definition" in a Google search, the definition is provided by Oxford Languages."
Anything that fits that definition is by definition "science," even if it disagrees with your worldview.
If you're familiar with the scientific method
Defined as:
"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
(Again, quick search on Google for "scientific method definition")
Which most Christian Creationist Scientists use.
then you'd know why "creation science" is rightfully regarded as pseudoscientific bunk.
Already addressed by
Stripe .
You don't start with an immutable conclusion that can't be disproved by unscientific methods and that disregards anything that doesn't fit in with it. That simply isn't science.
Have any of the scientists that have been cited over the years on TOL done this that you can prove? Or are you simply beating up a straw man to make yourself feel better?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
I've seen plenty of debates on here and there hasn't been any compelling argument from YEC's
Argument from incredulity.
Just because YOU aren't convinced by an argument or position doesn't mean the position is invalid.
but there have been from those who actually know their stuff such as Alate One.
And an appeal to authority.
Frankly, there's only so many times where it's entertaining to see people like Stripe have their head handed to them on a plate time and again.
:yawn:
Try taking your YEC glasses off and learn something new yourself.
And finally a "tu quoque."
