Thank you for posting all of this, Casper. A couple things on some of your claims...
You claim that AiG is prideful in saying that their interpretation of scripture is absolute truth. However, you seem to have no qualms with drastically reinterpreting large portions of the Bible. I do not believe that God using evolution and millions of years, yet saying that he created the cosmos in 6 days shows deceit that just doesn't seem to fit with his character. Do you not consider it prideful to say that the "scientific" discoveries of mere humans are obviously more reliable than God's own testimony of creation in the Bible?
An interesting hypothetical. I would not call God a liar, and would readily admit that I had been wrong if presented with this situation. After all, I hold God in higher respect than I do the scriptures (but do not get me wrong, I hold the scriptures in very high regard as they are the word of God).
I would like to present you with this hypothetical:
"God is very displeased that you are reinterpreting his word incorrectly in Genesis, and, in a roundabout way, bringing down the credibility of all of His scriptures. And, as if this were not enough, you loudly trumpet these views, leading others astray into myths......What do you think of these implications of your worldview as expressed in this hypothetical? ("hypothetical is written in this way so as to remind you that I am not at all condemning anyone or anything...yet. As I've said before, I have problems with the BioLogos view, but I still realize the possibility that _I _ am wrong)."
Obviously, I am not that man.
You have not given any areas where their claims are faulty (other than astrophysics, which was the one that I was already award of). If you can provide me with another topic (preferably within the realms of Evolution/Biology or Paleontology/Geology), I will gladly consider using some of my valuable time in researching it.
Since (as I gather from your post) AiG people are not considered (by you) to be experts or real scientists, I shall consult the expert scientists at CMI and ICR in my (potential) critique of them. I assume they would fall into your category of "actual scientists."
@Casper_Hesp, I am interested in hearing your thoughts about all of this!
(P.S: I know that the ce-debate is a fairly controversial topic, and tensions can heat fast when discussing it (online formats do not help at all, and, frankly, make the discussion even more heated as a hostile tone can be projected onto the comments. This post script is to say that I do not mean the tone of my comments to be hostile or combatant, these are just sincere questions and comments (and the occasional expression of slight annoyance ) that I have on this issue. Thank you for your understanding. One more thing:
EC (in a broad sense) is now being discussed on this website, if you wish to see what others are saying about it or weigh in. Thanks!)