All my grad school professors were smarter than you and knew their Bibles better than you.
Blah, blah blah – all you’ve done is throw up a smokescreen that covers the fact that your position boils down to “I’m right and everyone else is wrong”.
That describes your entire worldview.
If you think that’s not true, then please provide chapter and verse where the scripture says that it intends to be scientifically and historically accurate.
Nope – that’s a human tradition, an addition to the text. To get that you have to throw the normal use of language in the trash, changing the meanings of words by forcing them to fit a MSWV, ignoring basic grammar, and totally refusing to consider the context of the text.
Why do so many responses amount to nothing more than making crap up about other people?!?
You have this set of mental categories that don’t allow for any other possibilities, so you have to force people into the categories you have. The trouble with that is that first it is inevitably wrong, and second that it is inherently disrespectful.
Nope. Just because one part of a book references real things doesn’t mean the rest of the book is right. As an example, Dan Brown’s ludicrous DaVinci Code – it’s full of factual references, but it is overall not factual. A better example would be almost any book by John Grisham; those are full of factual references and in fact by your criteria qualify as history, but they’re not and don’t claim to be history.
Why do you always bring science into it? That’s the basic YEC error, the idea that science is even relevant.
And again: stop the lies! Pay attention to Exodus 20:16 for once.
None of what you list is contrary to science. The only way to think it is is to treat science as a religion, which it is not.
The irony is that YEC insists on using science to interpret Genesis in the first place (while vehemently denying it).
I have my own option: stick with the text and don’t worry about the science (except insofar as some people get it wrong).
YEC has to mangle the text of scripture to fit, evolution doesn’t, though “full-fledged practically atheistic blind Darwinism” is a whole different basket of worms.
I will point out that originally intelligent design referred to the conclusion of design from science, as in the informal intelligent design club we had in university; it was made up primarily of atheists and agnostics who due to studying science (evolution, primarily) concluded there must be a Designer. I’m not thrilled at all with the version that starts with the proposition of a Designer and goes backwards to try to find evidence for that.