Clearly you are a Presuppositionalist Stan.:sherlock:
"Presuppositionalists compare their presupposition against other ultimate standards such as reason, empirical experience, and subjective feeling, claiming presupposition in this context is:
a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition
is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
I make no apology for using another Wiki page here as a reference.
You may not have come across another poster here called
Hilston, who to my knowledge hasn't posted here recently btw, who, like you simply presupposes that the Bible must be the one and only possible source for a religious belief and that no greater explanation, verification or rationality is necessary.
For Presuppositionists it is simply irrational not to accept the Bible and everything it says as literally God's word.
Hilston btw was/is a very articulate wordsmith but for me an utterly baffling person requiring no empirical rationality at all, just an apparently mindless presupposition.
Oh come on, it's hardly cricket to surprise people in the street, shove a microphone up their nose and then try to bamboozle them with nonsensical reasons to doubt evolution, based apparently on not actually being able to see it happening. :doh:
Why exactly must Darwinian evolution actually be observed to be an accurate explanation of the evidence anyway?
Darwinian evolution is what it is, a naturalistic explanation of the evidence, which btw convinces me rather more than an un-observed supposed miraculous creation event a few thousand years ago.
Do we look at just some of the evidence, say rock strata or the geological column, perhaps containing specific marine fossils in one layer and terrestrial ones in another and not reasonably conclude that this is chronological evidence of past events simply because we didn't actually observe it happening?
Why should we not reasonably conclude the great age of the Earth at least from such evidence, and more, even if we didn't actually witness it happened. It's entirely reasonable imo to make rational intelligent deductions using more than one of our limited senses.
It seemed to me like you meant my mindset, but never mind.
You are a Presuppositionist Stan, I don't think I'll ever understand that.
Otoh I am not, I want to see reasonably convincing rational evidence before I believe. Ancient scripture is not something I personally find convincing while apparently it makes no difference to you because you have simply presupposed your belief in it regardless.
If you could rationally demonstrate with perhaps rather less bias the clear rationality that other beliefs lack then that might help here, but all you have is the usual bald assertions it seems.
Clearly to hope that you would ever allow yourself to have any doubts now after all these years that you have invested in it, would probably be futile.
You have presupposed your religious beliefs and built a barrier to deflect any science that might just dent your shiny YEC armour of belief.
Morton's Demon:
"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell’s demon did for thermodynamics. Morton’s demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn’t looking."
(Glenn Morton)