Not necessarily, Pericles…

"If we did that, we wouldn't have the word helpmeet anyway, so you'd disappear in a puff of logic."

Surely it is possible to invent a philosophical position in an argument that would permit me to ignore totally such a contradiction?

It wouldn't take much Planck time (tP) to think of some examples.

But whilst I had in mind the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary concept of "To make him sensible of his wants", Gill's is much more appropriate to the extent – to me at least – that I am especially pleasing to look at and delightfully conversational.

Wants and wishes? Yes you're right, that is a big (t)ask.

(Before settling on 'helpmeet' I'd looked for an appropriate noun in 'The Meaning of Liff' – found myself distracted with laughter – before deciding I risked being a ferfer)

Maybe, WmTrevor

>>Surely it is possible to invent a philosophical position in an argument that would permit me to ignore totally such a contradiction?<<

But I think that has already been achieved, right here in this barn.

>>It wouldn't take much Planck time (tP) to think of some examples.<<

Only, I suspect, if we could approach the topic with sufficient gravity.

>>... before deciding I risked being a ferfer<<

I wouldn't want to sound at all ungracious, but do you not bear the greater risk of being outed as an ozark?

Pericles,
I can understand you not quite following my explanations for a young earth from moon cratering, as I've only given the barest of sketches in a few brief sentences. I don't actually believe that any of us here will solve the world's mysteries in 350 words. What I am saying is that if you're truly open to or interested (and I doubt you are) in creationists' theories, then I'm encouraging you to go and read their literature.

I've never been under the misapprehension that I'll convince you of my position in short posts, 350 words or less. Yet your comment, "you have already reached your conclusion," brought a smile. It suggests that I am stubborn or close minded while you are open to persuasion. Having got to know you through this forum, I know some of your quite entrenched philosophical positions.

So to say that only creationists are making philosophical assumptions is ridiculous. Creationists are more explicit in declaring their particular philosophy. But evolutionists are quite beholden to their strictly materialist explanations and the required vast time periods, which then allow for evolution to occur. Careful examination of the development of history will show that your "divergence from accepting Genesis as fact" was more philosophically than evidentially driven.

But WmTrevor's comment is quite insightful in giving an understanding of the presuppositional approach. He says, why don't we presume that Genesis doesn't exist, just for the sake of argument. This is exactly the approach that creationists often take, but from that side of the fence. They say let's presume that Genesis is what it claims, an historical account of earth's creation, and let's examine the evidence in that light; what evidence seems in favour (and what is against.) 

Others, taking a line from WmTrevor's advice will presume that Genesis is not true or doesn't exist. They say let's exclude God from the picture. In this light, some kind of materialist explanation like evolutionary theory inevitably becomes the only one imaginable, regardless of the evidence.

You're mistaken to think that I'm the only one making philosophical assumptions.

"I don't actually believe that any of us here will solve the world's mysteries in 350 words" -Dan S de Merengue

No, you think you can do it in three:

God did it.

Heaven forefend I'd ever think you would "...want to sound at all ungracious," when I'm just pleased not to have also been outed as a sconser.

To quote Ronnie C, "I know my place."

But this is at the heart of the issues, Dan S de Merengue...

"They say let's presume that Genesis is what it claims, an historical account of earth's creation, and let's examine the evidence in that light; what evidence seems in favour (and what is against.)"

Because the evidence is always; unjustifiably beaten out of shape to fit (all the physics based arguments for a start) or, sorry for the pun, created as an explanation for what is not mentioned (dinosaur eggs on the ark for example), or ignored (older and other cultural writings, demographics, etc.)

I am unaware of any line of reasoning which supports young earth creationism except that which is claimed by people who already believe it.

Is there anyone who makes a case that the earth is 6000 years old who does not accept a literalist account of Genesis or belief in the Bible?

Their arguments would be extraordinary and really interesting.