Seriously, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, On the subject of creationism (since you have raised it here), my experience is that most of those who write off the subject as 'absurd' or something similar have never seriously looked into it. Have you ever read anything written by creationists (beyond website blogs)?<<

I have not the faintest idea how I could ever bring myself to look into it "seriously".

I am aware that some people believe that they have been abducted by aliens, and in the process were subjected to intimate examinations on hovering flying saucers. (What is the fascination with anal probes anyway - what do they believe the aliens were looking for?). I am also aware that they have recorded their experiences in books, that they wish others to believe.

However, as with creationism, their underlying premise is such that I find myself completely unable to take any of it "seriously", and tend not to spend time on it.

Perhaps that is my loss.

But on the other hand, I expect you find the quite extensive body of literature that describes the cosmos, its age, and some of the theories of how it was physically formed, equally bizarre. Why on earth, I can hear you muse, would anyone expend so much energy on unravelling the mysteries of dwarf stars, billions of light years away, when the answer is so simple, and so obvious? It must seem such a pointless, fruitless exercise to you. Yet quite often, these people seem outwardly to be sane.

There's nowt so queer as folk, as my Yorkshire granny used to say

Pericles,
Helen has put forward one view of an atheist's attempt to systemise or codify a set of values or a proper path to life. Someone investigating a view of life's origins may be attempting the previous step. We'll better know the way forward if we know where we've come from, they might think. 

For mine, initially, there must be two views of origins worth investigating, the atheist view or the theist view. Either this universe can be explained by natural forces (i.e. matter, time, and energy), or it cannot (implying the supernatural or higher intelligence).

One thing I've come to learn over time, is that when engaging with another of a different view, you must grant them their due respect, whatever that may be. To truly encounter or learn from another's view, you must desire to meet with its best examples, on it's strongest terms, to properly hear what they have to say.

If you've already decided a view is absurd, there's little point in discussion. 

There's just a touch of sleight-of-hand here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For mine, initially, there must be two views of origins worth investigating, the atheist view or the theist view. Either this universe can be explained by natural forces (i.e. matter, time, and energy), or it cannot (implying the supernatural or higher intelligence)<<

Very worthy and all that, but you have unilaterally re-framed the question, haven't you.

I have absolutely no problem with theists who believe that, somewhere in the distant past, their particular god was responsible for bringing the universe into being. That is an entirely different position, however, to that of carrying the belief that our world is a mere six thousand-odd years old.

>>One thing I've come to learn over time, is that when engaging with another of a different view, you must grant them their due respect, whatever that may be.<<

Also, very worthy. But there is a limit to the amount of time and energy one can expend on stories of, say, UFOs abducting folk from deserted highways in the southern US states. To actually connect with these people at the level where their story can be told requires such a radical suspension of disbelief that it rapidly becomes counterproductive. That "respect" of which you speak has finite limits, otherwise you would eventually become as disconnected as they.

>>To truly encounter or learn from another's view, you must desire to meet with its best examples, on it's strongest terms, to properly hear what they have to say.<<

Ok, I'll bite.

Point me to your "best example", and I'll promise to open my mind to it.

But please, no UFOs.

Pericles,
I read the results of one survey that said Bible believing Christians were far less likely than the general population to believe aliens had arrived from distant stars. So your association is false.

I said that If you've already decided a view is absurd, there's little point in discussion. You're still saying this view is absurd. 

But if you are serious about looking a bit deeper, one quite quick introductory book I'd recommend is The Creation Answers Book by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland. It can be downloaded from creation.com in PDF form.

Heaven forfend, Dan S de Merengue, that I was suggesting such a connection.

>>Pericles, I read the results of one survey that said Bible believing Christians were far less likely than the general population to believe aliens had arrived from distant stars. So your association is false.<<

Although you do raise an interesting question: how do those (few) Christians who believe that aliens have arrived from distant stars, fit those folk into their Christian worldview?

>>I said that If you've already decided a view is absurd, there's little point in discussion. You're still saying this view is absurd<<

Yes, I have hitherto allocated to creationism the same mental effort as to UFOs, fairies etc. But since you a) appear intelligent and b) appear to sincerely hold this absurd view, I am curious to find out what it might be that has persuaded you.

Exactly as I would do if I came across someone who a) appeared intelligent yet b) sincerely believed in the existence of the Easter Bunny, and pointed me to their research on the topic.

Incidentally, I hope you are not faking all this, and are sitting there having a good laugh at my expense, now that I am taking you seriously enough to download your recommended reading. That would be disappointing indeed.

Incidentally, my previous visits to the creation.com site have been overwhelmingly unedifying, but then, I haven't actually got around to downloading anything before.

Having already "been there and done that", Pericles… Whilst you're there see if you can find anything that sets aside the presupposition of Biblical inerrancy.

I have been totally unsuccessful in finding any creationist arguments not based on this precondition.

As, no doubt, Dan would understand any attempt at logic or scientific argument from this basis is entirely circular.