Dan S de Merengue,

To be fair to Pericles, to believe in God and to believe that Genesis has to be taken literally (thus concluding that the Earth is 6000 years old) are two very different beliefs. Pericles believes neither, however, there are many of us who will endorse the first but not the second belief.

To use a metaphor, when I was a child my father explained many things to me on the level appropriate for my age. Some of these explanations I still remember but I do not take them literally as factual information. I can now figure out these things better for myself while appreciating the deeper meaning what my father apparently must have had in mind, and admiring his ability to open new perspectives for my infant mind, thus becoming an indispensable factor in the formation of my own, adult, worldview.

DAN/quoTE..<<..Pericles,..I don't know why you expect me to do your home work for you.>>

MY DEAR dan..im QUITE SURE..PERS DONT WANT US TO DO HIS HOMEWORks..for him..he allways has relevant probing questions
im suRE HE COULD OUT talk both of us and george..besides..but with all that knowing still rejects aspects..[or as george would say accepts the possibility of option one/BUT STAUNCHLY REJECTS BLIND OBEDIENCE[AS IF GODS WORD]..OF OPTION two

pericules please forgive us our presumptions
we ARE just unsure where this all leads.
wELL ACTUALLY[HERE I GO PRESUMING..[ASSsuming..us YET AGAIN..when i mean them..THEY DOnt need go that deeply..it HOLDS THE MEEting of their needs without getting muCH MORE OBSESSIVELY..INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS

like someone/said circular reasoning/yes i have this in spades
say a fear comes near me..THERE..is no need to find thE FEAR..BECAUSE BY circular reasoning i know any hurt from the fear..cant come near[energy can cause change/injury..but i am energy..its just a change of state.

i dont write it as clear as you three do
but by circular reasoning..WE ALL CAN CHOSE TO SEE IT TOO

I KNOW THERE IS GOD
JUST AS I CAN HOLD THE BIBLE In my hands
GOD HOLDS ME IN HIS..THE BIBLE HAS PROVED accurately enough as a guidance..MORE SO THAN THE SCIENCE

[some may recall i was raised with one god[science]..ie atheist..tILL I FOUND SCIENCE HAS FEET OF CLAY[WHICH ONLY MADE ME LOVE Sciences more..BUYT..cant concieve loving anything..more than god..who helped me immensely..just as he helps each one of the rest/yep atheists too
i wish you could get to the core

<<.. If you want to understand creationist views, why don't you research them for yourself? You're obviously at least a bit interested.

Actually, Dan S de Merengue, I am far more interested in your views.

>>I don't know why you expect me to do your home work for you. If you want to understand creationist views, why don't you research them for yourself?<<

As you are surely aware by now, I have followed the creationist links you have provided, and read their content. Sadly, I remain unconvinced. Having a "real live" creationist to discuss these matters with is an opportunity to ask the sort of questions that cannot be addressed to those sites. So forgive me if it seems a little like I am stalking you. But I am genuinely interested in the thought processes that are prerequisite to accepting what, for me, is a fascinating feat of mental gymnastics.

>>... to me you appear to be among those who sit back and say you do not and will not believe in God until presented with undeniable and incontrovertible positive evidence<<

Since we both know that is never going to happen, I think we can dismiss it, and simply accept that some people, like me, cannot accept the Bible as a factual description of, well... anything at all, really. You may be completely reassured, though, that I am not "sitting back" at all. I am leaning forward, eager to learn from you about your beliefs. Which, to me, are unorthodox and confusing.

Any further thoughts on those Neanderthals? Specifically, that is, as to where they fit into the "begats". Which, as I understand it, are what creationists use to date the Earth's age.

<<..Any further thoughts..on those Neanderthals?
Specifically,..that is,..as to where they fit..into the "begats".>>

OK..IN..THE BEGINNING..LIFE BEGAT LIFE..
If nothing else,..LIFE/LIVING indicates..THE LINKAGE..[LINKING..*LIVING../*\..LOVING..=life]..

its revealed...in..our/very/loki-like..[behavior]..be-have-ya

THUS..[be/it....about]..the beliefs..people have held..OR LEARNING'S..Input by..GUIDES/INCLUDING\spirits]..and..other wise/or OTHER/CLUE..TO explanatory process..AND/or..historic GUIDANCE/record..

lets examine...the/cain aberration..BY..LIGHT/OF..*the first law
'LIFE/..LIVES to pro-create..LIFE.'*...[its about..ex'ta-genus rapine;...the proto-creating hybrids..[MIS?]-NAMED..AS GENUS*]
http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html

For example,..it’s interesting..that many people...(including such as acknowledged geniuses..as John Locke and Voltaire)..have expressed the belief..[BY..LIFE WITNESS..OF THE SPITIT-REALM?]..OR

that.. POSSIBILITY..[THAT humans..can hybridize with animals],.. whether or not reliable..physical-evidence..[PROOF]..Remains to support\..such a notion materially.

The parallel's..between hybrid crosses..[see/links]..and..THE VISIONS OF DANTE'....and..Plutarch’s historical personages..can perhaps be made clearer..

with an example...Take Jesus Christ...There are many people who do not believe..that Jesus ever existed,...let alone that he was divine. And yet,..even an a*gnostic/a*theist..would admit*.that there are historical references..to a person..of that name.

Thus,.*..while not believing..in the real existence of Jesus,..a fair-minded atheist/agro*nostic..might admit..that such references do exist...He or she might even read,..ablE/TO..RECALL/ASSOCIATE/list or quote them.

Both the honest believer..and the honest un*believer would be justified...in collecting/importing..every shred of evidence relating to..the existence..[or nonexistence]..of Jesus...The former might gather it..with the intention of bolstering Christianity’s case...The latter..*might wish to show ..hat available historical data is entirely insufficient..to justify..THEIR EXPRESSED/belief.

A third type of person,..however,..SAY....a neutral historian, might simply wish to assemble all the information bearing upon the topic. It..is this third motive..that has guided the creation..of this book.
http://global.oup.com/academic/product/handbook-of-avian-hybrids-of-the-world-9780195183238;jsessionid=83A88C1BF4E44CCEF6FA2C42A482F410?cc=us&lang=en&

In the case of every cross,..I have endeavored not to express my own beliefs..as to whether it might occur...My intention,..instead, has been to collect reports/bearing on the phenomenon of mammalian hybridization..
http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html
and to record each such piece..of information under the headings of the various crosses..to which it relates...Viewed in this light, each separate type of cross..is a distinct historical entity to be investigated.

The crosses...“dog × cat” and “gorilla × chimpanzee” are topics that can be researched,..just as Jesus and Mohammed can,..whether you believe in them..or not...

*With this..pure/science/methodical..approach,..which brings a strong historical element..to the study of natural history,..belief can be largely set aside.

Like Zimmerman, Pericles, you talk about evidence that "we all see" without listing any. 

So, yes, I think we may be in agreement. Incontrovertible evidence and undeniable proofs (for either case) are not going to suddenly appear (at least not this side of the 2nd coming.) 

But I like your turn of phrase, 'mental gymnastics'. To believe in evolution (non-living molecules having arranged themselves into all life forms, including man, against all our experience of the entropic workings of the physical processes which we all see,) does appear an exercise in mental gymnastics.

And I would reserve similar words for Zimmerman, or other professing Christians, who claim allegiance to the Christian Scriptures, yet attempt to squeeze evolution in there somewhere or somehow. This requires no grander effort in mental gymnastics.

I can "list evidence" if you would like me to, Dan S de Merengue, but I'm not sure it gets us any further forward.

>>Like Zimmerman, Pericles, you talk about evidence that "we all see" without listing any.<<

You can start here, if you like.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis

Without going into the detail of denying the validity of carbon dating, asserting that fossils were formed in the flood etc., which I accept as your beliefs, could you suggest where Neanderthal Man fits within Biblical genealogy?

>>So, yes, I think we may be in agreement. Incontrovertible evidence and undeniable proofs (for either case) are not going to suddenly appear (at least not this side of the 2nd coming.)<<

Exactly. So in the meantime, I am one of those people who chooses to go along with the concept of "weight of evidence", and "testable hypotheses", since science itself provides no guarantees, just ever-increasing likelihoods.

But you do raise an interesting sub-topic, if you would care to help me explore it. Among the many versions of Christ's return to earth that exist across and within denominations of Christianity, in which form do you, personally, anticipate its arrival?