Pericles,
I agree that this can be a difficult discussion at times. We don't seem to be progressing very quickly. For I feel I have already addressed your concerns, though perhaps you don't think so.

I have said above, to understand the issue you must appreciate the importance of presuppositions and paradigms whenever evidence is normally viewed. You seem to think of your atheist viewpoint as beholding to some kind of neutrality and less biased than a theistic view. I don't think so. You say that I view the evidence through a particular lens. I would say you do also. We all do. But I would say I'm just a bit more open and acknowledging of the lens I bring.

In fact, the words you use against me, I could easily throw right back again. It is you who is allowing yourself to stop comparing sources, weighing balance of probabilities, assessing witness credibility etc., in favour of the single lens through which to reach your personal truth. It permits you to disallow such events...
creation.com
Ignoring such events must take a great deal of persistence on your part, etc.

I have difficulty understanding why you can't appreciate that two people can look at the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions about it.

I'm not so sure that's where the issue lies, Dan S de Merengue.

>>You seem to think of your atheist viewpoint as beholding to some kind of neutrality and less biased than a theistic view. I don't think so.<<

I don't view my position as having its foundation in atheism (even if that were possible; how can you base a view on the non-existence of something?). For the purposes of this discussion, it could have as its basis anything from atheism to agnosticism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, Buddhism etc.

The one thing I do not use as a source of my presuppositions is that the biblical description of a single, specific deity creating the "heavens" (presumably the cosmos), the earth, people, animals, plants and so on, in the space of six days, less than ten thousand years ago, has any relevance whatsoever to the reality of our existence in this tiny corner of the galaxy.

So please, ignore for the moment that I have declared my atheism, and respond as you might to, say, a Hindu, when considering my earlier question:

"...what thought process allows you to 'think just one thing', when the nature of our understanding remains - fascinatingly - fluid?"

Does that make more sense, now that you can see that it is actually based on the fact that there are many, many different interpretations, held by many, many different religions. And non-religions, of course.

And this is a misconception:

>>I have difficulty understanding why you can't appreciate that two people can look at the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions about it.<<

I do very much accept that people come to different conclusions, while looking at the same body of evidence. But there just seems to me that there must be some specific point at which you refuse to accept that the same scientific discoveries that allow you to post your views here, are those that bring us photographs of remote planets, or the billions of galaxies that are being explored, even as we converse.

Pericles,
It's true that on contentious issues, I don't necessarily just accept the majority view. Yet, as I've already said, I do very much value and appreciate the benefits and insights gained from modern science. I see these as consistent with a Christian worldview.

So, I'm not following your line of reasoning. You keep saying I'm rejecting scientific discoveries. Perhaps you could make it clearer what it is that you're saying I don't accept.

You say you don't view your position as having its foundation in atheism. Yet you do claim to be an atheist. You openly say you are not accepting of the theistic position described in Genesis. If you're alleging that I am not accepting of an atheistic worldview. Yes, I plead guilty. But I don't see how I'm much different to you in the sense of being any more singular or open or closed minded than yourself.

Fair enough, Dan S de Merengue.

>>You keep saying I'm rejecting scientific discoveries. Perhaps you could make it clearer what it is that you're saying I don't accept.<<

Ok.

Do you accept the definition of the speed of light?

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_roemer.html

Do you accept the use of the speed of light as a measure of distance?

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_speed_of_light_be_used_to_measure_distance

Do you accept that the distance between the earth and the closest galaxy, Andromeda, exceeds the timeframe in which you place the creation of the universe?

http://space-facts.com/andromeda/

If you do not, perhaps you would be good enough to explain how young earth creationists measure the speed of light, and determine the distance between ourselves and other celestial bodies.

As far as I can tell, you need to reject most of twentieth century science in order to reach your young-earth conclusions. Which is exactly what I meant when I asked "[w]here does your disconnect occur? At what point did you stop accepting what science has uncovered?"

And this is a well known logical fallacy:

>>You say you don't view your position as having its foundation in atheism. Yet you do claim to be an atheist. You openly say you are not accepting of the theistic position described in Genesis.<<

This is how that fallacy unfolds:

- I am an atheist, and don't believe in young-earth creationism
- My friend does not believe in young-earth creationism
- Therefore my friend must also be atheist.

Except - he is a Catholic.

>>I don't see how I'm much different to you in the sense of being any more singular or open or closed minded than yourself.<<

That is actually difficult to accept, given the evidence.

Regardless of my personal views, whereby science is a spoiler of faith and should thus be avoided as much as possible, I am surprised why Dan is not quoting the work of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jewish physicist.

I had the fortune to attend one of his lectures in the 1970's, where he proved that there is no contradiction between science and Genesis. What he said is: "If God is omnipotent, then why could He not, 57xx years ago, be able to create a world that is `old`, with all dinosaur-fossils, geological layers and expanding galaxies already built-in?".

Now, he added (in my own words as far as I can remember), "I am not that naive to believe that this is what God actually did, that He essentially committed forgery, but the fact that there is a consistent model where both theories can live in peace, proves that they are not logically contradictory. What actually happened, we may or may not find out one day, but this allows me to consistently practice science when I'm in my lab and pray to the Creator when I'm in synagogue."

I looked and found that since then he developed further theories that attempt to explain the apparent gap.

While I find the Judeo-Christian concept of God problematic, here are some interesting pointers which could perhaps help this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder#Religious_views_and_scientific_theories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZfgIFuoIBs

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=79

Pericles,
I never said your friend was an atheist. I said you were an atheist.

But there are plenty of Catholics too, who are totally committed to modern science, who favour the Genesis creation account than evolutionary theories. I say this because throughout your line of questioning you act as though you think my attitude is something terribly unusual, like I'm one out of the box.