Banjo,
In assessing the truth content of the gospels, your standard of proof given is 'universal assent.' As such, you've set the bar pretty high.

For how many of our personal beliefs do we only accept the standard of 'universal assent'? For example, would we ever bother turning up at a polling booth on election day if we would only choose a candidate who was commended with universal assent by all the knowledgeable political commentators. I'd doubt it.

But if we may try and compare apples with apples, the gospels should be compared with other literature of antiquity. For instance, we state with confidence the histories of people and events of ancient Rome and Greece, etc. based on the writings passed down to us by the historians and biographers of the day. We assess the accuracy and veracity of the texts by certain, hopefully objective, standards. My understanding is that the gospels are consistent with the style of certain biographies of the day, and have arrived to us intact within acceptable degrees of confidence.

The introduction to Luke's effort lends itself to such confidence: "Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."

Jon J,
You claim to be looking for certain elements: descriptions of how; sequence of action; reasonings; and results. I would suggest that Genesis does contain these very elements. Although the creation accounts given by Moses appear more like only a framework, a fair amount of detail is there to work with and point the more curious into further avenues of investigation.

Could I ask what you mean when you say atheists 'have already won'. What have they won? A prize or award? Maybe 51% (or some other percentage) of market share? Maybe they've successfully demonstrated complete knowledge of life's deeper mysteries?

Rhian,
You've summed it up excellently. If someone were to ask how belief in design or a grand designer helped advance science and progress, it is appropriate to turn to such a list of our Western scientific founders, and point out, as many historians and philosophers of science acknowledge, the connection between their thinking and their faith. You've mentioned Newton, Kepler, Boyd, Priestly and Faraday, but really, space here does not permit the list that should be mentioned. That the universe is orderly, unified and stable, and can be investigated rationally are not ideas that were naturally present in all men and all cultures. Scientific investigation didn't just fall out of the trees. It was a convergence of ideas that flowed from elements of religious thought. It is no coincidence that Western science flourished and boomed after the Protestant reformation.

As I see it, creationists are following in this same tradition. They are not surprised to see design in a world that was created with plan and purpose. So now, I am curious to know why you accuse Don Batten of "torturing theology". Plainly, he's out of step with majority scientific opinion on biology being capable of organising itself and its myriad forms without the programming of a Designer. But in his straight forward Bible belief, where do you say he's missing it theologically?

(And while I'm here, I would also question your perception of where the church generally in Australia stands on creation and evolution. All Christians are creationists [acknowledge God as creator] in at least some vague manner, as it is right there on page one of the Scriptures and is right there plainly in the Creeds. The degree to which Christians accept a literal Genesis varies widely, but I think it's more prominent than what you made out. I would say that Peter Selleck's view of the resurrection does not reflect the view of the great majority of Christians I've met. Most believe in a miraculous and bodily resurrection. And if you don't, I'm scratching my head to see how you interpret Corinthians 15.)

“In effect, you are asking me to limit my posting to the superficial and mundane, including whatever can be derived thereof, which is not of any significance.”

There is nothing that is superficial or mundane about the world we live in which is the topic of this thread. Religious people turn to religion because they see the world as superficial and mundane and project all their hopes onto some other imaginary world and existence. The problem is not that things in themselves are superficial and mundane but that some people perceive them to be. One person’s trash is another’s treasure.

People who speak as if they have some Gnostic understanding of the world are those who place themselves above their fellow men. It is an arrogance born of insecurity not of knowledge. When you use words that cannot be defined you are implying that the fault is with the reader who simply does not have your insights. If you had respect for your readers and your aim was to genuinely communicate you would use language that is commonly understood by all people. If you have a good argument then there is no need to resort to language which is other than everyday conversation.

Jayb states:

"I won't include the Koran as it is just a load of Misogynistic Crap."

Please support your statement and identify your sources.

Hi Dan S de Merengue

While I wanted to point out that believing in God as creator is not inimical to modern science, and may even be conducive to it, I am not endorsing a creationist position as advocated by Don. Belief in God as creator can cover a very broad spectrum, from people who believe God literally brought the universe, nature and humanity into being in seven days, and therefore the theory of evolution and almost all modern cosmology and geology are wrong; to scientist-theologians like John Polkinghorne and Martin Rees. These fully accept mainstream modern science, but see divine action at work in the deep symmetry and order of the laws of physics, and the fact that natural constants such as the force of gravity seem fine-tuned to create a universe capable of producing intelligent life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Dawkins has dismissed this as the “divine knob twiddler’ theory.

None of the mainstream churches deny the big bang or evolution, and the pope recently endorsed them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

Then there’s the position of theologians like Peter Sellick, who often writes here, and who sees God’s creative activity as nothing to do with the material origins of life and the universe.

grateful: Jayb states: "I won't include the Koran as it is just a load of Misogynistic Crap."

Please support your statement and identify your sources.

I order to support my Statement I give you the... "Koran."