Wow, what a thoughtful and brotherly response. I guess if anyone else has made a typo then they're not worth listening to either? By the way the only credentials I have is the Word of God.
My previous post in this thread was intended to be my last one, but I see you asked me some questions and it would be impolite not to answer them.
You may wish to read what I wrote more carefully. This would help you avoid flawed conclusions. My words were "I tend to doubt the credentials and beliefs of those who note the value of empirical evidence, when they cannot spell empirical."
Please note: "tend to doubt" is not equivalent to "not worth listening to".
I make frequent typos. AV picked me up on one the other day. It was a conventional "there" for "their", or "your" for "you're", or some such. Your error was not of that kind. Unless you speak Castilian Spanish, or have an unusual keyboard configuration, I'm not clear how you could spell 'empirical' as 'emphirical'. However, the possibility that it was an error was why I used the word "tend".
By the way the only credentials I have is the Word of God.
Genuinely excellent credentials for missionary work in Zaire, or pastoral work in Luton, but irrelevant on a science sub-forum.
Actually, consensus IS what a bunch of people believe whether they are informed or not.
Only partly true. The context should have made it clear - and I apologise for not being explicit - that we are talking about a scientific consensus. In a scientific consensus we are not dealing with "a bunch of people", but a group or relevant experts. Further, it has nothing to do with what they believe and everything to do with what they
accept, based upon evidence and reasoned argument.
Take evolution for example. There is a consensus in the academic world that it is true. Should we believe that we evolved from primates because most of academia believes it to be true?
That would be a silly thing to do, though doubtless there are many silly people who so believe. What any reasonable person should do is to
accept that evolutionary theory currently provides the best evidence supported explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and that no other evidence supported explanation is even visible on the horizon. Not only does practically all of academia take this position, but so too do a majority of Christian denominations. If, as a Christian, you have an issue with that you should take it up with fellow Christians.
Or should we take the Word of God as truth and believe that mankind was created by God fully human?
It is argued by the majority of your fellow Christians that the Word of God does not say that, so as noted above, speak to them about it. If your God exists, then he wrote rather explicitly in the rocks and in our genes that evolution is true. Do you think he was lying?
Ineffective defense from what? I began by asking what evidence you have and from what I gather it is that a bunch of people believe it. Again, consensus does not science make.
On your misunderstanding of a scientific consensus please see above.
But perhaps I have misspelled some other words and that would void my valid points.
Nah! You used spellcheck. It would have been funnier if you had slipped in a couple deliberately. (Can you spot mine?)