i'd be interested in a thread here on the scientific evidence for YECism and why you changed positions.
afaik, there is no scientific evidence for YECism. afaik, the Scriptural interpretation that underlies it has been adequately refuted by books such as _Paradigms on Pilgrimage_ for one example.
but it would be nice to see if someone has details that i am unaware of.
OK. I'll play. I will assume my place on the doctor's couch for analysis and testing.
However, to quote
Hannibal Lecter: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."
I had the usual liberal arts education with a fair amount of biology and psychology. The standard academic model for creation seemed reasonable. I spent a lot of time at Church. It was cool but somewhat liberal.
Along the way, I found it very intersting to study enormous mis-steps in conventional science, lots of it having to do with medicine. The following is a very good recent example of a guy who doesn't fit the mainstream view of treatment for vertigo and they try to take his license as a result.
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/burke010507.html
That is just a good example of scientific persecution.
So, I have deep suspicion about conventional science, if not cynicism.
A number of friends provided some interesting information along the way. That Mt. St. Helens stuff and the catastrophic formation of the Grand Canyon was very interesting to me. I didn't look to carefully at it, but as an exercise in imagination, it was appealing to think about what my be plausible and beyond scientific acceptance. I got some familiarity with standard fare from creationism. I also had a reasonable grasp of conventional cosmology for a layman.
Along the way, I noted a number of areas I had to let go of things like the modern metaphorical view of things like resurrection and the place of Israel in history. Similar issues are raised in intercessory work. With experience and understanding of the literal Word, there is less and less room for a merely spiritual or metaphorical view of scripture on these points. It can be literal and other things, but it just can't make sense if it is only spiritual or metaphorical.
Gerard Schroeder was very interesting to me, again because it made a literal view plausible and still does. Chuck Missler is very intersting in a similar way. Lots of scripture has been assumed to be metaphorical and proven to be otherwise. To paraphrase Missler, he has made lots of mistakes in interpreting scripture, but the biggest ones are always in failing to take the Word literally enough. I firmly believing that is a fundamental human problem. He is very good for teaching such ideas. Setterfield was a huge step in imagining a creationist cosmology. Setterfield also by demonstration pointed out where the overblown assumptions in conventional cosmology lie.
I read the statistical case for his model and I noodle around and notice how many of the problems he poses are interesting problems as between recognized scientists, but heresy when he says it.
