You wrote:
>>But I feel that you try too hard to decimate
those who are now where you were yourself once. I have used this analogy
before, but it is a good one. My father in law, once he quit smoking
became one of the most intolerant opposers of smoking I have ever seen. I
mean this is a man who ran a club in Dallas for years, and he wouldn't even
allow a smoker in the room with him after he quit.<<
There may be some truth in what you say about my zeal. But let me ask a
question. You have seen the quality of my scientific data. Is it such that
is should find a place in the publishing world? If you answer yes(and I am
prepared for a no) then why was it so difficult for me to even get an article
published (took 3 years). The problem as I see it is that very few question
their own belief system. Thus they are unwilling to consider alternatives. I
would probably not be trying so hard if more conventional means of
disseminating my views were available to me. And I see one main obstacle for
that. The fact that too often Christian apologists fail to deal with the
observational facts as they are, rather than as they wish to be. In order for
a novel view like mine to even get a hearing, I must first educate people that
the facts are not as they think (I often use the simple illustration that
apologists teach the the entire geologic column doesn't exist and they often
teach that there is no evidence of art or religion among H. erectus and
Neanderthal). Only after one can get it across that the misinformation they
have been resting on is wrong, does a novel view even have a chance. Unless
one can show a need for a change, no one will change.
Let's go to the question of the applicability to me personally. Have I failed
to consider alternatives? I would cite my former YEC views and the change to
my present views as evidence that I did indeed consider other alternatives.
Have I considered the standard view that Genesis 1-11 is mythology, not to be
concorded with the history of the world? Yes, but I reject it on
epistemological grounds. Do I listen to young-earth global flood advocates?
You know I do, but I also ask the questions that made me change. If someone
is going to solve the global flood problems, they are eventually going to have
to answer the questions I and others like me ask. If they can't answer them,
their model is flawed and needs fixing. One can ignore the flaws, but that
isn't doing anyone a favor.
And finally, I stated upfront in the post starting this, that this was
going to be controversial.
And for the record, I appreciate your pointing out a possible problem with my
zeal. I won't guarantee to change for the reasons above.