If that works for you, more power to you. But I would just ask, what does it mean to move your tiny twig tail like a giant tree? Does that make sense to you, because that makes no sense to me. Would you ever describe an elephant's tail as moving like a tree???
It's been suggested that the Bible is actually referring to the cedar branch, which would make much more sense than a dinosaur since there's zero evidence of dinosaurs and humans co-existing. In fact, a cedar branch describes an elephant's tail decently enough.
Well the way I like to put it is, I trust the evidence presented in the Bible. I actually see the historical record of scripture as evidence, and the better in interpret it, the better I understand history.
You trust the statement presented in the Bible, since the Bible isn't a collection of proofs.
Now there are creationists that are heavy into the science aspect of this debate, and for certain it is important, but my focus is on the text, and interpreting it correctly. I want to find out what scripture says, not try to fit it into a model. Once I discern what it says, and then compare it to man's theories that I might correctly judge men's theories.
Unless you're wrong and the scientific theories are correct, in which case you're rejecting reality. Of course, the same could be said for me as well. But if we consider the possibility that God may or may not have created the Earth only a few thousand years ago, then the best we can do is follow the evidence. You aren't questioning whether or not God created the earth a few thousand years ago, you accept it as fact already, which means you would never be able to correct yourself if you're wrong and if you're proven wrong.
BTW, if you want to discuss more of the science side with some folks, you can visit my friends atEvolutionFairyTale.com. They are much more versed in the sciences than I. If you do visit them, let me know, and I'll give you an introduction. I use the same name there.
Honestly, it's not worth my time discussing evolution with people who will not even consider the idea that they might possibly be wrong and who are not willing to change their views in the presence of evidence.
The problem is, if you accept the gospel as the ultimate truth no matter what, then it wouldn't matter what evidence I present to you because you're going to reject it - no matter what. You're going to automatically assume it's wrong because you believe the Bible to be true. I'm sure your friends are the same way. This means that I COULD be right and that I COULD have legitimate evidence, but they would reject it without a second thought.
You and your friends COULD be right. But if they won't even consider changing their views - ever, then the only reason to debate them is to see how well my arguments hold up. The thing is, I've already discussed this topic in great detail with creationists. So it becomes a waste of time unless there's something else I can achieve. That's why I would have to discuss evolution and creationism with someone who's willing to change their mind, so that if I'm not convinced, I can at least expect the other person to change their mind on at least some things (they wouldn't even have to reject creationism, but alter their views about what evolution actually is compared to what it isn't).
Essentially, I don't want to debate a bunch of creationists just to find out I wasted my time and accomplished nothing - where my views remain the same and my opponent's views remain the same. If I'm going to put time and effort into discussing the topic, I need to make sure something is accomplished whether I'm convinced to change my mind or whether my opponent changes their mind (even if it's just a little). For that to even be possible, they must be open to the idea of changing their mind.
I hope this makes sense as to why I don't wish to devote too much time and energy debating people who will not change their position at all.
