I think you are suggesting that we should not make truth out of reason itself. Instead, ‘reason’ is a faculty - not an object. Yet, it must be said that it is a very important faculty to have and use. For if we are able to say that anthing is true we must use this faculty of ‘reason’ to do so. It is true that reason can be used in conjunction with a skeptical attitude, but it is also possible to use reason in conjunction with preformed assumptions on a particular matter. I guess, the way I am using ‘reason’ is in the sense that it can point to good evidence and good logic to support certain stipulations. Once again, I’m not arguing against faith, but a type of ‘faith’ that is weakly formed and only serves to support our own identity and not a coherent view of the world. I find it difficult, for instance, to say that “Homosexuals won’t inherit the Kingdom of God” just because Paul said so (1 Corinthians 6:9). I’m getting myself into tricky territory, but I don’t think morals are not as black and white as sometimes they are made out to be.

Well, that may have opened a whole new can of worms.

I don’t think this disagrees with anything mentioned above; but it is a danger inherent within our own ability for skeptisism, if reason becomes more than a faculty for making a choice/descision we elevate it to a position of greater importance than it merits itself.

It is important to understand that ‘age’ is a substance that cannot be directly measured, and methods used to determine the age of an object will by necessity always involve assumptions.

In any debate about the age of the earth, Christians must understand this because a person’s axioms will always determine how they interpret the evidence. See here.

You need to differentiate between empirical facts and scientific evidence. They are not the same thing. Evidence needs interpretation - facts speak for themselves.

I was referring to those events in Job that occurred before God’s throne where there was no human witness. I have no reason to doubt the events of Job.

Why is it not possible to apply your reasoning about the Genesis Creation account to other parts of the Bible? - the virgin birth for example?

I don’t consider the YEC view to be “narrow” - I consider it to be faithful to Scripture. If Scripture did allow room to move on this issue then it would indeed be narrow to insist on the YEC view.

Another point is that I see no compelling reason to compromise (that is to depart from the straightforward understanding) anyway. There is not one empirical fact that contradicts an approximately 6000 year old earth and universe. So in the absence of contrary proof why do so many Christians even want to doubt the Genesis account?

There is no direct biblical evidence to say if Adam could write or not, but it is clear that Adam was created with language and speech that unlike us he did not have to learn. Therefore it is reasonable to assume he also had the ability to write. Even if not he could easily have developed writing during the centuries of his life. So it is almost a given that he was capable of writing so could have authored something about the creation account that may have been still in existence when Moses compiled Genesis. See here.

I have learnt about other religions, and see what you’re suggesting here. I haven’t necessarily given them a “good ol’ go.” A few reasons for this; if one was to take this seriously, then one would never, ever, reach any conclusion. It would be impossible to give every religion fair and equal weight.

Also, I don’t feel the need to look elsewhere at the moment. As I said previously, Christianity makes sense, and answers most of my questions about things around me. This is horribly post-modern of me, but I think it’s down to the individual how long they search for the truth. However, if you feel you’ve found it, it makes no sense to look any further for something can’t be found elsewhere. There is, in my opinion, only one truth. That truth was made clearest in the man who was also fully God; Jesus of Nazareth.