CTD, in reviewing your post, there is again no evidence here for anything. I'm going to ask you again to start backing up what you're saying. Anyone can say "I don't believe that" and give no reason which would stand up to any test. Anyone can make any claim they want. Without backing any of it up, it could just as well be hot air. I will briefly address some points but I really would like to see some substance to address.

You seem to be telling me now that scientific standards are double standards. You're welcome to be happy in that belief, as long as you're not claiming that creationism is scientific. Once you get onto that ground, then you need to be prepared to start presenting some scientific evidence. I'm starting to think that maybe you can't, which is why I am reading posts from you that contain little more than arguments from incredulity and snide remarks.

Various historical events in the Bible can be verified with reasonable certainty by looking at other historical sources. They can be verified from events that are known to have occurred. I'm not aware that there are any sources which can verify the more miraculous claims in the Bible. Many people believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he rose from the dead, but no one has been able to actually prove it. Personally I don't believe it myself, but I can't prove that he didn't. It's a philosophy.

Your apparent inability to distinguish between literal and metaphorical truth seems to be causing this discussion to go round in circles. Many, many people are content with being Christians who do not believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. Why should it have to be, in order to be a text which still presents truths? Why does anyone need to fear that the world will collapse around them if they decide that the Bible may not be literally true in every respect?

Quote
Let's see... Ken Ham says he uses the Bible to help him understand things (interpret evidence) and you're saying he's not allowed to do this.

Not if the evidence he is presenting is supposed to be scientific, no, because the Bible is not a scientific book. Presumably you think that a religious book can be a scientific book. You then get into the messy business of trying to prove why the Bible is more scientific than the Koran or the Vedas. Actually, none of these are scientific, nor were they ever meant to be. How could they be? They teach people how to live their lives, and what the deeper meaning of life might be. And whatever they say about more scientific matters, such as astronomy or geology, is going to be out of date by thousands of years. However that does not negate other things they say.

Carl Baugh . . . if you want to specifically discuss one of his claims, you're welcome to present the details here and we can do that. You don't like what Glen Kuban says about him? He is not the only person to have scrutinised Baugh's claims. What's more, I don't rely on the opinion of one person when I research things. It really is not hard to find out what scientists in general say about Baugh's work and his credentials. have a look on Wikipedia.

Would you like to discuss one of his claims? I'd really like to see some concrete things being discussed here.