I'm one of those. From that perspective, the abuses of semantics and logic that go on in these debates is an abject failure of intellectual ethics and reason.
Well on issue of the cosmos it seems it has to be pretty old based on what is known in astrophysics, so I feel in only reasonable to think the universe is likely very old. My understanding is also that it is very big, is expanding very fast, and has expanded since its creation a very long time ago. However, as I understand it, it is not infinitely big...just very very very big. It has some fantastically large yet finite number of particles in it, and that is it. Thus it seems it must not be a closed system, but one that was created somehow a very long time ago. The source of its creation might be something that was not itself created...being self existant....or it might not be. While I have trouble envisioning that something can be self existant in such a way, I find the fact that there must be something that is self existant as inescapable. Thus if whatever created this universe is itself not self existant, there must be an earlier cause of that thing which is. Going back through an infinite chain of transient effects as Hume proposed seemed to me to be a possibile alternative to such a transcendent self existant cause for a while, but that was before I took the time to really run through the concept with mathematical rigor. Ultimately I find that naturalism simply can not be true on grounds put forward by the greater philosophical minds of the ages, and neither do I think it likely that the universe could be young...unless God made it to look young. Thus I feel compelled by the ability God gave me to reason that He indeed is absolutely for real, but that the universe is not all that young as a literal reading of the first Genesis narrative would indicate.
Thus I am in the same camp as you on cosmology.
As far as common origin is concerned, it seems plausible, and I used to think it very likely...but lately I have had that position shaken a bit. I am a layman though, and still learning and trying to form a better opinion on the matter--as a hobby from time to time, not really in a hurry.
As far as abiogenisis is concerned, it does not strike me as plausible.
I suppose this remark is a poke at me. OK. But how do we deal with the conflict of opinion? Do we take a poll? Do we say, because my preacher says so, or because my comparative anatomy or embryology teacher said so? Do we determine which is politically correct? Do we argue our points based upon a utilitarian view that psycologically placates the most people? Or is the best way to attempt to resolve these divergences of opinion by reason, logic, rational thought, applications of First Principles, application of the Principle of Uniformity, the laws of logic, and attempt to obtain a dispositive understanding of truth? If ones logic is inappropriately applied the argument will not stand and can be defeated by the one with opposing views.
Your statement references abuses of semantics and logic.....is, in itself, a tautology. It is to say, 'some on this thread use semantics and logic in an abusive manner',....because.....it is an abuse of semantics and logic. Here you do not advance your arguments position. The same can be said of your statement, '...is an abject failure of intellectual ethics and reason', could be stated.......is an abject failure of intellectual ethics and reason....because....it is an abject failure. This does not advance your position. It offers your opinion based upon....your opinion.
So, not wanting to abuse semantics and logic, and not wanting to offer opinion which an abject failure of intellectual ethics and reason, what do you propose we do to communicate on these matters? What laws of thought do you propose we proceed with to discuss these matters? If we can't use the laws of logic and reason do we make them off-limits and make declarations of convention? It seems to me the laws of logic are universal standards of rationality. But if those laws of logic are outlawed we are left with opinion. So, on opinion I say Andy Bear wins, and on conventional statement you say tacticalogic wins the debate. And nothing is learned on either party's discourse.
Really.....what to you propose. If I start out with specificity of an argument and say,..."Tremarctos floridanus is not extant in the region of McFaddin Beach, Texas today, but was indigenous to the area, and one of the major carnivores during the last Pleistocene Epoch." This would mean nothing to a discussion on North American ursids. It might be meaningful to comparative Pleistocene vertebrate anatomists. But it is not helpful in discussions regarding evolution. Or you might postulate how glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase functions in the citric acid cycle (Krebs), what a deficiency in that enzyme means in mammalian physiology. But it does not further a discussion on the subject at hand. So how are you and I supposed to discuss the validity of this young student's attempt to alter state laws regarding mandatory teaching of a theory which has generated so many questions? I propose logic, reason, and rational thought. How do you think we should proceed to discuss and better understand this controversial topic?