"No more than you have personally verified and proven the heliocentric theory of the solar system."
So you are a COMPLETE irrationalist? Unlike you, I understand that we were born with a brain that enables us to reason. I don't HAVE to personally observe everything in nature in order to be able to evaluate evidence that something is the way it is. I don't HAVE to travel to China to know that a place call China exists. It is not faith that convinces me, it is reason. Copernicus and Galileo did not have to travel into outer space to know that the earth traveled around the sun; there was plenty of evidence for it, and evidence against an earth centered solar system. And the evidence for the sun centered solar system was only grown while the evidence for the earth centered one has been disproved.
YOU were the one who was saying how foolish it was to believe anything from a book unless you had personally witnessed the events.
"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being."
How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. In your own words,
"So you merely believe what those studies have preached to you...It may be inconvenient, but unless you do so (personally observe the events in question--my addition; C.C.) you are only believing what other people have told you."
You have never observed the events in Genesis, therefore, you believe them because you were told to believe them.
"Ever heard of "caves"? You know, the "cavemen" and all that? That's more evidence for a hollow earth than you'll ever give as evidence that there are neither heavens nor earth, and that either of the above could arise completely apart from intelligence or design."
1) You DO realize that caves are only on the earth's crust right? We know from numerous methods that the earth is not hollow. The best evidence comes from seismic readings:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050418/earthcore.html
2) I have never said that there is no Earth or that there is evidence that there is no Earth. The heavens? I haven't been to any yet, though a few Calculus classes in high school did seem like a hell dimension. As for Universe, I never said it didn't exist either. Neither the existence of the Earth or the Universe verifies the stories in Genesis. Certainly the existence of both say nothing about the origins of either. Remember, you weren't there when it happened, and since you don't believe in reason but only direct observation, you are only believing stories that were handed down to you.
"What evidence do you have that you are a product of nothing that entails intelligence or design?"
Evolution IS design. It just doesn't require an intelligent being to drive it. Since I know you already have seen evidence that supports evolution in numerous threads here, you demand for evidence is not sincere. You believe what you were told from a book you can never verify. You are a sheep. I believe what reason demands. Nonetheless, here is some evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. . . I understand that we were born with a brain that enables us to reason.I never claimed that you have come to whatever beliefs you have by apart from either reason or evaluating evidence. Evaluating evidence is not the same as direct observation. How many people claim to know the earth revolves the sun, when in fact they have no evidence except what is written in scholarly books?
"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being." . . . How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. . . .
With respect to the first set of knowlege, I verified these things the same way you verified you were born with a brain that enables you to reason. I didn't have to read about it in a book. Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples. The condition of the center of the earth has never been the subject of direct observation on my part, though I am told orionblamblam has visited the place. My reason tends to reject his report as fictitious.
With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. There are other reasons, but I'd rather be short on the math since, in some intelligent circles, 1 + 1 = 4.