[HiTech RedNeck]

Man, what an ego fight all around this has turned into.

I suggest glorifying God as best we can, and settling differences or at least agreeing that we have come as close as we can, in a gracious manner. The exact manner of creation is one of those riddles that we can speculate about, but can’t pin down with the knowledge at hand. Many YEC advocates have attempted to pin it down anyhow, and while they produce an interesting theory, we lack the evidential wherewithal to put total trust in it. The best we can do is give it an emphatic maybe, and that’s only if they have managed to avoid obvious errors.

[BroJoeK]

HiTech RedNeck: "Man, what an ego fight all around this has turned into."

Sorry, but I do my best to deal reasonably with mockers and false-accusers like YHAOS, and even, sadly spirited irish.

In doing so, I have two hopes: first to provide effective answers for readers who may be tempted to take mockers seriously, and second, to maybe shame the mockers, even a little?

HiTech RedNeck: "The exact manner of creation is one of those riddles that we can speculate about, but can’t pin down with the knowledge at hand.
Many YEC advocates have attempted to pin it down anyhow, and while they produce an interesting theory, we lack the evidential wherewithal to put total trust in it."

Let me reasonably suggest to you that in Biblical terms, it is utterly, completely irrelevant precisely how G*d created the Universe or Life on Earth.
Those "hows" have nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with the Bible's major themes and message.
Nor can any specific "how" have any serious effect on people's ability to achieve and maintain their faith in G*d.

So let me put it to you this way: such faith is a gift, which is almost always granted despite our personal resistance to it.
And, if you sat down to make a listing of the Top Ten, or hundred, reasons for people's resistance to faith in G*d, then Creation and Evolution would not even make your list, FRiend.

Of course, you can, as many do, claim that if every word of the Bible is not understood precisely "literally", then nobody will believe any of it.
But I'd reject that on at least three counts:

1. Some of the Bible is self-acknowledged metaphor, not intended to be taken literally.

2. Despite numerous recent scholarly translations, nobody today really understands what every word of the Bible was precisely intended to mean, by those who wrote it.
   Often, a close approximation is the best we can hope for.

3. There is a long history and tradition of Biblical exegeses that both add-to and subtract-from scripture's words.
   The Trinity is an example of doctrine "added-to", while the virtual deletions of hundreds of Old Testament laws (but not the Ten Commandments) are significant "subtracted-froms".
   Point is: even "literalists" aren't always 100% literal.

That's why it has always been understood, especially by the great Doctors of the Church, that deep and humble faith, along with educated guidance are needed to understand, both what the Bible originally intended and how those words can apply today.

No, I'm not saying that ordinary people can't understand the Bible, far from it.
I am saying we should be humble enough to recognize that what we get out of it may not be precisely the same as what some others do.
After all, we might just benefit from their learning.