I have defended my beliefs as anyone on this thread can attest to. You started this thread with a call to arms against AIG and CRI and others that you accused of attacking other Christians, when in fact the attack was started on this thread by you against them, putting quotes around the word "Christian" when describing them, accusing them of turning people away from the bible and accusing them of being cults.
You started the thread by questioning the motives of those who hold to a literal six day creation and a literal world wide flood and accusing them of condemning other Christians, in essence doing exactly what you accused them of doing.
You accused me of being a parrot for Ken Ham, when I quoted nothing from him. All my thoughts on this board are my own. I don't hang around AIG or CRI and wait for my instructions on how to respond to critics of the Bible. I rely on the words of the bible and where my understanding departs from the words of the Bible, that gives me reason to question my understanding, not reason to question the Bible. I admittedly work from an apriori assumption that the Bible is the word of God. That may not be rational, but it is my starting point. You may criticize me for taking that position, but it is a position which holds scripture above science and not on an equal footing. When you place science on an equal footing with scripture, then you are building your house on sand.
So may I assume that you are, in fact, Derrick Dean?
Amen.
No, keep guessing.
"that you accused of attacking other Christians"
It wasn't an accusation, it was based on fact:
"accusing them of turning people away from the bible "
Again, not an accusation, but a verifiable fact. Check out virtually any skeptic book on creation or God and there's usually a section on YECism see how the skeptics use it as a reason not to believe in the Bible or God.
"accusing them of being cults"
No, I implied they were acting like cults. "but it is a position which holds scripture above science and not on an equal footing."
All YECs claim this only to claim on the same page the infallibility of their creation science. You can't have it both ways.