Simple. Since when are we required to accept as gospel the interpretation of scripture done by a skeptic? If he is a skeptic, then by definition, he is not going to accept any interpretation of the bible as being consistent or true. His bias is against the truth of scripture.
Now, in regard to the "this=that" argument, when you read Mat 24:23, Jesus is speaking to his disciples (that is, in reality every Christian who will ever be born again, i.e. including us) and he says that when you (disciples) shall see "ALL these things" (not "some of these things"... ALL); when you shall see all these things, "know that the end is near". Well the end hasn't happened yet, has it?
Going on to verse 24, Jesus says "this generation" that is the generation that sees "all these things" shall not pass away until "all these things" are fulfilled.
Now if a skeptic wants to find fault with my heremenutic, then so what? Let him. Do you think he'll be more impressed with your hermenutic that presupposes that "all those things" did occur, but it just happened to miss the attention of all the historians at that time, including the Apostles and the early Church fathers?
Give me a break. The dispensational hermenutic in regard to the Olivet Discourse is much more tenable than the preterist hermenutic.
Go ask Michael Ruse if he is willing to believe the scriptures if they presuppose that all the things mentioned in Matthew 24:29-32 have already occurred. Ask him if he would be any less skeptical of your interpretation than that of Dr. Morris. I dare you.
And
John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.