Thanks for contributing!

But just because numbers of interstellar objects aren't exactly what one particular model predicted doesn't mean that you roll back to a YEC model that doesn't actually make any predictions.

That's a pretty fair point. I grant that sometimes I do speak boldly to get people's attention so that the actual facts can be digested more readily, but I don't say thing without cause and I back out my occasional errors. The fact is that because of the weak observational evidence, everyone is speaking hot air to the issue, so I'm just getting in that fray. (Add: If you want to compare predictions made by YEC/OEC models, we can certainly lay those out comparatively.)

I appreciate u/GuywholikesDjtof2024 chiming in with some hard data (less so that some of it appears unchecked AI), and I would certainly affirm Behe and Berlinski in that list as some of the brightest in their fields.

we're all just degraded trilobites

No, trilobites only became "index fossils" (circular arguments) because they were discovered so early, but we now realize that the Cambrian explosion involved virtually every body plan in existence appearing in the same geologic period (Darwin's Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer). So trilobytes are pretty complicated in themselves but all complicated life forms appeared in the same period ("stratum" they call it as we laugh). Would you like to hear about why Klee diagrams prove incontrovertibly that each DNA barcode refers to a different kind of lifeform that is genetically separate from all others?

Instant creation... sorted into layers with each layer having a different and unique set of fossils in it, to trick man into thinking that it was formed over time.

That's the dogma because if it were true it'd have a little evidentiary value. But unfortunately, real field work shows that it isn't true, the index fossils are chaotically arranged, there are many polystrates bridging multiple layers and supposedly tens of millions of years, there are many complex fossils at the lowest "strata" that contradict the theory and are ignored, etc. However, hydraulics demonstrates that a chaotic but relatively sorted set of specimens is very consistent with catastrophism such as the 4.6kya event.

Everything about the instant creation hypothesis hinges on a single Hebrew word "bara"

Fascinating, and I'll agree with you that bara also means creating clearings, and I'll also affirm that repointed it might mean "in pleasure" (no verb then). Unfortunately, your argument affirms both these meanings at the same time ("the correct way" and what it "looks more like" are schizophrenically opposed to each other). So it sounds like you found two in-language reinterpretations and uncritically accepted them both. Well then, you can accept ours too.

The problem with reading the text as not being creative is that neither its original audiences nor the rest of the Bible regarded it that way. For instance John 1:3 after paraphrasing Genesis adds "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made", which is pretty double-dogmatic on Genesis being about creation. I also showed separately that the first 5 verses of Genesis are clause for clause consistent with the first 24 hours of the BBT; so we're on track, now we just need to get the crazy dating of the rest of it fixed.

Honestly, you're right that calling it creatio ex nihilo is a later Greek concession and (John Gerstner) a literal reading would instead argue creatio ex Deo, creation out of God's own substance, consistent with the Athenian poets' view (two quoted in Acts 17:28). But this weakness of argument isn't in the Biblical text, but in tradition, and the text gives a constant witness, which was agreed upon by science until uniformitarian radiocarbon dating became the fiat standard and the millions and billions could be defended by assuming ridiculous uniformity (despite evidence of catastrophism!). Except that half of the C14 readings are generally thrown out because they give data contrary to the half the evolutionists like. Funny thing, Peter prophesied that in the last days people would assume uniformitarianism to justify atheism, namely the assumption that from creation everything goes on the same as always but forgetting historic and geologic testimony of catastrophism (2 Peter 3:3-6, a real shocker to uniformitarians).

Related, it's true that Christians faced gnostic denial of the physical, but the mainstream Christians didn't fight this so much with creatio ex nihilo as with affirming the resurrection (redemption) of the flesh (e.g. 2 Peter 3:14). This is clear in Daniel 12:2 and anticipated in details throughout the Old Testament that were assembled in their best form by Paul. So there was plenty of "material" about material redemption by the time Greek gnostics came along.

Are you interested in structuring a discussion so that truth can be divined about these things? I know Guy likes to play "Let's You and Him Fight", but I don't mind if the rules are clear and we both seek a common truth about binary yes-no propositions. Don't mind my occasional bluster because I'm pretty amiable about origins, but I do challenge the OEC to explain the many difficulties in the theory, and (to the extent possible) I seek to answer difficulties proposed in YEC.