Some Topics with William Lane Craig

Agreeing on some, disagreeing on some. Giving a completion to the first of these.

Questions on Visions, Sin, and Young Earth Creationism
Reasonable Faith Video Podcast, 15 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OUFNDGC2Zg

1:26 But I do have an idea.

Angelic beings cannot directly read thoughts. They can extrapolate from physical factors which they would see better than any scientist, but they cannot read thoughts that are not from them.

However, the reverse is no problem.

Within God's permission or orders (the devil would hardly be acting on God's orders, usually, but could not act without God's permission, while the angel appearing to Joseph in a dream certainly was acting on God's orders), they have no problem at all sending telepathy.

So, yes, an angel has that capacity.

See St. Thomas Aquinas and also Archbishop Thiandoum of Dakar, the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre. I read his wonderful angelology / demonology article in The Latin Mass Magazine.

2:56 The Roman Catholic doctrine is not that Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants (except Jesus and Mary), just like the doctrine on justification is not that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us.

You are attacking a straw man.

Here is the Council of Trent resumings its view on Original sin in five anathemas:

If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, —is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

3:35 "how would moral corruption be transmitted genetically?"

Genes for more impatience? Epigenetics?

PLUS God adapting the new souls to the bodies they are created with.

4:43 "selfishness, that then becomes sin"

Is selfishness sin? I mean per se, not just when it pushes limits God set up.

Is selfishness the general root of sin?

Does the Bible ever condemn selfishness. Note, I said the Bible, not the NIV.

"when you 13:55 investigate the merits of young Earth 13:58 creationism 14:00 it is 14:01 intellectually 14:03 indefensible the idea that the world the 14:06 universe was created a few thousand 14:09 years ago in six consecutive 24-hour 14:12 days is uh indefensible the idea that 14:16 there was a worldwide flood within human 14:21 history that exterminated all 14:24 terrestrial life on Earth animal as well 14:27 as human 14:29 is 14:30 indefensible"

Because you say so?

By the way, "indefensible" means "no one can defend it" so ... how about calling me "nobody" for purposes of the possibly ensuing discussion?

"uh the idea that all human 14:33 languages originated from a zigurat in 14:37 Babylon a few thousand years ago is 14:41 intellectually 14:42 indefensible so young Earth creationism 14:46 is an incredible embarrassment for the 14:50 Christian faith today"

Strawman. Young Earth Creationism does not state that French and Spanish or German and Dutch were immediate and therefore immediately separate products of the Genesis 11 event.

I would also refuse to identify the "tower" with a Ziggurat or Babel geographically with Babylon. In political and religious terms, there is continuity, but that's also the case between Boston in Lincolnshire and Boston in Massachusetts.

But the main thing to recall is, not all 6000 to 7000 languages we have today came into being then, just the first ones, perhaps 72, from which others then developed.

Compared to the evils of the pre-Flood world, the Tower project was worked mainly by dupes, and stopping it involved no harshness of punishment, except to the power hungry.

400 — 500 years after the Flood (which as mentioned was world wide) everyone was speaking the same language with perhaps minor variations that did not impede communications.

Now, Nimrod had them working hard. One day, he came around, shouting "Good Morning! To work!" — "Que dices? No entiendo?" — "It's time to raise another stone circle today!" — "Mais ça veut dire quoi, ce truc ?" — "Has someone brought you too much beer yesterday?" — "Hvad tjötar han om?" — "If it's a joke, I don't appreciate it!" — "Nie rozumiemy ..." (In fact it wasn't a joke, prawda nie rozumiali ...)

I use modern languages to illustrate the point, but am fully aware these particular languages developed only later. However, if the Flood c. 5000 years ago hadn't been followed by Babel, the languages today would probably be more similar than Indo-European languages, and wouldn't vary like between Chinese and Basque.

"so I repeat what I said before that 15:07 this movement is doing tremendous harm 15:11 to the Christian Faith by portraying 15:16 this 15:18 intellectually indefensible view as 15:22 essential to the truth of Christianity 15:25 and of the Gospel"

Jonathan W

@jonathanw1106

There is no evidence that even 5 of family trees of languages sprung into existence a mere 3500 years ago. We have Chinese and Egyptian writing dating back to 5000 years ago...

William Meme Craig

@williammemecraig1357

I think it’s time to get off the internet for a little bit.

[It seems]

[that not only is this channel not "Reasonable Faith" nor "drcraigvideos", the channels usually associated with William Lane Craig]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@williammemecraig1357 I think some of your pals may have been arranging for me to have problem having time for my work.

People like you deserve to rot in Hell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 "We have Chinese and Egyptian writing dating back to 5000 years ago"

Only if you accept the standard carbon dates.

A papyrus is found in a context dated to 3000 BC? Real date for those would be 1778 to 1756 BC. According to my recalibration, these dates would date in carbon to respectively 3028 and 2956 BC.

Jonathan W

@hglundahl please explain why we are so clueless in archeology that we cannot even date something to 5000 years ago. Like I understand you arguing about millions of years (although you're still wrong and don't understand that physics and chemistry behind dating methods) but 5000?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 You speak of the physics and chemistry of dating METHODS ... they are not quite equivalent, you know.

K-Ar, U-Pb, Th-Pb are a totally different kettle of fish.

C14 is based on the remainder after 5730 years being 50 % of original value, and if original value was around 100 pmC, that will mean 50 pmC are left. Or, after 5000 years, 54.616 % of original vs 54.616 pmC if original was 100 pmC.

Now, I claim that in 1935 BC Abraham partook of an adventure accurately recorded in Genesis 14 (or in the text that Moses included in Genesis, and Bishop Stephen Langdon divided as chapter 14).

But Genesis 14 involves Amorrhaeans in En Gedi, and the only archaeological timeslot when Amorrhaeans in En Gedi fit in is carbon dated to 3500 BC. This means 3500 BC is the carbon date corresponding to real 1935 BC. How did this happen? Well, according to some archaeologists, the carbon 14 level was 100 pmC, as today (roughly speaking). After 5500 years, we would expect a carbon 14 level close to 50 pmC.

I claim, the reed mats which were carbon dated have been breathing in CO2 from an atmosphere that had lower C14, an instant age of 1565 years, and that means a level of 82.753 pmC, not 100. After 3959 years, we'd expect 61.946 % of the original, so, 61.946 * 82.753 / 100 = (rounded) 51.262 pmC which implies an age of 5500 years, if that original content had just been 100 pmC, except it wasn't.

It's not a matter of being "so" clueless about archaeology, it's a matter of reading exactly one factor wrong.

That factor being the original content of C14, which this far back should be referred to the Bible, not to tree rings, lake Suigetsu or other tea leaf methods of calibration.

@jonathanw1106 Just to clarify, the carbon date 3000 BC is closer to when Joseph's pharao Djoser died than to Genesis 14.

Jonathan W

@hglundahl how could you possibly know that if carbon dating is so inaccurate

@hglundahl the bible is not a scientific manual intended to be used to calibrate dating methodologies.... it's purpose is to tell us about God and how to know him. Your logic here is identical to the folks who cite the bible for flat earth

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 To the first, I don't think the method is very inaccurate, I think the calibration in use is for the time period you speak of very inaccurate.

Not due to a fatal flaw in all of carbon dating, but due to a post-flood rise in carbon levels.

So, my source of knowledge is Biblical EVENTS. And the known halflife of C14. And the fact that for the last 2000—3000 years, the method roughly speaking works very well, meaning we roughly speaking are on 100 pmC these days (prior to Industrial Revolution).

Now, EVENTS are not a thing that science describes, but a thing that history describes.

"Your logic here is identical to the folks who cite the bible for flat earth"

Are you confusing Flat Earth with Geocentrism? I'm happy as a day to cite Joshua 10:12 or Romans 1:18—20 to prove Geocentrism has to be true, which is also what we see.

For Flat Earth, there is indeed a flaw in logic, but not in the way the Bible is used. More like, the four corners actually are well visible on a globe while they get totally garbled on Flat Earth maps. The word "guros" in LXX Isaiah 40:22 (if that was the verse) primarily means "turning" or "circumference" ... perfectly compatible with a globe.

However, Genesis 14 describes an event, or an occasion for MANY events. Saying the real date of Genesis 14 was 3500 BC is making nonsense of the rest of Biblical history. Saying the Amorrhaeans in Asason-Tamar (which is En-Geddi) do not belong is pretending the Bible is HISTORICALLY inaccurate. History being here the main thing, and science of carbon dates, a useful byproduct.

Jonathan W

@hglundahl you're missing my point, which is that you are claiming we can't know anything about the ancient world, dating methods, historicity, or geologic advancement without looking at the bible, and specifically YOUR interpretation of the early Genesis narratives. You do realize that this actually undermines your own stance that the Bible narrative is literally true in the way you wish it to be? If something is true, then it is observably so and can be verified independently. If you look at all the data we have, whether in geology, paleontalogy, anthropology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, linguistics, you will come to the conclusion that "modern" human civilization has been around for more than 20000 years. But on your view you are saying EVERYTHING is wrong because that's not what you think the Bible says. Have you considered maybe you just aren't understanding the text in its intended context?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 Your point deserves missing if it only consists of strawmanning me.

"you are claiming we can't know anything about the ancient world, dating methods, historicity, or geologic advancement without looking at the bible,"

For geology, I'd actually claim that, but that's not DIRECTLY relevant for Tower of Babel.

For the rest, this is a strawman.

For carbon date calibration, I claim we need HISTORIC data. Just as I take the Flood to be so, and start my calibration with "39 000 BP carbon = 2957 BC" I also take the war of Troy to be so, and end it with "1180 BC carbon = 1180 BC" ... I trust the HISTORIC view of Eratosthenes on when it happened, like I trust St. Jerome on the distance between Biblical events.

"If something is true, then it is observably so and can be verified independently."

Not always forever. Hebrews passing through the Sinai peninsula over 40 years was independently verifiable THEN, but is no longer independently verifiable NOW, apart from the Exodus. If a soldier mistook a civilian for an enemy in the Civil war, and shot him, that would have been independently verifiable THEN, but would NOW only be verifiable from accounts of the Civil war.

"all the data we have, whether in geology, paleontalogy, anthropology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, linguistics, you will come to the conclusion that "modern" human civilization has been around for more than 20000 years."

I note, you did not even mention history, and I take it you have very shady ideas on how history is even done.

Geology / chemistry / physics are aliases for Deep Time dating, for the rest, independently of that, I definitely do not think they would support such a conclusion to the detriment of Biblical history.

As my most studied university subject (which would have been a "major" if I had taken licenciate or masters) was Latin, a partly linguistic subject, I can very clearheadedly say precisely as a linguist, there is nothing that hinders all known language families to have come into existence in 2556 BC or later.

Btw, how can "my" interpretation of Genesis 5 and 11, and of Genesis 14, not be the objective intended meaning of the text? For En-Geddi, Asasonthamar is mentioned a second time in

And there came messengers, and told Josaphat, saying: There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea, and out of Syria, and behold they are in Asasonthamar, which is Engaddi.
[2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 20:2]

There simply is no layer of archaeology in Engaddi / En Geddi that's carbon dated to 1935 BC.

Jonathan W

@hglundahl lol that's not a strawman.... a strawman would be creating a weak or absurd version of your argument and critiquing it. I'm not doing that, I'm pointing out that a necessary implication of your view is that the vast majority of human sciences and knowledge is irretrivably flawed because it contradicts your interpretation of the bible. You can't just say "well it's just the deep time parts" all of those deep time parts are based off of fundamental laws of particles physics and chemistry etc that we use today to create smart phones, nuclear reactors and medicine. You can't say this application ("deep time") is completely wrong without demonstrating why everything else somehow isn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 "a strawman would be creating a weak or absurd version of your argument and critiquing it."

Yes, precisely.

"I'm not doing that, I'm pointing out that a necessary implication of your view is that the vast majority of human sciences and knowledge is irretrivably flawed because it contradicts your interpretation of the bible."

Well, that "pointing out" apart from actually arguing the so called implications, constitutes a straw man.

"You can't just say "well it's just the deep time parts" all of those deep time parts are based off of fundamental laws"

What exact fundamental law states that the carbon 14 level can't be at 82~83 pmC in an atmosphere that's 3284 years after the atmosphere was created? None whatsoever.

What exact fundamental law states that Argon can't get trapped in lava before it cools? Check argon dates from Mount St. Helens. The original ones, done by Creationists. So, again, none whatsoever.

What exact fundamental law states that mixtures of Uranium and Lead of diverse isotopes can never exist except when a) the ratio of lead isotopes is constant all over earth or b) the excess of a specific constant is due to Uranium decaying to Lead over millions or billions of years? Or what exact fundamental law states that the half lives of K-Ar, U-Pb, Th-Pb can't be based on badly observed decay rates? None whatsoever.

By contrast, the 5730 years can be if not directly calibrated, at least indirectly by calibrations of last half of such a period. 2865 years = 70.711 % and things we know historically, well, they can be shown to have now 70.711 pmC. Know historically to be from 841 BC, that is.

Again, this is neither Radiocarbon, nor fundamental laws of decay, but two distinct faunas of animals living next to each other and getting buried in the mud of the Flood is also not violating any fundamental law, and neither is it if they are misinterpreted as diverse geological periods by a palaeontologist who thinks palaeontology is best done without the Bible.

"You can't say this application ("deep time") is completely wrong without demonstrating why everything else somehow isn't."

Guess what? I just did that. I'd oblige to show the same for Geocentrism, if challenged.

But to some, YOUR very personal interpretation of what science is and how it hangs together is not just accurate fact, but even the very basis for everyone else's logic ... go figure!

Jonathan W

@hglundahl bruh you are picking and choosing your data so bad like really. "We know something is from 841 BC" HOW? Your whole premise is that we can't reliably know anything outside the bible in terms of historicity.

@hglundahl also you can't just pick and choose random examples of natural phenomenon in isolation and say, see! There's nothing that says it couldn't be this way for this extremely specific example (aka argon etc) that's not how science works. You are eisegesing a bunch of otherwise incoherent historical assumptions and trying to find unrelated highly specific phenomena that doesn't DISPROVE your position. What you should be doing is saying here's all the data we have and the laws that we understand, what best explains what we see? Are you prepared to debunk all archeological discoveries ever discovered that are believed to be older than 1700 bc? You actually believe that the Xia dynasty founded 2070bc (and every subsequent dynasty) has been wrongly dated by hundreds or thousands of years? The Shang dynasty didn't start in 1600 bc? The new world was completely uninhibited until less than 3000 years ago? And you believe that pointing out what you believe are inconsistencies in decay rates as proof?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 Here was your strawman again:

"Your whole premise is that we can't reliably know anything outside the bible in terms of historicity."

No. It isn't. Assyrian records are pretty good, unlike Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptian and unlike Sumerian ones.

In 841, Shalmaneser III was ruling the Assyrian Empire.

"There's nothing that says it couldn't be this way for this extremely specific example (aka argon etc) that's not how science works."

Give me ONE example of an item dated by K-Ar to 1 000 000 years ago, which can also be dated independently of that by some more reliable method to 1 000 000 years ago?

If for a certain date or to be more for a certain range of dates, ALL methods are bad, that leaves NO good reason to believe in that date.

"You are eisegesing a bunch of otherwise incoherent historical assumptions"

Are you complaining of my exegetical skills about Genesis 14?

What exactly did you find INCOHERENT about my historical assumption?

"and trying to find unrelated highly specific phenomena"

I find pretty few Biblical events that far back that can be securely tied to a specific archaeological context.

When I say securely, I mean very specifically related. There is no other place than En Geddi that's known as Asasonthamar, and there is no archaeology for En Geddi being inhabited in carbon dated 1935 BC.

By the way, if you wonder about the date, the Roman Martyrology considers Jesus as born in 2015 after Abraham's birth. And since this was between his vocation at 75, his visit to Egypt 75/76 at earliest, and the birth of Ishmael when he was 86, 80 is a good midpoint. Is 2015 minus 80 1935 or is that incoherent eisegesis to you?

"highly specific phenomena that doesn't DISPROVE your position."

More like, I look for sth that directly confirms it, except on an un-Christian view, which underestimates the historicity of the Bible.

"all the data we have and the laws that we understand"

Why do you keep babbling, I think this is the word after you totally ignored my interaction, about ALL the data, ALL the laws? Can my position about Genesis 14 be at variance with the data that Ice Cream exists, or that water freezes at 0° C? Is my position about the age of the earth at variance with Ohm's law of electricity? Speaking of "all the data, all the laws" is preachy, it's decidedly talking down, and after my answer already given to that point, you are babbling.

"Are you prepared to debunk all archeological discoveries ever discovered that are believed to be older than 1700 bc?"

Just to redate them. Exactly as with the Chalcolithic of En Geddi.

"You actually believe that the Xia dynasty founded 2070bc (and every subsequent dynasty) has been wrongly dated by hundreds or thousands of years?"

Let's see how we do with the dates for NEXT dynasty, Shang:

Wu Ding 1250 before 1198 1324; Zu Geng 1191 after 1188 1265; Zu Jia – c. 1177 1258;
Lin Xin – c. 1157 1225; Kang Ding – c. 1148 1219; Wu Yi 1147 c. 1131 1198

The three numbers after each are BC years, according to XSZ Project, according to Cambridge History of Ancient China, and according to Traditional chronology.

Note that the first of them (the first of Xia) is on your view 2070 BC, not sure which of the chronologies you follow, but IF that had been a carbon date, it would reduce to 1633 / 1610 BC in my recalibration.

How about checking another fact from wiki: // Location of Xia dynasty (in pink) in traditional Chinese historiography. Because of the lack of written records, the existence of Xia is questioned. //

By lack of written records, they obviously mean written records from the period itself. Not a match for Shalmaneser III ... or the Bible.

Here is about the founder of the Xia dynasty:

Yu was highly trusted by Shun, so Shun appointed him to finish his father's work, which was to stop the flooding. Yu's method was different from his father's: he organized people from different tribes and ordered them to help him build canals in all the major rivers that were flooding and lead the water out to the sea. Yu was dedicated to his work. The populace praised his perseverance and were inspired, so much so that other tribes joined in the work. Legend says that in the 13 years it took him to successfully complete the work to stop the floods, he never went back to his home village to stop and rest, even though he passed by his house three times.

Still on the Xia dynasty article, this one is from the Yu article:

Because no contemporary documentary evidence about Yu survives, only a body of accumulated myth and legend, there is significant doubt as to the historicity of this figure. No inscriptions on artifacts dated to the supposed era of Yu, or the later oracle bones, contain any mention of Yu. The first archeological evidence of Yu comes from vessels made about a thousand years after his supposed death, during the Western Zhou dynasty.

So, do you find Xia sufficiently HISTORICALLY dated (not to mention tied to archaeology) to challenge my calibration?

The new world was completely uninhibited until less than 3000 years ago?

My dates for the Clovis culture go like this, starting with a citation from wiki, then I give my equations:

Period Lithic
Dates c. 11,500 – 10,800 BCE[1][2]

"11 500 BC" = 2644 BC
34.211 pmC, so dated 11 494 BC

"10 800 BC" = 2631
37.351 pmC, so dated 10 781 BC

The pmC values refer to the atmospheric content back then. Not to how much remains now.

"And you believe that pointing out what you believe are inconsistencies in decay rates as proof?"

You totally love strawmen, or are you too excited in an evil passion of unjust anger to even read what I actually write? The possible inconsistency about measuring the decay rate (not within the decay rate itself) is NOT my proof positive for any of this. It's part of my refutation of a potential refutation that dates like 4.5 billion years (U-Pb) would somehow disprove the possibility of carbon 14 being as low as 1.628 pmC at the Flood.

My proof positive involve the CONSISTENCY of the halflife 5730 years, the CONSISTENCY of historical accuracy in the Bible, and the CONSISTENCY between Bible readings in 1500 AD and in 2000 AD. God did not mean for us to change opinion every 5 years because a Reformer or Scientist makes a discovery, which he totally believes.

Next exchange:

a) he refuses to answer the challenge here:

Give me ONE example of an item dated by K-Ar to 1 000 000 years ago, which can also be dated independently of that by some more reliable method to 1 000 000 years ago?

on the ground I could try to refute him, and;

b) he gives me a few more challenges, like he intends to lead the discussion, he can drop a subject I want to continue as soon as he likes, so why bother about his new points?

What if it is essential? If so, you are already going down as someone recommending isolation and marginalisation of Young Earth Creationists at least if they are content providers, which sounds like "can neither buy nor sell" and you might one day end up sending them to the guillotine, or if you don't, your dramaturgic expression may have contributed to those who do.

Meanwhile, far from, from your point of view adding to the defense you could make against this danger, you are undercutting your own supposed defense.

16:27 I think the questioner's point was:

• ideology = Christianity overall
• behaviour of some = Young Earth Creationism.

Christianity must be judged on its own grounds, if as you and he believe Young Earth Creationism were foreign to its substance, well, the enquirer would need to totally ignore that and judge Christianity on its own grounds, it would be unfair to be hung up on Young Earth Creationists.

The problem being of course, your view of an Adam 750 000 years ago is an actual scandal, since it would make:

• Moses incapable of accurately knowing Genesis 3 as history
• and mankind during those 750 000 years incapable of correctly remembering and being comforted by that promise.

There are Old Earth views that put Adam even more recently, with even more disastrous results.

19:28 "material things like words on a paper can be about things"

Not to the ink and paper!

Only to the reader, who is not purely material.

Now for Craig's answer.

[after hearing it]

Great minds think alike ...