Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

I do not come here to flail agenst an oppenent that is so dense about anything that you would mistake thier head for a black hole, but to enjoy a good debate and maybe learn or teach someone something they wanted to know about
the problem is the other person doesn't want to sometimes
as for the YEC's i think they realized that ID will not get them what they want so they are returning to YEC which will not help them eather it seems

good show RR
we do not have to agree on everything the world wouldn't be very interesting if we did

I have been exploring more about ID, and my conclusion seems to be that YEC's stick to thier base arguments, god being the creator, 6 day creation, 6000 years,etc. most of thier arguments are clear for the most partID on the other hand is hard to understand considering that a lot of the leaders shift thier arguments and change how ID works, while trying to play both sides to the middle. they try to be pretend to be science on one hand and try to be religion on the other, without dropping the ballsdover also kind of hurt the, since behe admited that ID is about as much science as astrology is.
both the people thinking it was science and the people trying to frame god under science saw it was a waste since they shot themselves in the foot after dover

gah considering what the class is about i think its awful and worse than it trying to be scienceI'm starting to think ID is out to turn education into a vacuum of stupity

i really don't get how you can say this,when schraf is asking you how you came to your reasonable reasoning for an designer.
you are just trying to change the subject without answering the questionas for why people feel the conclusion for natural causes are more plausable, its because we have evidence of this, wheres the evidence for the designer? but you did no such thing. like people have said, you are trying to rationalize your beliefs, such as by trying to use reason to validate supernatureal causeswhy is the supernatual a better answer?

when the person you debate, evades, claims things that they are unwilling to back up, but are willing to claim as truth, it makes it hard to debate.
the fact remains that many people make statements they never,ever, bother to think about. they never decide or process why they believe the things they do.
the reason you get targeted is you make statements that something is right without backing it up, it helps people if they can at least see what you base your views onwe lament the creationists because only a few are willing to debate, most just want people to hear them preach and agree with them without any questions. fewer creationists are willing to allow that they could be wrong or at least that they arn't looking at thier text right

nice strawman of what i said, i said nothing about doing any such thing, i was talking about evidence, definitions of words, such as what is information and complexity. if you want to whine about how people take your views go for it, but it doesn't help anyone to take you seriouslythe reasons that Yec,etc don't want ID taught is because it still marginalizes gods power and makes humans less perfect and important. its all about whether they go to heaven for most of them, taking out god is not the way to do it.
most people who do support ID think its science to wedge god back into schools oh stop whining, hyperbole doesn't help you very much they arn't afraid to do this, they lost already back in the 80's they would be thrown out before someone could talk about jesus, much less the flood
the thing is, if the teacher is teaching a class on religion, where it should be taught, they can rip it appart, but why would they as a teacher? ask those people who posted 30+ times, i only posted once, so don't blame me for your additude about making faulty statements and getting called on it call me when AiG knows a thing about science or evolution, because i've read enough to know they have zero knowledge of eather and should never be allowed near children for fear of making them stupid

what? that science expects you to make backed up statements? from what i understand scientists are even worse about this to other scientists than what you see as a terrible thing. i supose its all about it being able to stand up to disection yes, just not science teachers, religion teachers can do this all they want, but they also have to teach about other religious views.
it is agenst the law to teach creationism in science class rooms, since science is supposed to be factual, you would expect some of it would be true and other theories would be false. unlike say a religious class were you can have more than one view because theres more than one religion and no one really can say which one is rightif a teacher is asked about god and gives thier views on it, they should be fired, since it violates the first admenment, you do know that public schools being funded by the goverment makes them part of the goverment? thus the law applies to them. a teacher, just like anyone in the goverment represents the goverment i don't think its because of the "flood" but because she was exasperated at what people teach children, namely old and outdated things (that happen to be used to some how prove the flood) i've read AIG's site they don't know a damn thing about science or evolution did i say they did or they don't in that quote? no i did not i said, call me when they learn something about how science works or how evolution works, creationism doesn't even enter into it the ones that see that they can't erase evolution from peoples minds or remove it from schools, want this.
who says they are cast in stone? science isn't religion where anything said by someone is claimed to be unchangeable, where do you get the idea that people say science is set in stone? the reason is i think, is that if they try to argue genesis one as being true or fact, makes them look like idiots for even sugesting it.
i mean arguing that plants existed before the sun? this makes sense?genesis as fact is insane, genesis as myth makes sense after what we have learned you are kidding right? a majority of evangelicals want it in schools, they don't feel that its stupid to believe this or its absurd, because it came from god so it must be right.
you are flitering it through the smart people filter, they don't want it taught because they are smart enough to know the people who don't believe it will never allow it

umm no it looks like you need to get your glasses fixed, you shouldn't project it on to me
it says plants were created on the THIRD day and the sun on the FOURTH day, which makes no sense as reality, but makes sense for a myth. let there be light could be other sources of light that the people believed in but it wasn't the sun. arguing that genesis makes sense makes everyone who does it look like an idiot no you have this wrong, the second myth is decended from mesopotamian myths, i can show you this if you really want to know, they even have a proto-eden myth, but without adam and evethe first is influenced by greek philosophy and mystery religions, like zoronderism, this is why people don't bring up texts like this.
now the second one i could show you some since it has more pagan influences because you are asking about the wrong myth well i could say the same for creationists you know where did i say they did? do i have to repeat myself? they don't know a damn thing about science or evolution, saying "molecules-to-man evolution" shows they don't have a clue about the theory and just have some absurd strawman, the fact that they call their strawman a belief that scientists hold is even more absurd and shows their true lack of honesty.
now whether i tihnk they want creationism in schools? no they don't because its an unviable option, too many people don't want it taught in science classes, nor would they teach it the way AIG wants it taught anyway. becides creationism doesn't have anything to back it up so it makes people look foolishwhy do you insist that i'm saying what you are arguing aganst? i am now, but you were arguing aganst something i wasn't saying

yes which goes to show they didn't have a clue about anything, and the sun and starts are made on the fourth day which would make plants die.as the admin haw reminded us, this is OT, but from this vein i would say that the reasons people are returning to YEC is because they find it conforting and more spiritually sound, because its a lot easier to ignore most everything that contridicts your beliefs, simply by saying "goddidit" wouldn't you disagree if someone made up a false belief that you didn't claim to even hold? no, i'm saying other monothiestic ideas influenced them, like the greeks and the persians during the exile. being that genesis 1 is a later story than genesis 2, shows this. genesis two is like other semetic creation stories, genesis 1 shows things that hebrews never would have came up with, they believed in a personal immenent god not a transendent one, as they did lateranyway this is OT, i wanted to clarify