The spectacular fall of YEC beliefs

I would add two more to your list.

Why do virtually all of the apologists reconcile contradictions? Can we conclude that they are guided by the Spirit of Truth or perhaps the spirit of marketing, according to some critics? Willful ignorance is never recognized by that label in those whom it affects.

​

Why do some folks describe/define GOD as a creation of humanity? Why can't they reconcile what is written to what they believe?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

They don't reconcile the contradictions but only spatter nonsense that their Cult members believe. Maybe because every example of God known seems to be a human creation? How do you reconcile the mutually exclusive descriptions as found in the actual writings like the God of Genesis 1 and the God of Genesis 2&3?

No, you still do not understand. So then please just read it! It's in English!!, so how hard could it possibly be?I should point out a bit more of the history, as I do on my own site (http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html). Patrick Henry had introduced into the Virginia legislature a bill to "[establish] a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" (ie, clergy) -- IOW, to pay clergy with government funds derived from taxpayers (from my page linked to above):

quote:

---

Patrick Henry's constituents had been complaining to him about the decline of public morality, much as the Religious Right does nowadays. In response, he sponsored a bill that would allocate public funds (ie, tax money) to "[establish] a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" (ie, clergy). Thomas Jefferson's faction opposed the bill and were able to delay a vote on it until the next session. Then they were able to persuade James Madison to write a pamphlet opposing the bill which they then distributed throughout the state. That pamphlet, A Memorial and Remonstrance, proved so effective that when the State Legislature reconvened, Henry's bill was dropped without even being brought to a vote. Instead, Thomas Jefferson's Religious Liberty bill was voted into law.

---

Which yet again forces me to ask just what the f*** you are talking about. Just what exactly does a Christian worldview have to do with the outright humanistic principles of self-governance that this great nation was founded upon. The Christian worldview would have been the Divine Right of Kings, which King James sought to enforce with his reinterpretation of the Bible (AKA the KJV) and which the Declaration of Independence completely and utterly blew out of the water! And the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

I was around and fully awake in the early 1980's and I was listening to the bullshit lies of the Radical Religious Right. They had a word to describe everything that is said in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: secular humanism!We completely rejected the Christian ideas of the Divine Right of Kings. We took it upon ourselves to create our own government by ourselves and for ourselves. Just what does any stupid god have to do with any of it?Yet again, your blatantly absurd and baseless assertions are nothing but nonsense. We cannot even figure out what you might think you are talking about.

And yet you display a complete and utterly ignorance of evolution. Interesting.So then what you thought was evolution actually wasn't. So your entire rejection of evolution is based on false ideas about evolution based on your abysmal ignorance of the subject.So your rejection of evolution is actually a rejection of some false and hopelessly muddled ideas you had had about the subject which had nothing whatsoever with the actual subject of evolution.So all your statements about having "believed in evolution" and having subsequently rejected it are completely meaningless.So what's your point?Edited by dwise1, : o -> So

Not that this is on-topic, but if you're going to comment on yourself then I will, too. Yeah, you actually did. There is no hint within you today of liberal compassion for their fellow man. You're all full of Old Testament vengeance and barbarity. One might ask, "What happened to change you so alarmingly?" Was your ignorance of evolution as great then as it is now? Is your reputation among those intellectual friends as good now as it was then?I don't think there's been any falling off of YEC beliefs. I think it's just become less overt, more insular, more canny, less confrontational.--Percy

Again failing to see relevance to topic but helpless to resist commenting... Like perhaps to Muslims?--Percy

I would not make such a bold statement, but then so what?Certainly, the Catholic model was that the Universal Truth must not be misinterpreted, so the laity had to be kept insulated so that they would not arrive at heretical ideas because they navely did not know how to properly interpret Scripture.The Protestant model, born of Gutenberg's press, held that every member needed to read Scripture for himself.The decor of Catholic versus Protestant churches still echo this difference. Catholic churches are filled with imagery and art which constantly remind its worshipers of the lessons they have been taught, whereas Protestant churches are barren of any art since they are expected to read the Bible for themselves to remember the lessons taught.Which brings us to the issue of literacy. My understanding is that the original purpose of Sunday School was got teach church members, mostly adults, how to read. These people worked long hours in factories every day except for Sunday, so Sunday was used to teach them how to read. So what?Consider a hypothetical person. He lies constantly. Cheats everybody. Has stolen from many. Has killed a number of people in cold blood with absolutely no remorse whatsoever. But he always treats his mother extremely well.Is that a good person just because of how he treats his mother? Or is he a horrible persons for all the other outrageous crimes against humanity that he has committed?Given your lack of a functioning moral compass, I feel it necessary to state that, no, he is most definitely not a good person.Now apply that exercise to a religion. This hypothetical religion has done a small number of good things, but on the whole it proves to be completely evil. So is that religion completely good just because of a small number of good things it has wrought? Or is it evil because of the vast amount of evil that it produces?Again, your lack of a functioning moral compass would lead you astray. No, despite those few good things that religion has caused, even accidentally, it is still evil.So just what do you think you are accomplishing by bringing up one or two accidental good things?BTW, it was the Soviet Union, an officially atheist government, which accomplished one of the highest literacy rates in the world. So does that lead you to proclaim that Soviet Communism is a wonderfully ideal system? If not, then why not?

And Catholics.

And Liberals.

Never been in a debate with a Muslim but I don't see why I wouldn't extend the benefit of the doubt in the relevant context. Same with Catholics and liberals. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am gone for months and Faith still is making assertions with no evidence and basically continuing the comedy act. Yeah right. Sure.

I missed you too, Theodoric. Welcome back. I hope you enjoyed your sabbatical or whatever it was.

Therein lies the problem: You believe in things, you don't understand them or learn about them.

But you don’t trust Muslims. If you try to forcibly convert them they are allowed to pretend to go along with it!(Since you say you aren’t interested in forcibly converting them it’s hard to see why you’d worry about it. But you are)And even in debate you like to make false accusations. We’ve all seen how you treat Edge to use one egregious and common example.

I've never seen you extend the benefit of the doubt to anyone you disagree with, regardless of context. Muslims are members of a murderous religion, Catholics aren't Christians, and liberals are taking away your rights.Bringing this into the thread's context, these same intolerant and inflexible attitudes extend to scientifically established understandings about Earth and life history and are responsible for the persistence of YEC beliefs.--Percy