The spectacular fall of YEC beliefs

You're accusing me of being a liar as usual. Some Admin.You can't rebut the objection to the historical sciences because it is true that they cannot be tested and proved the way the hard sciences can. Rebut away, you're just blowing hot air.You, like everybody else here, don't know what giving the benefit of the doubt even means. Once you know what an ideology teaches what benefit of the doubt can there be? It teaches what it teaches.Just another Liberal Nazi. And here's an attempt at a definition of that: someone who accuses someone else of some kind of personal immorality instead of dealing with facts. All the Politically Correct smears. That's SOP at EvC. And especially someone who won't understand what this means.I just wonder if it should be Liberal Nazi or Nazi Liberal or Leftist Nazi or Nazi Leftist. Decisions decisions. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, Faith, it is genocide. And Roman Catholicism is a Christian sect and the Pope is a Christian and it does not matter how often you deny reality, reality wins.

You wouldn't know reality if it bit off your whole butt.

Phat, you should close this thread too. And suspend me indefinitely please. I can't take this place any more and I don't want to keep being tempted to respond.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lets discuss this idea of the historical sciences being unprovable and untestable. Before I start a new topic, I'll check the archives. Don't let these arguments get to you, Faith. I realize that your opponents attack your ideas and insult your intelligence, but fighting back only makes you look frustrated. Give me a few minutes and I'll refocus this discussion somewhere.

Please do not. I don't want to be in a discussion with people who act this way and I'm now in a mood to blast everyone so I won't be "discussing" anything. Jusrt suspend me indefinitely please.

Yet it is still genocide Faith. And Roman Catholicism is still a Christian sect and the Pope is still a Christian and I am still a Christian and reality is still the reality even when you deny it.

Ah, but you are missing the obvious distinction that Faith sees so clearly.
When Christians get together, move to an uninhabited land, write a Christian constitution, build a lot of churches, elect a herd of Godly men, justify their actions from the pulpit and pray over their decisions as they make laws to facilitate the redistribution of the people living in the uninhabited land - they're not actually acting as Christians, per se.When Muslims do bad things, on the other hand, they are acting as Muslims. I'm sure I don't need to explain the difference.

Missed English history, I see.And the whole Plymouth thing? They were Catholics?Who knew!

Why does my mind keep hearing "There is no collusion" when I read this.

She's clearly blue-screened on dissonance.Maybe it's time for a nap and a reboot. I'm not sure encouraging her to channel Ken Ham is actually going to help much.

That is simply a truly silly position Phat and no honest person would ever claim the historical sciences being unprovable or untestable.

The concept of historical sciences being unprovable and untestable is pure poppycock.I guess if you want to tee up the ball we will smash it. Before you decide to write an OP, I suggest you do a little research on the science of history. Maybe even get a quick over view on how Bayes' Theorem is being used in history.Here is a quick overview.https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12742Richard Carrier has written a whole book on the subject.
Page Not Found | Penguin Random HouseThis will be fun.

Before I get to your post I'd like to respond to something you posted a few messages further on in Message 169 to Phat: About asking Phat to close the thread, that's not your call, nor anyone's at present because no one is moderating the thread. Phat is a participant.About suspending you indefinitely, forum policy is "warn, then act." Phat, Modulous and myself are participants and would have to recuse ourselves for a couple days before we could announce that we're changing to a moderator status. Adminnemooseus or AdminNosy could moderate the thread if they so choose.That said, it is apparent, to everyone including yourself, that you've again lost your self control and are attempting an analog to "suicide by cop." I don't see why forum moderation should oblige. It does remind me of an old joke: "A masochist says to a sadist, "Beat me!" The sadist replies, 'No.'" Anyway, I expect you'll recover your self control at some point, and in the meantime it isn't like your current misbehavior is something we're unfamiliar with.Responding now to the current message: I think this must be your own guilt talking, because I didn't call you liar. I did say that you'd made a silly mistake. Well, you didn't respond to anything I said, you simply repeated your familiar errors, and this isn't the topic anyway, so moving on... So in other words I was right, you're not extending Muslims and Catholics the benefit of the doubt, because you already know what those ideologies teach. That's right, get it all out of your system.You didn't comment on the on-topic portion of my post, so I'll just repeat what I said before. YEC subordination of science to the Bible is a path of ignorance and denial that guarantees YEC will not decline. You're providing an excellent example right here in this thread. You're ignoring the topic (and in fact drawing attention away from it with your distracting behavior), threatening to ignore some participants, denying facts, and are still largely ignorant of evolution and geology, and probably huge swatches of the rest of science, too.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve a word.

In my previous reply where I commented about not suspending you, I guess I stand corrected. Phat's interpretation of a request for suspension was to honor it. See you in a few.--Percy