The spectacular fall of YEC beliefs

I can see this argument from multiple perspectives. Allow me to comment on a few, speaking from what jar would call the dogma of the cult. Faiths position here presupposes the idea that humans were lost before God so loved the world that He gave us ..His Son. From Faith's perspective, she was well respected by intellectuals and cultural wisdom but became enlightened through her salvation epiphany.This belief drives her concept of evidence in everything. The evidence is based on Gods way of doing things and His Spirit. jar believes that though GOD exists, GOD is the reality and does not favor humans, as the religion (and Bible) taught. jar essentially believes that we are charged to use our GOD given brains to study, learn, and figure out the reality for ourselves. Faith believes that GOD is knowable through Jesus Christ, through whom all was created...exactly how the book(Bible) tells it.Any efforts by jar to teach her reality and history are refused because Faith believes that human wisdom without Gods enlightenment is naturally corrupt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but dont you believe that jar does not really understand the Spirit behind the Bible? That though he may read it literally, he remains ignorant of the GOD Who impressed it upon the minds of those who have an ear to hear?From the perspective of classical apologetics, the book is inspired (by God) and is without error as to its intended teaching.From jars perspective, the book(s) are simply authored, edited, and redacted by humans seeking to understand GOD (and perhaps many who had ulterior motives to start new religions and promote the dogma of their cult)Does that sound about right?

Perhaps because if it were done your way, people would simply have to believe. The facts and evidence would be there.GOD literally would have written the book.The fact is that humans wrote it.Some believe that humans were uninspired by GOD.Others believe that those who have an ear to hear are inspired, while the skeptics will be forever attempting a conclusion.Belief presupposes certainty.Science by nature throws the conclusions away and continually challenge its own conclusions.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

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

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.