YECism: sect or cult?

I think YECism is a cult in the sense of "mind-control cult". They certainly don't want their adherents studying science. They need their own schools, museums, etc. to prevent it.It crosses sect boundaries - e.g Seventh-Day Adventists and (other) Fundamentalists - not to mention Muslims.

So were astrology and alchemy. Along with creationism, they were disproven by science.

That's practically the definition of religion right there.

It isn't true. The difference is objectivity.ICR is wilfully ignorant. Their conclusions "just happen" to coincide exactly with their religious beliefs.EvC, on the other hand, has members who are atheists and members who are Christians, including different varieties of Christians. They are all able to set their biases aside when looking at the evidence. The Christians are willing to change their ideas on which parts of the Bible are true and which are not, depending on the evidence.To ICR, the evidence is incidental. It isn't something to learn from; it's a teaching tool.

Are those actual cross-references or do they include made-up stuff like Jesus being the Messiah?

I didn't say He wasn't the Messiah. I said that the so-called "cross-references" in the Bible are made up. There have been lots of discussions of that - in appropriate threads.You said, "The implication is that one cannot pick and choose what to believe in regarding the Bible." Unless there is positive evidence that the "cross-references" are valid, one certainly can pick and choose. In fact, in the absence of positive evidence for the "cross-references", one is obligated to regard each story individually.

It's not an "attempt" to tear anything apart. It's reality. If there's no evidence for an elephant sitting on your couch, then you can live your life as if there was no elephant sitting on your couch.

You have three different things there:1. An elephant on your couch is possible, though not highly probable.
2. A 6000-year-old earth is not possible, given the evidence we have.
3. Stories of men who once lived are common but their truth-value is low, especially if they include elements such as rising from the dead. Legends, of course, don't have to have anything to do with reality. You haven't "exposed" anything. By all means, roll out your evidence that Jesus really existed and then we'll see how silly the idea is. So roll out your evidence that Jesus is any different from the spaghetti monster. Sure it will. It has for most members of this forum. Even you have been known to use logic once or twice.Again, the only time belief has any value is when logic can't produce an answer - e.g. when there is no evidence. And even in such cases, you should NEVER act on those beliefs if your actions go against logic.

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

No. If something is "proven", let's say by overwhelming evidence, then anybody who thinks it's a "fantasy" is wrong, wrong, wrong. No. Evidence can not be subjective. Conclusions based on the evidence can be subjective. But if you want to deny the validity of a conclusion, you have to show why it's invalid. If you deny an objective conclusion in spite of the evidence, like Kurt Wise, you're just denying reality.

You don't get to redefine reality. If you don't hear his trumpeting, it's because he isn't there. He who has an ear can't hear what isn't there.He who hears what isn't there is often classified as mentally ill.

That isn't true. Scientists often believe in loyalty, courtesy, thrift, courage, cleanliness, etc.What they don't believe is things that are not evidenced - and especially things that the evidence shows are false.Belief SHOULD always take a back seat to evidence. That's the only real point here.

You could say the same thing about Invisible Bigfoot or Invisible Zeus or Invisible Long John Silver. It's nonsense.