YECism: sect or cult?

Not really, but then it is obvious that a rejection of the billions of years a Big Bang belief gives, can only be a relatively new rejection since a Big Bang and evolution in and of themselves are relatively new to the scene. Obviously YEC is only a more pronounced and specific form of biblicism, so to speak but before Darwin and billions of years there would be no need to obviously put the emphasis on the age of the earth, life or the universe. So really YEC is not that new I would argue, but is simply belief in the bible stated differently in response to the relatively new views of evolution and big bang.It seems an overt mistake to say that YEc or creationism, is against Christianity, in the sense that we seek to believe what the Christian bible says. Believing what the Christian bible says is what Christians have done for centuries, and if the Christian bible didn't say what it says about how human kind got here, and doesn't say there was a flood, etc....then before evolution there would have been many Christian views that would differ with those beliefs. But it seems pretentious to me, to say that we are going against Christianity for believing what the bible says, actually happened. That suggests to me, you see blue as red, and red as blue. For if anything, the creationist position holds true to the bible, that God created the universe as it says, and that He was directly involved. For example when it says God walked in the garden, if that is a metaphor, then what does it mean? Are you saying that if I argue God created mankind from dust and brought forth the animals, by creation and if Noah really existed and there was a flood that I am arguing against what the bible says?Lol. But then I would say it only represents a false-dichotomy. You basically seem to be stating your case in this topic. "Yec is either P or X".My answer; neither.That was easy for an, "ignorant" person.I don't think "mainstream beliefs" and "reality of the world around us" can be conflated as the same thing. The mainstream intepretation of what facts mean, aren't the "reality" of the world around us when we consider how many times such interpretations can change.EXHIBIT A;(message one);
Bot Verification Any more epithets you want to throw in there? idiots perhaps? Sky daddy maybe? Lying, moronic, half-witt, turds? "Belief" being the operative word. In "reality" this isn't what I am and it isn't what many YECs are. I mean the likes of Dr Sarfati or Russell Humphreys or Sanford or any other number of YECs I can think of, could sink ships with their PHDs. You state as a bare assertion the earth isn't young and there was no flood but to me that isn't, "reality" and to many people it isn't a reality, it is just a conclusion predicated on tenuous, circumstantial evidence not on any operational science which can repeatably show an evolutionary past actually happened.So the true question is, why do you need to use all of these epithets against YECs?Is there some fact which means I reject reality if I don't accept billions of years and macro evolution? Not really, every fact I have ever encountered can usually be explained more parsimoniously without them. Certainly evidence of a flood can be qualified in a logical context, as that which cannot fail to follow and if it does follow the antecedent, is then an argued contradiction if claimed to not be evidence.I am not a YEC technically but I believe we can qualify many types of direct evidence for a flood. With the issue of age, young age or great age and even with evolution, I don't think we are dealing with something that can be argued to be as strongly defined as, "reality". I don't think that is how a hypothesis operates personally. For me all claims about the past fall under "historical" science and it can be shown there is a difference between the kind of science which gives you, "reality" and the hypotheses which merely exist in a conjectural context, to explain non-repeatable, past events.So then to test something "reality", like down-force, I can repeatably, as with many other people, have a bus corner at 100mph, and a grand prix car with aerodynamics and wing effect, to test it again and again and again. What I can't do is repeat a global flood or repeat the evolution of a feather from a scale, to see if that is how feathers came to be. It isn't to be a liar to reject a scientific explanation of how life came to be, the only ignorance is our ability to conceptualise the miraculous because we are only left with the effects. So then evolution is the best explanation in a scientific context but that doesn't mean that people are obliged to believe it is the correct explanation because it still depends upon the assumption that all things can indeed be explained scientifically, but is a scientific explanation the actual cause of Bomby?The amazing bombardier beetle - creation.comNot likely!CONCLUSION: I think your whole argument is begging-the-question in that it self-grants the conflation of "reality" with your evolutionary worldview. Whether you like it or not, you can call us as many names as you like but there are intelligent, knowledgable people that don't accept your evolutionary worldview is, "reality". Calling us a bunch of names.....well, that's one option but if you AREN'T ignorant, is that really all you've got? A false dichotomy combined with some propaganda?Okay then.(P.S. I don't intend to come across harshly but I must say RAZD, your hate-filled rants seem to increase as time goes on, whereas in the past your posts used to be defined as quality-based and objective. What has happened to you? You seem as savage in some of your writings, as the strongest anti-theist, but if you are trying to convince me I am an ignorant, lying so and so, your problem is I happen to know I am not. So then when you stand before God, and are told you are wrong what will you say?)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.