YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

Not hard for us to see at all, Randy. You keep forgetting many of us come from a Christian background and have experienced all the nonsense you propose. Why should we give credence to a faith we have determined is false. Should we give equal time to all wacko beliefs just because they involve faith? What give Christian faith any more credibility than say the 'cargo cult' of New Guinean natives?Let`s narrow it down. You have two things going for you. A book that lacks provenance, is riddled with errors and contradictions, has little basis in archaeology or external evidence, makes claims that never eventuated, proposes miracles that dried up with the closure of the book, offers prophecies that are so vague, one can apply them to various times without fear of contradiction, has been tampered with and exists in many variants, fails to acknowledge the real world, offers no cures to the main dangers of this existence, can`t help anyone beyond an individual`s subjective needs, ignores the development of human intellect,gives power to an elite, provides justification for evil done by its followers,and, worst of all, continues to reinforce utter selfishness in instructing an individual to seek salvation for Numero Uno alone.The second factor you wield like a sword is faith in the individual experience. 'It happened to me so you have to trust I am telling the truth. No, there`s no evidence, just my experience and if you don`t believe me, you have no faith. Worse still, you are going to hell for doubting me'. Now what basis is this for debating or communicating? You want to load the bases and have us give you an easy ball? C`mon, laddie, the world is full of shonks and you sound just like them.Btw, I wouldn`t flaunt Old Josh if I were you.

Oh, really? Care to show a bit of evidence of a cure of leprosy in our age by laying on hands? Any dead been restored lately? Any demons into pigs going around?

No film at 11?

Probably true, originally, but the success of millions of experiments and applications surely validates the approach?

Obviously, you aren`t paying attention to a lot of threads, where we challenge the concept of 'A' Bible, not on scientific grounds, but on the historical texts, lack of provenance, mis-translations, faulty interpretations, ignorance of contrary texts,dismissal of textual strands, scribal errors, redactions, text out of context, conflations, etc

Sorry, Big Guy, but in your collection of party balloons, you left out the one for the wonderful world of delusion. You know,beliefs so far from reality they are discussed in shrink textbooks. So we should allow equal time and premises for all the wacky worlds out there? Or do you think permitting kooks to band together and propagate serves some therapeutic purpose?In another thread, I nominated Raelian`s worldview for the role of Incompetent Designer. Seems to me their premise holds as much water as some proposed here. Not this atheist. My reasonings are based almost wholly on the available evidence. And no, I don`t give much credence to that old cop-out 'Absence of evidence etc.'