YEC part Trois

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?

Hi, ICBINEG

Don't be depressed. You may have gotten precisely nowhere with Best, but I promise you this thread has had a LOT of readers, and every one of your clearly written posts has been commented on.

It's a bit like my Jesus thread - I knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that the people I was actually talking to wouldn't change their minds - not in a month of Sundays. But there were various people who contacted me to say, "Wow...I always thought there was loads of evidence for Jesus. I'm astonished that there's none at all" - as far as I'm concerned, that's a result.

I think all of us on here (and in particular the scientists like you) have done a bang up job of showing people who weren't clear just how baseless & dishonest creationism & creationists actually are.

So, don't be disheartened in the slightest.

There was a chap on R4 fairly recently who had studied conspiracy 'theories'/'theorists' - things like 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landings were faked etc.

He concluded that you cannot debate with conspiracy theorists. Just cannot. Because whatever actual fact you present them with, they will just modify their 'theory' to account for this fact, or try to rubbish the science/evidence behind the fact.

He said, that in during a series of interviews with some of them, he was truly astounded at the lengths they would go to to cling onto their belief system, whilst (seemingly) genuinely believing that the rest of us were having the wool pulled over our eyes by shady 'government agencies' or whatever, and they were the only ones party to the truth.

Which is pretty similar to what Best did on these threads.

And of course, as distinguished scientist Baron Robert May once said, when asked to debate a creationist: "that would look great on your cv, not so great on mine"

Yes, I felt from the outset that it was a fishing expedition to gain more fodder for books/videos etc for the ridiculous point-scoring 'debates' that YECs seem to think are a valid substitute for evidence.

Don't feel downhearted, ICBINEG, I have learned a huge amount on these threads from you, Ellie and so many others.

I must find and read Ellie's Jesus thread.

Thanks for the votes of confidence

Ellie you can add me to the list of people who previously had no idea that the evidence for a physical jesus was so tenuous....like most I had been sold on the real person, inaccurate story telling business.

It really makes me wonder how many other things I 'know' are actually factually incorrect - although QI is usually good for debunking those!

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to die after I was no longer coming around. Just 6 days. I'm in school now for social work and don't have time to engage with people who don't want to listen and only want to argue.

I came to this site with the intention of having an honest sharing of ideas and quickly got attacked and called names. I stuck it out for far longer than I should have and that's only because I knew there were people behind the scenes who believed in what I was doing. It's too bad that it turned out this way.

I thought the very first post (2 threads ago) seemed like people were genuinely interested and wanted to understand the Young Earth view. I quickly learned they were just looking for someone to bully.

To those who still have genuine questions, I am willing to finish out this thread but I am very busy and can probably handle only about one brief question per day. I still refuse to tolerate abuse and will not answer questions that have been covered in the past 2,400 posts. Assume that we are never going to come to agreement but that perhaps you can learn something.

Fire away. :)

Incidentally, ICE, I never received that last email you referred to and I thought you had stopped responding to me. I apologize for the confusion. We were making progress but the last thing I recall is that you had redefined "information" in a way that was convenient for your theory but not the true definition as per Claude Shannon.

I am still open to discussing this privately with you and, as always, am open to changing my view based on valid evidence. But are you?