Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[2PhiloVoid]

And who records "History" the official
True History? That exists only in dream world.

Anyone who has taken part in an event
and then reads the news account knows
theres different histories by the next day.

No one writes the "official True History." Because no one human can.

See? The study of the Philosophy of History and Historiography does come in handy ...

 

[Frank Robert]

The human remains and the charcoal were carbon dated to the same to time?

What would you expect? Why would you expect them to be different?

I know creationists are good at coming up with "just so stories" but they invariably lead you...

 

[Frank Robert]

I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results

The recorded history as in "written" history is ~6000 years old. Are you claiming that writing was invented about the YEC time of Adam & Eve? To do so you need to defy a logical earth, deny all dating methods and find excuses for everything recorded that is older than 6000 years. That is quite a deep rabbit hole to go down.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What would you expect? Why would you expect them to be different?

I know creationists are good at coming up with "just so stories" but they invariably lead you...
View attachment 324579

I've always preferred the creativity and comfort of the Rabbit Hole ...

 

[Astrid]

No one writes the "official True History." Because no one human can.

See? The study of the Philosophy of History and Htistoriography does come in handy ...

You needed to do all that "study"
to figure there is no official True history.

 

[Astrid]

What would you expect? Why would you expect them to be different?

I know creationists are good at coming up with "just so stories" but they invariably lead you...
View attachment 324579

Or flight to Neptune with all the Flood water.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You needed to do all that "study"
to figure there is no official True history.

Yes, because believe it or not, not everyone was born with a Marxian pacifier in their mouths. I wasn't.

On the flip side, though, not everyone had parents who put a Bible in their cradle either. I didn't.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, because believe it or not, not everyone was born with a Marxian pacifier in their mouths. I wasn't.

On the flip side, though, not everyone had parents who put a Bible in their cradle either. I didn't.

That is the most disconnected "because"
I've seen recently.

You do know don't you that HK Is
a hotbed of capitalism?

I have an uncle who is still convinced
Mao was the greatest, but I'm a very
happy recipient of the bennies of capitalism.

Anyway, I know you did not have to study
Historiographicalism to know there's no
official true history.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is the most disconnected "because"
I've seen recently.

You do know don't you that HK Is
a hotbed of capitalism?

I have an uncle who is still convinced
Mao was the greatest, but I'm a very
happy recipient of the bennies of capitalism.

Anyway, I know you did not have to study
Historiographicalism to know there's no
official true history.

Sure I had to study Historiography and the Philosophy of History!!!! You know why don't you? Because I was born into a capitalistic, individualistic, anti-intellectual prone, "free" nation that enabled me from birth to be and to remain a below average American thinker at will. Mostly.

I didn't understand squat about the world, and what's more, until age 17, I didn't really care to understand. Nor did I really want to know, let alone maintain a memory about whatever it was they were teaching me in Junior High through High School. Any appreciation or clear thinking about History wasn't on my conceptual radar as a kid or teenager. Comic books were. Sci-Fi movies were. Being an "artist" was.

More importantly, my statement about "Marxian" perspectives wasn't a slight at you. So, don't assume it was. Why? Because .................... in the U.S., we have Marxian theorists of all types running rampant over here in this "here Capitalist" society, particularly in the Social Science/Sociology sectors of the universities. Hence, we also have folks (like me) who have learned from Michel Foucault and/or Pierre Bourdieu, among other similar theorists, who teach what they teach at the universities---mostly on a wider scale, like they did at my university.

 

[Astrid]

Sure I had to study Historiography and the Philosophy of History!!!! You know why don't you? Because I was born into a capitalistic, individualistic, anti-intellectual prone, "free" nation that enabled me from birth to be and to remain a below average American thinker at will. Mostly.

I didn't understand squat about the world, and what's more, until age 17, I didn't really care to understand. Nor did I really want to know, let alone maintain a memory about whatever it was they were teaching me in Junior High through High School. Any appreciation or clear thinking about History wasn't on my conceptual radar as a kid or teenager. Comic books were. Sci-Fi movies were. Being an "artist" was.

More importantly, my statement about "Marxian" perspectives wasn't a slight at you. So, don't assume it was. Why? Because .................... in the U.S., we have Marxian theorists of all types running rampant over here in this "here Capitalist" society, particularly in the Social Science/Sociology sectors of the universities. Hence, we also have folks (like me) who have learned from Michel Foucault and/or Pierre Bourdieu, among other similar theorists, who teach what they teach at the universities---mostly on a wider scale, like they did at my university.

Oh course with my background of helicopter
Mom, ( see Amy Chua, on parenting) who was
religious as a house cat in an Asian city v yours as
described, we'd have different perspectives.
Anyway -
I don't take anything from you as being
worse intended than friendly banter.
: D

 

[Platte]

What would you expect? Why would you expect them to be different?

I know creationists are good at coming up with "just so stories" but they invariably lead you...
View attachment 324579

Because charcoal and the human remains would not be the same age?

 

[Platte]

The recorded history as in "written" history is ~6000 years old. Are you claiming that writing was invented about the YEC time of Adam & Eve? To do so you need to defy a logical earth, deny all dating methods and find excuses for everything recorded that is older than 6000 years. That is quite a deep rabbit hole to go down.

Not a rabbit hole at all you tell me, how could the earth be created 6000 years ago but something dated older than that?

 

[Frank Robert]

Because charcoal and the human remains would not be the same age?

You are need to support such claims as to why the ages would be different.

 

[Frank Robert]

Not a rabbit hole at all you tell me, how could the earth be created 6000 years ago but something dated older than that?

You are the one making a claim a young earth. Creations have to deny all dating methods that provides dates older than 6000 years which in light of the consilience of evidence it is a very deep rabbit hole.

 

[Platte]

You are the one making a claim a young earth. Creations have to deny all dating methods that provides dates older than 6000 years which in light of the consilience of evidence it is a very deep rabbit hole.

Yes but I don’t have an issue with million year old rocks when the earth was created 6000 years ago. That would seem logical to me.

 

[Platte]

You are need to support such claims as to why the ages would be different.

There is no coal/charcoal that would date to the same age as me

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes but I don’t have an issue with million year old rocks when the earth was created 6000 years ago. That would seem logical to me.

Why is that logical?

Or are you in AVs camp that God is deceptive in making the world 6000 years ago but made it all look, in every single testable way, 4.5 billion years old?

 

[sjastro]

I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results

This is not a response to my post but a diversion.
You have got things around the wrong way science is not confirmed by history, history is confirmed by science.
Are you not familiar with the Winston Churchill saying “History is Written by the Victors.”
Earlier in this thread I mentioned after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians attempted to erase the Hyksos from history by not including their pharaohs into the king lists of the time including erasing their names from monuments
Censorship however was not 100% watertight as the Turin king list included the Hyksos.
It took science through archaeology to confirm the Hyksos were not only present in Egypt but ruled as pharaohs for a considerable period of time.

History is about recording events and the Bible fails on the first hurdle.
The Bible does not explicitly state creation occurred in 4004 BC, the flood in 2348 BC or the Exodus in 1491 BC, these are interpretations made long after the supposed events.
In fact when it comes to the creation date it seems every man and his dog has had a shot.

The Bible fails on the second hurdle ironically using your own idea.
As you have admitted the earliest evidence of writing is around 3400 BC which falls 600 years short of the creation date hence recorded history does not support with the creation date of 4004 BC.
Then there is the science itself which doesn't need to be repeated which shows the Earth is considerably older than 6000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is that logical?

Or are you in AVs camp that God is deceptive in making the world 6000 years ago but made it all look, in every single testable way, 4.5 billion years old?

You have no idea what "my camp" thinks, do you?

If you did, you would not have put that word "look" in there.

 

[Astrid]

There is no coal/charcoal that would date to the same age as me

Why not? Or do you mean to the day
or hour?