Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

I want to know what you hope to demonstrate with that answer for I fail to understand it.

It's simple as Pi actually.

I submit "Merry Christmas" as one of many cause-and-effect evidences for the existence of God.

No God = no "Merry Christmas"

Now, you can claim that Jesus is just a figment of someone's imagination that caught on and snowballed, getting more and more followers until it is the major religion that it is today.

But I'm not buying it.

The snowball effect of the growth of Christianity is (or was back then) the easiest of all religions to stop dead in its tracks before it ever got off the ground.

Just produce Jesus' dead body from the known tomb where He was laid, and that would have killed Christianity outright.

But they couldn't do it.

Despite well-educated men, leaders of empires and nations, et alii, who invested most of their time and resources in quelling this new religion before it ever got started, they all failed.

Antiochus Epiphanes, Nero, Hitler, Yasser Arafat, and many others who have tried to rid the world of God's followers, thinking they would rid the world of God failed miserably.

And to prove their failures, I submit our churches, hymns, slogans, literature, iconography, and many other things into evidence that they did indeed fail.

So Merry Christmas, drierwerf.

No Christ? no Christmas.

And a Happy New Year as well.

No such thing as a new year? then where did "Happy New Year" come from?

Simple as Pi.

 

[Platte]

Really, it isn't that interesting. Perhaps just a coincidence.

And "The Bible" doesn't actually claim the 6000-year claim. It has some references (particularly in the latter historical books) to kings and nations that can be easily found in history, this is not true of the earliest parts. Even if we granted a historical core to the narratives in Exodus and Joshua (and they are quite questionable), Genesis lacks such a core. It is full of "just-so stories" and patriarchs with sons who all found cities or nations.

To connect from the dubious history of the exodus and the "conquest" of Joshua to the start requires daisy-chaining through a list of dubious ages. "6000 years" is just the work of that quack Ussher. There is not "in the year 1457 since Adam, ...".

Yeah. You are probably right, just a coincidence. Creation and the beginning of History (recorded) being the same time and place isn’t even interesting.

 

[Platte]

That doesn't present evidence for YEC at all.

Evidence for recorded history can be dated to the middle east around 6000 years ago.

YEC time lines have recorded history being impossible before a little over 4000 years ago... due to the combination of the Flood and the Tower of Babel.

Even if you ignore all the evidence in geology and anthropology and only use records as evidence... then YEC is contradicted by evidence.

YEC does claim the earth was created 6000 years ago

 

[driewerf]

It's simple as Pi actually.

I submit "Merry Christmas" as one of many cause-and-effect evidences for the existence of God.

No God = no "Merry Christmas"

Now, you can claim that Jesus is just a figment of someone's imagination that caught on and snowballed, getting more and more followers until it is the major religion that it is today.

But I'm not buying it.

The snowball effect of the growth of Christianity is (or was back then) the easiest of all religions to stop dead in its tracks before it ever got off the ground.

Just produce Jesus' dead body from the known tomb where He was laid, and that would have killed Christianity outright.

But they couldn't do it.

Despite well-educated men, leaders of empires and nations, et alii, who invested most of their time and resources in quelling this new religion before it ever got started, they all failed.

Antiochus Epiphanes, Nero, Hitler, Yasser Arafat, and many others who have tried to rid the world of God's followers, thinking they would rid the world of God failed miserably.

And to prove their failures, I submit our churches, hymns, slogans, literature, iconography, and many other things into evidence that they did indeed fail.

So Merry Christmas, drierwerf.

No Christ? no Christmas.

And a Happy New Year as well.

No such thing as a new year? then where did "Happy New Year" come from?

Simple as Pi.

Thank you for that extensive answer.
You can probably guess my rebuttal. The Christmas celebration and all other expressions of the Christian faith, aren’t evidence of the existence of God, but of the believe in the existence of God. People have - and still do – believe a wide variety of things. Of which at best only one can be true or at worst all false. Christianity can not be true along side Islam of Hinduism or Taoism (and vice versa). Yet people have erected, monuments sung hymns, celebrated festivities for all the deities worshipped by the different faiths. If “Merry Christmas” is prove of God, the “Allah Akbar” is prove of Allah. But of course, none is the case. It is prove of the belief in God/Allah.

I know that this objection has been made in the past to you (though not by me). So I wonder why you insist on using an argument that has been invalidated. Is this due to a lack of valid arguments?

 

[Frank Robert]

Yeah. You are probably right, just a coincidence. Creation and the beginning of History (recorded) being the same time and place isn’t even interesting.

It is only the "beginning of history" if you disregard everything that happen on earth 3 billion years prior to biblical creation. Creationists have a way of taking uncertainty and replacing it with the worst possible interpretations.

 

[Platte]

It is only the "beginning of history" if you disregard everything that happen on earth 3 billion years prior to biblical creation. Creationists have a way of taking uncertainty and replacing it with the worst possible interpretations.

History (recorded) begins 6000 years ago....only 6000 years ago. And it begins in the Middle East! That is the same time and place that The Bible tells us the world was created. You claim the world is billions of years old....History (recorded) hitting that 6000 year old time in the billions of years you claim and place that the Bible tells us of the creation of the Earth is absolutely stunning.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

History (recorded) begins 6000 years ago....only 6000 years ago. And it begins in the Middle East! That is the same time and place that The Bible tells us the world was created. You claim the world is billions of years old....History (recorded) hitting that 6000 year old time in the billions of years you claim and place that the Bible tells us of the creation of the Earth is absolutely stunning.

Actually, semantically articulating your statement about "[recorded] History" the way you do shows that you're (maybe) not familiar with how modern historians evaluate the past and/or how they now write historical accounts. You'll need to engage with Historiography and the Philosophy of History, along with some other Humanities related fields of study, to shore up this deficit, brother Platte.

 

[Frank Robert]

History (recorded) begins 6000 years ago....only 6000 years ago. And it begins in the Middle East! That is the same time and place that The Bible tells us the world was created. You claim the world is billions of years old....History (recorded) hitting that 6000 year old time in the billions of years you claim and place that the Bible tells us of the creation of the Earth is absolutely stunning.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Recorded history and written history are the same.

It is the 3.5 billion years recorded in fossils that creationists are denying among other things. But we don't need to go back billions of years. There are human fossils from the middle east that date 36,000 years back in time. Creationists are known to take minor uncertainties of fossil dating and replace it with the worst possible interpretations.

 

[Platte]

Actually, semantically articulating your statement about "[recorded] History" the way you do shows that you're (maybe) not familiar with how modern historians evaluate the past and/or how they now write historical accounts. You'll need to engage with Historiography and the Philosophy of History, along with some other Humanities related fields of study, to shore up this deficit, brother Platte.

Yes, it is semantically articulating....but thats the point. The fact that History (recorded) supports the time and place of creation is significant. If I stated the earth was created 2000 years ago - History (recorded) would be your greatest tool to rebuff that.

 

[Platte]

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Recorded history and written history are the same.

It is the 3.5 billion years recorded in fossils that creationists are denying among other things. But we don't need to go back billions of years. There are human fossils from the middle east that date 36,000 years back in time. Creationists are known to take minor uncertainties of fossil dating and replace it with the worst possible interpretations.

lol - the fossils are recorded in the mud...but the time of the fossilization is not recorded.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, it is semantically articulating....but thats the point. The fact that History (recorded) supports the time and place of creation is significant. If I stated the earth was created 2000 years ago - History (recorded) would be your greatest tool to rebuff that.

And exactly what do you mean by "Recorded History"? And when you answer, I want citations from the experts you're drawing from !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Platte. Don't get into it with me, bro! You're wrong, and you will be promptly spanked if you continue down this path.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for that extensive answer.

You're welcome. It surprises me that you wanted a detailed answer. I thought you were just being sarcastic when you asked for it the first time.

I usually like to give straightforward short answers, but elected to give you what you asked for, even though I though you weren't being serious.

Turned out you were being serious, and I was wrong.

You can probably guess my rebuttal. The Christmas celebration and all other expressions of the Christian faith, aren’t evidence of the existence of God, but of the believe in the existence of God.

And which came first? God, or the belief in God?

People have - and still do – believe a wide variety of things. Of which at best only one can be true or at worst all false.

Not necessarily.

Christianity can not be true along side Islam of Hinduism or Taoism (and vice versa).

Absolutely it can, but not like you think; which I'll point out.

Yet people have erected, monuments sung hymns, celebrated festivities for all the deities worshipped by the different faiths. If “Merry Christmas” is prove of God, the “Allah Akbar” is prove of Allah. But of course, none is the case. It is prove of the belief in God/Allah.

Allah, Moroni, Thor, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Diana, Aphrodite, et alii, were, in my opinion, fallen angels.

Thus they really exist, but masqueraded as these false gods.

So yes.

I believe "Allah Akbar" is evidence of the existence of [a fallen angel masquerading as] Allah, just as I believe Thursday is evidence of [a fallen angel masquerading as] Thor.

The entity came first, then the belief.

I know that this objection has been made in the past to you (though not by me). So I wonder why you insist on using an argument that has been invalidated. Is this due to a lack of valid arguments?

No.

Notice that I just gave you a valid argument for their existence.

Satan set up an infrastructure on the earth that got torn down by the Holy Spirit in this dispensation.

Remnants of that infrastructure still exist today in the form of cult followings.

In my opinion.

 

[Estrid]

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Recorded history and written history are the same.

It is the 3.5 billion years recorded in fossils that creationists are denying among other things. But we don't need to go back billions of years. There are human fossils from the middle east that date 36,000 years back in time. Creationists are known to take minor uncertainties of fossil dating and replace it with the worst possible interpretations.

Many a creationist will tell you that the
Grand Canyon of the USA is proof of
Noah's flood.
A physical record!
Physical records that don't toe the line
and meet their expectations, have the gall
to disprove their notions though! Those are
all fake.

Intellectual honesty is characterized by,
among other things, consistency.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah. You are probably right, just a coincidence. Creation and the beginning of History (recorded) being the same time and place isn’t even interesting.

Correlation does not equal causation.
We have multiple evidences of humans living in areas of the world, not just in the Middle East, tens of thousands of years before the world is said to be created according to YEC claims.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And exactly what do you mean by "Recorded History"? And when you answer, I want citations from the experts you're drawing from !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Platte. Don't get into it with me, bro! You're wrong, and you will be promptly spanked if you continue down this path.

The worst bit is... I am positive that they've had this same discussion before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many a creationist will tell you that the Grand Canyon of the USA is proof of Noah's flood.

Not this creationist.

Intellectual honesty is characterized by, among other things, consistency.

Is consistency why Thalidomide was repackaged? airships switched to using helium? O-rings were redesigned? Pluto lost its ordinal status? the dictionary definition of "planet" was rewritten? Vioxx was taken off the market?

Just to name a few?

 

[AV1611VET]

Correlation does not equal causation.
We have multiple evidences of humans living in areas of the world, not just in the Middle East, tens of thousands of years before the world is said to be created according to YEC claims.

Didn't academia find Gumby on Venus and a face on Mars?

But prior to that, they spoke of "the man in the moon" and canals and polar ice caps on Mars?

Next I'll bet they come up with something odd.

Like two million Jews living in the Sinai for forty years.

 

[AV1611VET]

The worst bit is... I am positive that they've had this same discussion before.

According to science, the dividing line between "prehistoric" and "historic" is the invention [sic] of writing.

But since Adam, the first man on earth, was created with the ability to write, that means that there is no such a thing as "prehistorical."

To get around this, academia has to come up with the idea that there were humanoids living prior to 4004 BC, who couldn't write yet.

But this presents another problem, as they believe human beings lived prior to 4004 BC.

So to get around that problem, they change "Adam" to "y-Adam" and say y-Adam lived prior to the real Adam.

And it gets worse from there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to science, the dividing line between "prehistoric" and "historic" is the invention [sic] of writing.

But since Adam, the first man on earth, was created with the ability to write, that means that there is no such a thing as "prehistorical."

To get around this, academia has to come up with the idea that there were humanoids living prior to 4004 BC, who couldn't write yet.

But this presents another problem, as they believe human beings lived prior to 4004 BC.

So to get around that problem, they change "Adam" to "y-Adam" and say y-Adam lived prior to the real Adam.

And it gets worse from there.

All I see from you is a 'convenient'/nonsensical out. It's very much a 'Heads, I win. Tails, you lose' kind of deal.

Though, of course, as you like to say "The Bible cannot be contradicted no matter what."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Didn't academia find Gumby on Venus and a face on Mars?

But prior to that, they spoke of "the man in the moon" and canals and polar ice caps on Mars?

Next I'll bet they come up with something odd.

Like two million Jews living in the Sinai for forty years.

Your make believe, personal devil brand of academia, mayhaps.