Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

While YEC certainly believe that there was a world-wide Noah flood (since that is what the Bible says)....the primary tenant of YEC is that the earth is young (God created it approximately 6000 years ago). It is that tenant that I find stunning that History (recorded) begins about 6000 years ago and in the Middle East in line with YEC belief of God creating the earth same time and place (where man was created).

Except, as has been pointed out many times, the start of recorded history is just that; the start of recorded history. That is not the start of history.

 

[Frank Robert]

Wow - what great scientific evidence that study presented....lol. Its so funny how people such as you can so easily question and marginalize the accuracy of the Bible but have no qualm when reading silly garbage like that study.

It is very simple. There is zero as in no factual evidence that the bible is a science book. Similarly for the Hindu Vedas, Buddhist Sutras and all other sacred religious books.

I am agnostic, but the part of me that thinks there could be a supreme being also leads me to the concision that such a being would not create an inconsistent nature that would confound learning and knowledge in a illogical framework such as we have on cognitive and young earth creationism.

Laughing at science does not change the facts regardless of how loud you laugh on you way

 

[Platte]

Are you familiar/interested in my take on Neanderthals and Cro-magnons?

I'm not familiar - but would be interested.

 

[Platte]

Except, as has been pointed out many times, the start of recorded history is just that; the start of recorded history. That is not the start of history.

It might not be the start of history - but it is the start of History

 

[Platte]

It is very simple. There is zero as in no factual evidence that the bible is a science book.

I agree - but the Bible is a history book - and that is what we are talking about.
There is nothing inconsistent with nature, nothing that would confound learning and knowledge, and there is no illogical framework with regards to young earth creationism that I am aware of.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It might not be the start of history - but it is the start of History

A nonsensical distinction. Putting a capital H on history does not somehow make your point correct. The start of recorded history IS just that; the start of recorded history.
Meanwhile, he have evidence of human civilization and settlement going back FAR before 6000 years old: Dolní Věstonice.
"It dates to approximately 26,000 BP, as supported by radiocarbon dating. The site is unique in that it has been a particularly abundant source of prehistoric artifacts (especially art) dating from the Gravettian period, which spanned roughly from 27,000 to 20,000 BC. In addition to the abundance of art, this site also includes carved representations of men, women, and animals, along with personal ornaments, human burials and enigmatic engravings."

 

[Astrid]

While YEC certainly believe that there was a world-wide Noah flood (since that is what the Bible says)....the primary tenant of YEC is that the earth is young (God created it approximately 6000 years ago). It is that tenant that I find stunning that History (recorded) begins about 6000 years ago and in the Middle East in line with YEC belief of God creating the earth same time and place (where man was created).

I have tenants in rental properties..
I doubt yec has any more tenants than it does facts.
History is not a proper noun.
Some people are so easily stunned
by confirmation bias.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree - but the Bible is a history book - and that is what we are talking about

Except that it's not.

 

[Astrid]

Except that it's not.

The bible is semi- historical in places.
Christian views of how much is actual
history varies tremendously.
For those who look to outside sources
the non historical nature of many such
account as flood is clearly apparent.

Those who only went by what the Bible says
would find that pi=3. and would have no way
to find their mistake.

 

[Astrid]

I agree - but the Bible is a history book - and that is what we are talking about.
There is nothing inconsistent with nature, nothing that would confound learning and knowledge, and there is no illogical framework with regards to young earth creationism that I am aware of.

" that you are aware of" is key.

Or maybe you are aware but refuse to acknowledge
that there could be error-not ne essarioy in the bible-
but in your chosen and ertainly not inerrant opinions.

 

[Platte]

A nonsensical distinction. Putting a capital H on history does not somehow make your point correct. The start of recorded history IS just that; the start of recorded history.
Meanwhile, he have evidence of human civilization and settlement going back FAR before 6000 years old: Dolní Věstonice.
"It dates to approximately 26,000 BP, as supported by radiocarbon dating. The site is unique in that it has been a particularly abundant source of prehistoric artifacts (especially art) dating from the Gravettian period, which spanned roughly from 27,000 to 20,000 BC. In addition to the abundance of art, this site also includes carved representations of men, women, and animals, along with personal ornaments, human burials and enigmatic engravings."

It's not nonsensical...its academia. I was pretty sure you'd understand that. Recorded History goes back about 6000 years. That's it - 6000 years. Dismiss it and marganilize it if you like but I think deep down you know the significance of it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not nonsensical...its academia. I was pretty sure you'd understand that. Recorded History goes back about 6000 years. That's it - 6000 years. Dismiss it and marganilize it if you like but I think deep down you know the significance of it.

But it's only the start of recorded history, not history itself. How are you not getting what I'm saying?

 

[Platte]

" that you are aware of" is key.

Or maybe you are aware but refuse to acknowledge
that there could be error-not ne essarioy in the bible-
but in your chosen and ertainly not inerrant opinions.

The Bible is not an opinion

 

[Platte]

The bible is semi- historical in places.
Christian views of how much is actual
history varies tremendously.
For those who look to outside sources
the non historical nature of many such
account as flood is clearly apparent.

Those who only went by what the Bible says
would find that pi=3. and would have no way
to find their mistake.

You debate the Bible's historical significance?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not familiar - but would be interested.

God warned His people that, if they continued in sin, He would ...

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

One of these plagues evidently was a bone-altering plague that distorted the framework of the skeletal system.

David was apparently afflicted with this plague, and describes it in detail in Psalm 38.

Note especially ...

Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.
4 For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.
5 My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.
6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.

It is these guys that I believe scientists are mistaking for Neanderthals and Cro-magnons and whatever else their imaginations can come up with.

And for the record, I believe David repented, and the LORD healed him, for in the very next Psalm, he says:

Psalm 39:7 And now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee.
8 Deliver me from all my transgressions: make me not the reproach of the foolish.
9 I was dumb, I opened not my mouth; because thou didst it.
10 Remove thy stroke away from me: I am consumed by the blow of thine hand.
11 When thou with rebukes dost correct man for iniquity, thou makest his beauty to consume away like a moth: surely every man is vanity. Selah.
12 Hear my prayer, O LORD, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.
13 O spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and be no more.

 

[Frank Robert]

I agree - but the Bible is a history book - and that is what we are talking about.
There is nothing inconsistent with nature, nothing that would confound learning and knowledge, and there is no illogical framework with regards to young earth creationism that I am aware of.

The old testament is sorta (with much bias) history of a nomadic tribal cultural

 

[AV1611VET]

The old testament is sorta (with much bias) history of a nomadic tribal cultural

What you call "bias" we call "accuracy."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You debate the Bible's historical significance?

I do. But there is a caveat in my saying this. Maybe two.

The problem here is that this "debate" gets truncated into an Either/Or set of polarized positions that are, really, a false dichotomy. This dichotomy can be seen for what it is by anyone who has taken the time to both read the Bible AND do wide academic study. If we all did this, we would know that the "debate" can't simply be pared down to this mere dichotomy.

But I get it: a dichotomy often easily sells more pew seats in Baptist churches and in Atheist meet-ups.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wonder how many atheists have a copy of God's Bible on their bookshelves, as compared to Christians who have a copy of Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races?

AV, you do know that in today's day and age---at least in the U.S.----a predominant number of current "atheists" are former Christians, many of whom have read and studied good portions of the Bible, sometimes all of it.

I could offer up a counterpoint to your "I wonder how many ... have read a copy of ....?" inquiry, but I'm afraid that because a large number of Christians are unfamiliar with the scholarly landscape I'm referring to, they'd read it and needlessly jettison their faith and join those who already have jettisoned it----that is, IF they read and engage the book(s) I'd recommend.