Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[GenemZ]

I welcome corrections of my errors.

Always?

 

[GenemZ]

My mistake.... I came to this thread because I saw in the "Latest posts" column on the main page this thread highlighted. I had no idea it was a secular mix. Unsubscribing...

 

[Kylie]

I know what you said.

I take it then that you believe Thalidomide didn't pass all its tests?

When the children showed up?

They were a day late and a dollar short with that, weren't they?

But I take it it passed enough tests that it was given the green light?

Are you telling me you would have been on Frances Kelsey's side and called for even more testing?

That Post 425 can take a hike.

And here you go with the "all or nothing" fallacy. If science can't provide ALL the answers, then it must be completely useless!

It's tired, AV. How about you take a look at the thread title and try to keep on topic for once, okay?

 

[AV1611VET]

And here you go with the "all or nothing" fallacy. If science can't provide ALL the answers, then it must be completely useless!

Your Post 425 was clear enough:

Something testable. If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it.

Thalidomide was testable, it faced the testing, and it passed.

According to you, you would have accepted it.

Now you seem to be backtracking.

It's tired, AV. How about you take a look at the thread title and try to keep on topic for once, okay?

Let's do that, before you say something else that can take a hike.

 

[Kylie]

Your Post 425 was clear enough:

Thalidomide was testable, it faced the testing, and it passed.

According to you, you would have accepted it.

Now you seem to be backtracking.

it passed some tests, and it FAILED others.

Let's do that, before you say something else that can take a hike.

Your attempts to derail the thread can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

it passed some tests, and it FAILED others.

Now you know why I always ask:

"After how many tries?"

 

[Kylie]

Now you know why I always ask:

"After how many tries?"

How many tries did it take religious belief to show it?

Oh, that's right, religious belief DIDN'T show it. Science is still winning.

Now, can you get back to the topic?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, can you get back to the topic?

YEC is not a scientific theory.

It is, in my opinion, error doctrine.

But it is not a scientific theory.

 

[Platte]

History is not Science. Science is not History. The earth was created 6000 years ago - that is a historical statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

History is not Science. Science is not History. The earth was created 6000 years ago - that is a historical statement.

I agree.

Creationism belongs in history class, not science class.

 

[dlamberth]

I agree.

Creationism belongs in history class, not science class.

Creationism does not belong in any class room. It's not history or science. It's religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism does not belong in any class room.

Yes, it does. It belongs in history class.

It's not history or science.

I disagree. It's history.

It's religion.

Then it belongs in religion class, doesn't it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

History is not Science. Science is not History.

So good, so far.

The earth was created 6000 years ago - that is a historical statement.

Is it?

If you want to make a historical claim you'll need historical records.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to make a historical claim you'll need historical records.

Would two testaments .. in writing ... do?

 

[ruthiesea]

Something testable. If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it.

It cannot be tested because it is a religious belief and science cannot be used to confirm or reject a religious belief. On the other hand religious beliefs cannot be used to confirm or reject scientific conclusions.

 

[ruthiesea]

Would two testaments .. in writing ... do?

What if you only accept one of them?

 

[dlamberth]

Then it belongs in religion class, doesn't it?

Which would be the church.

 

[Ophiolite]

Always?

I don't recall any instances when I haven't welcomed correction of my errors. Certainly I shall dispute an assertion that I am in error if I see no error, but if the error is apparent, or can be shown to be real, then - yes, I welcome the correction. Frankly, to not accept corrections would be stupid of me. It would hamper self improvement and make me look foolish. Why would I want to do that? Answer, I wouldn't. (If you can find any instance where I have not welcomed having my errors pointed on the forum please draw them to my attention, so I can take the related lesson on board.)

Please note that I am not in the habit of pointing out the occassional typo in a post, especially not the commonplace there-the're-their confusion, or the unnecessary (or missing) apostrophe. Unless, that is, (a) the error makes comprehension of the post difficult, or (b) it is a recurrent error by a native English speaker. Category (a) was the motivation for me pointing out the errors in your initial post.

 

[Platte]

So good, so far.



Is it?

If you want to make a historical claim you'll need historical records.

Book of Genesis

 

[Ophiolite]

Book of Genesis

I understand many theologians dispute any literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Indeed, insisting upon a literal interpretation could be seen as an insult to the authors, who captured the aural traditions of the Hebrews in such moving and poetic fashion, delivering an awesome creation story to their future and our present.

I think the rest of Genesis would fail, by current standards, as a reliable historical record, but it has value as a source of broad brush insights.