Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Keachian]

I never met a Atheist who believed in the Genesis creation. But I have met confused Christians that were evolutionists. By deductive reasoning I can claim that evolution has more to do with Atheism than Christianity.

I have met confused Christians that are creationists, take Greg1234 for example or Cupid Dave. By deductive reasoning I can claim that creationism has more to do with Kabalism than Christianity.

 

[Zaius137]

Jesus love you… my brother.

 

[Keachian]

Jesus love you… my brother.

Jesus Loves Me - YouTube

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, no. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and written records can be false. To claim these sources are Foolproof is absurd. Just more Special Pleading from the creationist YEC camp.

If you witness a crime to a family member, be sure to mention how worthless your testimony is to the police.

Historians use historical records to confirm dates. It has to do with historical criticism. Not Creationism. The next task is to determine the likelihood that the writer stood behind their publishing's. Different sources have differing levels of credibility.

But all historical writings are accepted as far more credible than estimates, guesstimates, and Science Fiction(s).

 

[Keachian]

Sky writing you need to go look at the change in the understanding of what history is.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sky writing you need to go look at the change in the understanding of what history is.

I'm always entertained by the latest news stories. Which one do you refer to?

 

[Keachian]

here is a pretty good wikipedia article on the subject:
Philosophy of history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkyWriting]

here is a pretty good wikipedia article on the subject:
Philosophy of history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your point fails. The word "Change" is used 3 times in the link.
None of those match your idea that there has been a

change in the understanding of what history is.

So then I read through the additional reading and none of those titles suggest that anything about historical criticism has recently changed.
So if you find something that suggests that historical criticism has recently changed, let me know. A lack of such titles suggests you have changed. Not the methods of Criticism.

Berkhofer, Robert F. Beyond the great story: history as text and discourse. (Harvard University Press, 1995)
Berlin, Isaiah. Three critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder, (2000)
Rose, Elizabeta "The Philosophy of History" Writings of the Contemporary World (2011)
Collingwood, R. G. The idea of history. (1946)
Danto, Arthur Coleman. Analytical philosophy of history (1965)
Dilthey, Wilhelm. Introduction to the human sciences ed. by R. A. Makkreel and F. Rodi. (1883; 1989)
Gardiner, Patrick L. The nature of historical explanation. (1952)
Gardiner, Patrick L. ed. The philosophy of history, Oxford readings in philosophy. (1974)
Mink, Louis O. “Narrative form as a cognitive instrument.” in The writing of history: Literary form and historical understanding, Robert H. Canary and Henry Kozicki, eds. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1978.
Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative, Volume 1 and 2, University Of Chicago Press, 1990.
---. History and Truth. Translated by Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1983.
Jameson, Frederic. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981.
Muller, Herbert J. The Uses of the Past, New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Walsh, W.H. An Introduction to Philosophy of History. 1951.
White, Hayden V. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973).
White, Hayden V. The Fiction of Narrative: Essays on History, Literature, and Theory, 1957-2007. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010). Ed. Robert Doran.
Gisi, Lucas Marco: Einbildungskraft und Mythologie. Die Verschränkung von Anthropologie und Geschichte im 18. Jahrhundert, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2007.


Next I searched for "Our understanding of history". Still, no trend or headlines for "change". So it seems to be just you.
Unless you have some further evidence that there are changes going out there.

 

[RickG]

From RickG....

"Annual layers of ice cores currently only yield themselves to just under one million years. No one has claimed that they go any further back in time.......Counting annual layers is one thing. But deeper cores can be dated back millions of years by way of radiometrically dating particulates trapped in the ice below the annual layer limitation."


There is a conflict in the age of ice core dates from the two materialistic accepted dates of snow fall…

Please give citation. I smell a quote mine.



Maybe you have a cold…

“The ice began to spread, replacing the forests that then covered the continent. Since about 15 Ma, the continent has been mostly covered with ice,[37] with the Antarctic ice cap reaching its present extension around 6 Ma.”

Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


“A significant cooling transition occurrs 10 to15 Mya). This is reflected in an increase in the d18 O record between 14 and 15Ma, caused by the rapid growth of the Antarctic ice sheet (Shackleton & Kennet, 1975) and a deep water cooling event (4 to 5°C) (Moore et al., 1987).”

Geological Time Scale for the origins and evolution of life.


“The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million years
ago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice are
believed to be 15 million years old. “

Antarctic Ice

And your point is????? Please be specific.

 

[RickG]

Zaius137…Quit beating around the bush…


RickG… Really? Other readers of this thread. Please comment on who you perceive as beating around the bush.

You seemed to have scored the support of some fine participants.

Atheist viewpoints make some strange bedfellows…

Science is what it is. It has nothing to do with a person being Christian or Atheist.

 

[RickG]

Here's one for you Zaius, I would be interested in your young earth interpretation of this study.

Large decay rate variation of 7Be in Pd and Au

And here is a teaser from the abstract:

Platinum and gold have the similar crystal structure but different electronic affinities, as well
as different effective electron densities near the implanted ions. Both the differences favour
larger decay rate of 7Be in Pd than that in Au.

 

[Split Rock]

If you witness a crime to a family member, be sure to mention how worthless your testimony is to the police.

I will be sure to do so... especially when it comes to details, which different eyewitnesses to the same event often give different accounts of.

Historians use historical records to confirm dates. It has to do with historical criticism. Not Creationism. The next task is to determine the likelihood that the writer stood behind their publishing's. Different sources have differing levels of credibility.

The last part is indeed true. So, tell us... how do we determine the credibility of the writers of GEN? Do we examine the Creation itself? That would seem to indicate their credibility is very poor.

But all historical writings are accepted as far more credible than estimates, guesstimates, and Science Fiction(s).

Not necessarily. Many historical writings, especially from antiguity, are loaded with religious and mythological references, in addition to a very strong political bias. Not sure why you mention "science fiction." Who is comparing historical accounts to science fiction??

Finally, you are ignoring the context of my post. Do you agree that eyewitness tesitmony is foolproof?

 

[Split Rock]

I never met a Atheist who believed in the Genesis creation. But I have met confused Christians that were evolutionists. By deductive reasoning I can claim that evolution has more to do with Atheism than Christianity.

Wow... no wonder you are so confused! Your deductive reasoning skills are flawed. The reason no atheist believes in the Creation account (I am assuming you mean either the GEN1 or GEN2 account) is because they are not Christian. How many Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, etc., have you met who believe in the GEN creation account? I guess according to your "deductive reasoning" skills they are atheists too! Not to mention the simple fact that evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious dogma... someone who is not a Fundie Christian/Muslim/Jew would have no reason to reject it in favor of an out-dated, erroneous interpretation of scripture based on the Hebrew bible. That does not mean evolution has any more to do with atheism than it has to do with figure skating.

 

[SkyWriting]

I will be sure to do so... especially when it comes to details, which different eyewitnesses to the same event often give different accounts of.

So you intend to dismiss your own eyewitness account of violence to a family member. I doubt you will, but I admire your effort to talk a good story.

The last part is indeed true. So, tell us... how do we determine the credibility of the writers of GEN? Do we examine the Creation itself? That would seem to indicate their credibility is very poor.

There is no examining history except by written accounts.

Not necessarily. Many historical writings, especially from antiguity, are loaded with religious and mythological references, in addition to a very strong political bias. Not sure why you mention "science fiction." Who is comparing historical accounts to science fiction?

"Myth" is simply what one chooses not to believe. Nothing more. All scientific accounts of historical events are fiction. Some are great fiction. Some are hack-pulp fiction.

Finally, you are ignoring the context of my post. Do you agree that eyewitness tesitmony is foolproof?

It is not. All eyes are attached to fools and sinners. But those who write about historical events can be examined by peers and critics who can decide if the writings fit their memories or experiences. Also not fool-proof but far far more reliable than fictional accounts created from scratch.

 

[Split Rock]

So you intend to dismiss your own eyewitness account of violence to a family member. I doubt you will, but I admire your effort to talk a good story.

You are a funny guy. I never said I would dismiss my own account or anyone else's eye witness account. I said there are notoriously unreliable. That is a fact. Rather than argue against the reality of eyewitness testimony, you responded by injecting emotional appeal into the argument.. like a good little creationist.

There is no examining history except by written accounts.

Wrong. There are numerous examples of correcting inaccurate historical accounts by examining the physical evidence left from these events. A good example is what can be learned by examining old battlefields.. such as utilizing metal detectors to find spent rounds left behind. This can give us a more accurate description of where opposing sides really did fight from, then often inaccurate historical accounts.

"Myth" is simply what one chooses not to believe. Nothing more.

No. A myth is:

myth   /mɪθ/ Show Spelled[mith] Show IPA
noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Myth | Define Myth at Dictionary.com

You guys just love to redefine words to match whatever point you are trying to make.

All scientific accounts of historical events are fiction. Some are great fiction. Some are hack-pulp fiction.

LOL. More humor, I assume. Very funny stuff.

It is not. All eyes are attached to fools and sinners. But those who write about historical events can be examined by peers and critics who can decide if the writings fit their memories or experiences. Also not fool-proof but far far more reliable than fictional accounts created from scratch.

Nice to lower the bar for your own argument. So, after comparing GEN to "science fiction," you are now comparing it to "fictional accounts created from scratch." Too bad no one else here is comparing GEN to either. We use Science. The real deal. Your flawed, naive interpretation of scripture doesn't hold up to what science tells us. I won't apologize for it. If you can't handle that, too bad.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your flawed, naive interpretation of scripture doesn't hold up to what science tells us.

Science can say very little about the past. If you can't offer me the experiment to recreate an event, it's not science.

I had training in writing Science Fiction. You just take what facts you want to use, and create a fiction to fit what ever facts you choose to use.
It's "real". Real Science-Fiction. The farther you get from the present, the less anyone can question it. Everyone uses the technique. Sometimes we neglect to tell somebody the truth "until later". The farther from the event, the better we can come up with excuses as to why it happened.

 

[Phred]

Science can say very little about the past. If you can't offer me the experiment to recreate an event, it's not science.

It would truly surprise me if you had the slightest idea what science actually is. Once again you show your ignorance.

I had training in writing Science Fiction. You just take what facts you want to use, and create a fiction to fit what ever facts you choose to use.
It's "real". Real Science-Fiction. The farther you get from the present, the less anyone can question it. Everyone uses the technique. Sometimes we neglect to tell somebody the truth "until later". The farther from the event, the better we can come up with excuses as to why it happened.

That works when you're making stuff up. Same way the Bible authors came up with how the world was created. Although they also had the luxury of being able to execute those that questioned them.

Thing is, you are desperate to question science. You need to call it into question. Same way you need to call atheism a religion. It's all about making your own views seem reasonable. You tear down that which calls your views into question.

Only, it doesn't work that way. Science is evidence-based. We use data to base conclusions upon. You don't get to pretend that science is just a bunch of random thoughts like religion so you can put them on the same shelf. Your ideas belong over there on the shelf with Zeus and RA and Mithras and the like.

Now run along with your vague accusations. You might try propping your ideas up instead of constantly offering up false versions of what you think is undermining you.

 

[Split Rock]

Science can say very little about the past. If you can't offer me the experiment to recreate an event, it's not science.

If you can't explain how the present is not built up piece by piece from the past, then I'll take your assertion with a grain of salt.

I had training in writing Science Fiction. You just take what facts you want to use, and create a fiction to fit what ever facts you choose to use.
It's "real". Real Science-Fiction. The farther you get from the present, the less anyone can question it. Everyone uses the technique. Sometimes we neglect to tell somebody the truth "until later". The farther from the event, the better we can come up with excuses as to why it happened.

Your assertion that certain types of science = science fiction is empty. You're motives are clear... bury any tool that can be used to show your creationist -fiction is false.

 

[Zaius137]

Here's one for you Zaius, I would be interested in your young earth interpretation of this study.

Large decay rate variation of 7Be in Pd and Au

And here is a teaser from the abstract:

Platinum and gold have the similar crystal structure but different electronic affinities, as well
as different effective electron densities near the implanted ions. Both the differences favour
larger decay rate of 7Be in Pd than that in Au.

Looks interesting but the connection repeatedly times out…. I will try later.

 

[Zaius137]

And your point is????? Please be specific.

Rick….

My point was to show a disparity in the derived dates from ice core research
(< 1 million years) and the accepted dates for the first ice accumulation on that continent (the 15 million year date). In doing this I hoped for you to draw a conclusion of what might be the reason for disparity in the two interpretations. I also hoped to show the fragility of the root assumptions leading to the date conclusions. As I saw your options you would either favor one set of assumptions over the other or try and reconcile the disparity (hence the ad-hoc nonsense from Cabvet).

It was my attempt to set against one interpretation over the other&#8230;

I was later going to dump this little chestnut on the fire if you decided to opt for the ad-hoc explication&#8230;. Since the greatest depth of Antarctic ice is ~4700 meters and the Vostok station reached 3623 meters with an assumed date of 400k years. Where did 13.6 million years go to?


"In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999)."

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core



I opted for this form of argument over the &#8220;logos&#8221; form that (dad) was using.