Historical Vs. Young-earth Science

[PiSquare]

We were not present at major events in ancient history, but through logical analysis and historical evidence, reliable conclusions are reached about what happened in the past. Yet, young-earth creationists disagree. They firmly state that we cannot be sure about historical events because were were not there in person to see it happen.

 

Although it would not be too challenging to refute the views of the young-earth creationists (I think), I often wondered how sure we (this generation) can be of the validity of records on ancient people living for 700, 900 even a 1000+ years. Maybe they calculated a year different than we do today? Maybe reference was made to visitors from another solar system? Or maybe people really grew that old?

 

I would love to hear the opinion of fellow forum members on the views of the young-earth creationists.

 

 

[ErlyRisa]

 

We were not present at major events in ancient history, but through logical analysis and historical evidence, reliable conclusions are reached about what happened in the past. Yet, young-earth creationists disagree. They firmly state that we cannot be sure about historical events because were were not there in person to see it happen.

 

Although it would not be too challenging to refute the views of the young-earth creationists (I think), I often wondered how sure we (this generation) can be of the validity of records on ancient people living for 700, 900 even a 1000+ years. Maybe they calculated a year different than we do today? Maybe reference was made to visitors from another solar system? Or maybe people really grew that old?

 

I would love to hear the opinion of fellow forum members on the views of the young-earth creationists.

 

 

Interestingly enough, I actually have figured this one out?

 

Aholes that run the system seem to have doctored this new trend; ie, the alternate theorists.

 

Sadly I agree with the people that started the trend. It gives us something to talk about, and something worth fighting for... FACT!!!

 

FACT: is what I uphold most dearly, I find it more important to me than ever being happy.

 

sadly, I am not happy: because for the first time in history fallacy will seem more and more like fact. Creating fictional facts (forgery) used to be left too the domain of those trying to make a quick dollar, eg. counterfeit, or artefact replication/generation.

 

now

its actually dangerous.

 

Pharmaceutical products that have nothing todo with the patented product

Archeological evidence that have nothing todo with the stratum

Body parts that have nothing todo with human cells.

Silicon/Software that have nothing todo with their intended purpose.

 

ie. Ability of the LIAR today, is just as able as the ones seeking truth, sadly its the "little" people left behind (the masses) that are the ones that have to take the brunt of it...from both sides.

 

PS

Yes there are even more alternative theories...apart from the latest offerings of "young earth" - I can think of hundreds and thousands if I were happy, and were able to discount my facts. (But sadly, that may no longer be very creative anymore)

[Buffy]

Interestingly the Young Earth Creationists are pretty much the same people who deny climate change too. So, it would appear that even theories that have ample evidence that they can observe directly themselves are things they don't believe in either.

Just a cover for the fact that reality is offensive to them.

"You say your house burned to the ground? I'm sorry, that's only a theory: there's no evidence I can see that it ever existed in the first place."


Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away, :phones:
Buffy

[maddog]

All the evidence on lifetimes so far have been based the breakdown of the tolameres (ends of chromosomes), or the inability of some genes in expression to produce the proper proteins. Estimates on how long naturally one could last is more conjecture than fact. If I were to guess this would naturally peak at 120 years. Now if one could perfect the above two items (or at least minimize), then maybe longer. This could be a sci-fi story line...

 

maddog

[ErlyRisa]

 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away, :phones:

Buffy

 

I like looking at your ending lines.

 

I would argue this one: Sometimes reality is hidden, because you believed in something "basic" for so long.

 

eg. Theory of Strings/M - dimensions we can't see.

[PiSquare]

All the evidence on lifetimes so far have been based the breakdown of the tolameres (ends of chromosomes), or the inability of some genes in expression to produce the proper proteins. Estimates on how long naturally one could last is more conjecture than fact. If I were to guess this would naturally peak at 120 years. Now if one could perfect the above two items (or at least minimize), then maybe longer. This could be a sci-fi story line... maddog

 

Can it be that people grew much older before the deluge in Noah's time (irrespective of religion, geologists have proven that the living earth was battered by a huge flood about 6000-4000 years ago). Before the flood (according to some geologists), the earth was protected by a huge mist-cloud layer. The air was moist, no direct sunlight, so the body aged slowly and gracefully. The flood was caused by the collapse of this massive layer of clouds which changed life dramatically into direct sunlight, accelerated fermentation (with a very intoxicated Noah), dry air... a perfect setting for faster ageing of the human body.

Edited July 8, 2014 by PiSquare

[Turtle]

Can it be that people grew much older before the deluge in Noah's time (irrespective of religion, geologists have proven that the living earth was battered by a huge flood about 6000-4000 years ago). Before the flood (according to some geologists), the earth was protected by a huge mist-cloud layer. The air was moist, no direct sunlight, so the body aged slowly and gracefully. The flood was caused by the collapse of this massive layer of clouds which changed life dramatically into direct sunlight, accelerated fermentation (with a very intoxicated Noah), dry air... a perfect setting for faster ageing of the human body.

In a word; bullshit.

[Turtle]

Index to Creationist Claims: Geology

[Buffy]

Can it be that people grew much older before the deluge in Noah's time (irrespective of religion, geologists have proven that the living earth was battered by a huge flood about 6000-4000 years ago)?

 

No.

 

 

Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple, :phones:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

I would love to hear the opinion of fellow forum members on the views of the young-earth creationists.

Unfortunately forum rules and good manners prevent me from providing an accurate and comprehensive opinion on their views, but here are some related observations:

 

YECs typically hold to the inerrant nature of the Bible. Thus, if observation or experiment disagree with what it says in the Bible, then the observation or experiment is faulty, or - the claim often made - it is a forgery, or a deliberate lie intended to promote the cynical, atheist world view of those dastardly evolutionists.

 

It is not possible to hold a rational argument with someone holding this worldview. It is the antithesis of science, since the conclusion of any experiment is decided in advance. (Perhaps this is why promoters of ID, a thinly disguised creationist front, conduct so few experiments to investigate their hypothesis. /sarcasm.)

 

I grew up by the seaside. I saw how the action of tides and waves worked the beach deposits, reducing them in size, rounding them off and moving them up, or down the coast. At university I learned how the character of a sedimentary rock, its composition, grain size, shape and angularity, its sorting and internal structure and external relationships revealed much about its environment of deposition.

 

Yet YECs reject this, espousing nonsensical ideas of sediments sorting out from the flood. I become enraged by the gross stupidity of such a view and the intransigent ignorance that promotes such a level of self delusion. If there is an Abrahamic God he must be weeping in despair at the convoluted, ignorant thinking of some of his creations.

 

They firmly state that we cannot be sure about historical events because were were not there in person to see it happen.

 

They conveniently omit to mention that they were not there to witness the miracles of Jesus, or to see Jesus himself, but rely instead, not upon the notoriously unreliable eye witness reports, but the interpretations of third hand versions of an oral tradition of eye witness reports. (It amazes me that so few fundamentalist Christians have bought the Brooklyn Bridge.)

 

Although it would not be too challenging to refute the views of the young-earth creationists (I think), I often wondered how sure we (this generation) can be of the validity of records on ancient people living for 700, 900 even a 1000+ years. Maybe they calculated a year different than we do today? Maybe reference was made to visitors from another solar system? Or maybe people really grew that old?

Or maybe they were poorly educated peasants with a gift for metaphor.

[HydrogenBond]

Manmade global warming/climate change also makes use of young earth science by ignoring the evidence that global cooling/heating and major climate changes have occurred, naturally, many times in the earth's billion year past and therefore, what we now see may quite well be more of the same. Instead it only looks at very young earth science for 100 years, and not even 6000 years, to draw all its conclusions, as though the earth just began and the past cycles can be ignored. 

 

One way to infer that very young earth science is being used are the predictions never seem to work out on the dates scheduled over the past 30 years. This is either due to poor science or because they ignore the role of cycles found in old earth science. Those who use young earth science that is 6000 years old notice that climate has undergone change along the entire time line, such as 1000 AD, and not just in the 100 year span of very young earth science of manmade global warming. They don't agree with this very young earth science of 100 years. 

 

If we compare young earth science to very young earth science, the former in the bible says that god will not flood the earth again. While the latter predicts another earth wide flood. Here is a good contest to see which of the two young earth sciences is better. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Turtle]

...If we compare young earth science to very young earth science, the former in the bible says that god will not flood the earth again. While the latter predicts another earth wide flood. Here is a good contest to see which of the two young earth sciences is better. The contest should be over in a few decades unless the line in the sand is moved again.

Piss off -again- with your anti-scientific equivocations HBond. It is as always just so much bullshit and as unwelcome here as it ever was. :evil:

[HydrogenBond]

Manmade global warming assumes man has caused this over the past 100 years. This is very young earth because it ignore the longer term cycles of the earth that have occurred in the past. There are two versions of young earth science assumptions, one that is 100 years and the other that is 6000 years, both leave out old earth science which came before, and still has an impact. I am not claiming religion is old world science but in the middle. 

 

I mention the flood because that is a prediction of the 100 year old very young earth science. If religion wins the bet this does not prove religion is right, but it does prove short term earth it is better than very short term earth POV. 

 

Try to stay on topic and not be so emotional and personal. I believe in historical earth as the reason we have modern climate change; for the record. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Turtle]

...

 

Do you believe in old earth science of global warming; cycles, or very young earth science of 100 years?

I believe you are full of crap and have no intention other than to try & discredit science just as you always have here. Go away and stay away. :evil:

Edited September 3, 2014 by Turtle

[Buffy]

Manmade global warming assumes man has caused this over the past 100 years. This is very young earth because it ignore the longer term cycles of the earth that have occurred in the past.

 

This is a complete misrepresentation of climate science, which does indeed fully consider all cycles of all lengths that are identifiable in the geological and hydrological record.

 

Your terms "(very) young earth science" and "old earth science" have no accepted meaning, and what can be inferred from your post indicates they are arbitrary and ignore the reality of the scientific method.

 

While it is indeed popular today to slap the term "science" on various religious teachings, they are beliefs that are not in the least bit scientific (or in which the "science" part is added ex post facto in service of a pre-defined "truth").

 

If you wish to be taken seriously in the discussion of climate science theories and data, it's best not to make stuff up.

 

You're free to be not taken seriously of course, but don't blame others for that.

 

 

Sentence first -- verdict afterwards, :phones:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

Manmade global warming/climate change also makes use of young earth science by ignoring the evidence that global cooling/heating and major climate changes have occurred, naturally, many times in the earth's billion year past and therefore, what we now see may quite well be more of the same.

There is no such thing as Young Earth Science.

The patterns of past climate change, over long periods, are an intergral part of current theories on global warming. Your ignorance of this fact reveals that you are not competent, at present, to discuss this subject.

The rate of change of relevant parameters appears to be, in toto, greater than at any time in the past, a fact - along with so many others - you choose to ignore.

 

Instead it only looks at very young earth science for 100 years, and not even 6000 years, to draw all its conclusions, as though the earth just began and the past cycles can be ignored. 

I don't think even the bulk of climate change deniers make such a silly claim. Would it not be beneficial for you to properly study a topic before commenting on it?

 

One way to infer that very young earth science is being used are the predictions never seem to work out on the dates scheduled over the past 30 years.

Please provide citations that substantiate this claim.

 

This is either due to poor science or because they ignore the role of cycles found in old earth science.

You have missed the third explanation: your premise is false.

 

If we compare young earth science to very young earth science, the former in the bible says that god will not flood the earth again. While the latter predicts another earth wide flood. Here is a good contest to see which of the two young earth sciences is better.

Some people laugh when they see someone fall on a banana peel. I have always felt sorrow for the victim. I feel much the same way when I read your posts.