Sorry for the delay getting back to you CTD, but it seems we have some more improvements ... if not a total rebuild?
Sorry, CTD, but history is just not that special.
History is the science by which all the others are known. If history is not valid, none of the knowledge of other types which it brings to us are valid either. It sets the boundary on certainty.
For instance, you cannot be confident that a given observation was made if you doubt the report. Same goes for experiments, discoveries, and everything else. So it's pretty important to get history right.
Six people in my room can agree that at this singular moment there is a table in my room, no history needed. Any time you have multiple observation of evidence you don't need history to discuss it.
It is the work of but seconds to come up with examples that falsify your assertion.
But more than that: in science we have the principle of reproducibility. An experiment that was done 100 years ago can be repeated without needing history to tell you the result, and more importantly, if you doubt the historical account of the experiment you can test it.
Just as you can test the process of evolution today, or repeat experiments that have been done in the lab and in the field.
So it is more important to get the facts right than to make everything fit history. Likewise errors is history have not been uncovered by going back and reliving it, but by uncovering evidence that shows the historical story to be false.
If you have evidence which cannot be reconciled with established history, you're welcome to present it. I don't think this is the case with the famous White Cliffs of Dover.
There are many cases of evidence that has shown "established history" to have mistakes, errors or falsehoods, and that it is not necessarily any more trustworthy than anecdotal evidence.
The problem, though, is that you are claiming that "established history" is something else besides the accumulation of historical documents from around the world, something specific, something that isn't history but mythology.
The story of the flood has been verified in several ways.
All of them by ignoring most of the evidence.
A twenty year old clam shell on a mountain top presents problems for anyone thinking it is evidence of a biblical flood that only lasted a couple hundred
days, especially when you have delicate organisms preserved undamaged, along with evidence of a fully mature marine environment, complete with bore holes and layers on layers of growth, growth that took hundreds of
years to occur.
Snelling lies, and AiG does not test for truth, but don't take my word for it:
1 - 10 of about 5,520 for "andrew snelling lies".
[quote] AIG gives us Andrew Snelling - IIDB
Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to ... Some of you have probably read Ian Pilmer's "Telling Lies for God". ...
iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=211269 - 118k - Cached - Similar pages
Andrew Snelling vs. Andrew Snelling [Archive] - Rants 'n Raves
Consider the strange case of Dr. Andrew Snelling (at CreationWiki ...... It was just a big dodge and an excuse for Snelling to lie for Jesus here ...
www.rantsnraves.org/archive/index.php/t-3292.html - 91k - Cached - Similar pages
Excess Argon and Excess Lies II
Andrew A. Snelling started his
