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.
History isn't required in order to obtain one's own direct observations. Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed you possessed common sense enough to know this.
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.
We can verify history, yes. Although repeating what was reported only verifies that it is possible to obtain x results. The account could still be false, although it is not usually the case.
Just as you can test the process of evolution today, or repeat experiments that have been done in the lab and in the field.
Fine. Evolve us a man from a rock. Or a man from an ape. Or any life from a rock or rock soup.
So it is more important to get the facts right than to make everything fit history.
Utter nonsense. Because there is only one reality, all actual facts, when properly understood, must conform to this reality. The past is singular, and true history must agree with this past and all facts (common definition - not RAZD definition). Getting history right and getting the facts right are exactly the same thing, and nothing can be more important than itself.
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.
Reenactments have limited value, but are still an investigative tool.
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.
You don't seem to be very clear about what you claim I am claiming.
The story of the flood has been verified in several ways.
All of them by ignoring most of the evidence.
Quite the contrary. We have flood stories from all over the world, and even long-suppressed evidence that several cultures trace their ancestry to Noah & sons. It is pretty clear what evidence is being ignored by whom.
But I must remind readers that RAZD uses the term 'evidence' to refer to conclusions of evolutionists, and in the interest of clear communication I add that I do not accept the conclusions of evolutionists. They are contrary to history, science, and reality as we know it.
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.
I do not see a problem with a clam being 20 years old at the time of the flood. Was there something special that occurred 20 years prior to the flood which prevented clams from breeding? Please explain your new evomyth more fully, that we may all have a good laugh.
Snelling lies, and AiG does not test for truth, but don't take my word for it:
I shan't. Neither shall I take the word of your surrogate slanderer. His conclusion, unsurprisingly, is bogus. He points out that Snelling's interpretations are different than evolutionists' and says this makes Snelling a liar. Wow!
He catches Snelling speaking evolutionese and says this makes there 2 Snellings. Wow again! I have myself employed evolutionese on more than one occasion, so how many of me are there? Is speaking evolutionese cloning or something?
From your history, it is not surprising that you attack the man rather than the argument. Observe how I differ. I have attacked your evolutionists argument;
now I will address his accuracy.RAZD's evoslandersource, one Dr Alex Ritchie, says
It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.
But he later quotes Snelling as writing
Wherever fossils or organic matter are found in the geological column the rocks containing the fossils were deposited either by or after Noah's Flood regardless of their assumed geological age. (1984, 42).
Now 'after Noah's flood' is certainly not synonymous with 'during Noah's flood', is it? Neither is 'rocks containing fossils' synonymous with 'everything geologic'.
Perhaps Ritchie attributes this to 'Snelling3' in his own imagination, but forgot to tell us? I should expect there's only one Snelling, Ritchie's fiction notwithstanding.
The boy's amateurish distortions aren't very amusing. He says
This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal - except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.
Which is just about as sorry a straw man as one can construct. This is a gross insult to the intellect of anyone who's ever studied creation science whether they accept it or not. Well, almost anyone. Those with short enough attention spans & other memory-related disorders might forget what they've read.
But the poor-of-memory and short-of-attention-span needn't despair. They have only to scroll up a few inches and they can see where Ritchie has himself included this quote from creationists
(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
Is his own attention span so short? If so, just how much do we care to adopt conclusions on his say-so? He seems to be a poor historian indeed! I could go on and on, but I won't waste any more time. On a bad day LindaLou's fiction is the equal of this junk.
Editing to add more funny:
RAZD links to slander of Andrew Snelling, but Snelling is just the author of this one article. You need more slander because if you read the article you'll find[quote]Two creationists have done much to provide a satisfactory response to these objections against Flood geology
