Member (Idle past 2989 days)
From: Riverside, CA
Message 1 of 2 (412437)
07-24-2007 6:14 PM
I often hear YEC objections to mainstream geology based on the assertion that it is impossible to know with certainty events that occurred prior to human history because nobody was there to witness it. I would like to discuss the validity of geology and historical science in general as methods of discovering truth about the past.
Briefly, I will just say that time is opaque to us. We can only see and experience the slice of time that is the present. We can't see the past any more than we can see the future. The only way we can know about any past event is by viewing a record of the past. Our memorys are records of the past that our brains make, and not very good ones. A photograph can be a better record, but it only shows certain information. Human testimony as a record can be affected by memories (which may be faulty), vested interest, language barriers etc. People lie. A physical record of a past event can't lie. I would much rather have a photograph, a fingerprint, DNA evidence, than a person's testimony. Our knowledge of past events depends on the quality of the records. We know that Trilobites existed in the Cambrian with more certainty than we know who killed JFK.
Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.