Talk:Creationism and social history

Is this more of an essay than an article? I don't see what is being "defined" here, though the information is interesting. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

delete or move to essay or what?

I agree with WFG. What is this mess for anyway? ħuman 05:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Another article against a literal interpretation of the bible. How about we give these a consistent titling system, like Biblical chronology: a social history perspective and round up a few others similar. - π 05:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the title sucks, and only vaguely relates to the content. It still reads like an essay, and maybe it should be one. "Christian young earth creationists would have us believe that the world is somewhat over 6000 years old, having been created shortly before 4000 BCE." as an opening sentence is very vague, unless it's an essay. ħuman 05:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The only problem is the title. perhaps we could have a contest, with a year's supply of goats as the first prize. Totnesmartin 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The content is reasonably interesting but, as others have said, he title doesn't tell you a lot. It really should be "Creationism ... but even then it's not very informative. A long title might "Arguments against a YEC worldview based on social history". But, while such a title would be accurate, it doesn't really run nicely off the tongue.--Bob^{Not Jim} 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Creationism versus social history"? ħuman 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

BoN's question

So how would 'one family of a species which does not reach breeding age for 12-15 years interbreeding' produce the 'tens of millions' suggested in [1] rather than [2] within a few centuries or, becoming effective clones, succumbing to an outbreak of disease (paralleling what happened to elms in the UK a few decades ago)? (There were, no doubt, significant floods and other natural disasters resulting in population bottlenecks in the prehistoric past - so there may be a memory of actual events distorted in multiple retellings.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could rephrase this question a little more clearly?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the Creationists 'the Flood which reduced the world's population to a handful of people' occurred in historical times - and managed to expand within 'a very short time' into tens of millions of diverse people - rather than in a few generations to 'persons more related to themselves than Charles II of Spain' who would be all susceptible to the same version of a disease with high fatality rates (which is one component of what happened to the UK's elms in the outbreak of Dutch Elm Disease a few decades ago - simplifying the story).

The last sentence recognizes that 'the Bible story' may reflect a simplified version of what had happened in the past. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1000 BCE?

Where does the figure of 1000 BCE as the beginning of history come from? The sentence doesn't make a great deal of sense, and there's no source cited. The oldest written history texts from the Middle East are generally reckoned to be Herodotus or Thucydides in the 5th century BCE. Some texts go back further e.g. the Old Testament - some people claim the story of David is historical goes back to around 1000 BCE, although there is only a single, contested source for that, save a few vague inscriptions. Maybe the Iliad dates back to describe events of around 1000 BCE but is it a reliable historical record? Wikipedia vaguely mentions that the earliest texts in the Middle East were around 2600 BCE but they're not specifically historical accounts beyond maybe names of kings, etc.[3] The article needs to decide what it's trying to claim, and then find evidence for that claim. --Annanoon (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)