I'd love for a Creationist to state and defend their time-line

Now that is a good possibility.... Have you asked Peter what he meant by what he said?

 

such an important point!

 

it's arrogance if the individual claiming knowledge they don't have is of even modest intelligence and education. the only folk who could genuinely claim innocence is those who really are not capable (for reasons of intellectual disability or extreme youth) of understanding the difference. and it gets worse still, when the person professing such knowledge knows full well they don't have it, but keeps claiming it anyway ... because you're then talking about intentional falsehood.

I'm not sure why you think 'faith' would be a reason or an excuse for anything.

 

That's:

the worst point of the entire thread. No offense to the author. I understand they believe that way and that is theirs. However, attribution to a source beyond our knowledge is how your theories and where your "knowledge" comes from. I can go on, but objectively weigh what I just said.

 

no, it isn't. there's a universe of difference between "I wonder if god did it with magic" and "let's consider and review the available (empirical) information and find an answer to this particular riddle."

 

Aristotle's law of absolute truth answers that for a Christian.

 

You can't argue, however, that your information was born from the notion "there is something more we don't know". And to that point it renders that line of thinking meaningless.

 

And what specifically was "Aristotle's law of absolute truth"?

 

I maintain that we only really started asking serious questions about all that reality we didnt understand, when we stopped assuming god did it with magic. Hence the astounding leaps we've made in the past 200 years. I maintain that not knowing, and WANTING to know is the driver. Taking the position that you do know (religion) can have the opposite effect, as you're effectively saying you don't want to ACTUALLY know.

 

To follow that line of thinking, you also need believe none of those researchers believed or were influenced by their belief in God.

 

This is absolute truth specific to the topic. http://www.absolutetruth.net/absolute_truth/

 

We actually begin with hypothesis to form theory, and test the hypothesis quite severely for accuracy and its ability to be verified as possibility in reality before allowing it to advance into theory. In this way the theory is no longer "Beyond our Knowledge", but has proven itself to be worthy and capable of further study to increase said knowledge beyond that required to become hypothesis.
If something fails the hypothesis test....it cannot advance into theory, thus the worldwide flood, living inside a whale for three days, re-animation of a human being, making a human out of mud, and even God remain hypothesis at best. There are times during the hypothesis examination that something not only fails the testing process but is shown to be impossible or unavailable to scientific evaluation, these are simply dismissed as invalid and science moves on.
There are also times (often), that one hypothesis is quickly replaced with more accurate data and cannot advance, as a more useful theory is already in place (Hurricanes, evolution...etc...). I have objectively weighed what you just said...please go on.

 

Though I agree with most of what is written in the article, there is no mention of Aristotle. How then can you conclude that this would be an answer to my previous question "what specifically was 'Aristotle's law of absolute truth?'

 

What does that have to do with it? Up until very recently, everyone on the planet was religious - or pretended to be.

 

That was specific to the topic. Aristotle argues law of non-contradiction. Unlike modus ponens, PNC is not a rule of inference. Aristotle says that it is a principle which “is necessary for anyone to have who knows any of the things that are” (Metaph IV 3 1005b15). It is no mere hypothesis.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/#1
Also, his rebuttal to universality helpful.

 

Although I am not a 'creationist' and by no means do I defend the philosophy, I do have a somewhat 'open' mind. So I have to ask the question; can 'big bangers' honestly "state and defend their time-line"? I think not. Too many 'dangling theories'. Too many 'options'. Too many 'variables'.

 

No, but then they dont try to. Or pretend they know.

 

I understand the process but they are required to develop thinking that is beyond reach. Near his death, Einstein spoke about the vastness of the universe and how he is bound by his own intellect. Not being able to imagine and understand the mysteries of the universe was something he concluded is never possible b/c we are not God. He did afterall, believe in a God that influenced or universe. He just didn't believe in a personal God we can talk to.

 

As we are in agreement and I do not wish to delve into this new pathway of discussion....I thank you and will take my leave.

 

No empirical evidence either confirms reality or defines it.

which is completely straightened out. Its just your mind's refusal to compell itself to accept facts.

Of course they have to be proven to be false. If the supporting assumptions of a methodology are not correct, then the methodology, its application and the outcomes would be if not false highly suspect.

How odd that you cannot decipher a couple of minor spelling mistakes. An added letter in one word and a transposition in another. Given the levels of literacy in today's society, it must be excruciatingly irritating to be a grammar nazi.

Not at all. It doesn't hurt in the slightest.

And the scientific community has provided PROOF of claim for their methodology.
Its all around you, in the technology you use, the food you eat, the knowledge that is taught, the scientific enquiries being conducted.

Actually its billions of iterations of the methodology, all providing consistent evidence of those underlying methodological assumptions and when accumulated provide clear proof that the methodology is true and accurate.

Again, despite overwhelming empirical evidence your mind simply cannot compell you to believe.
Must be an enormous burden to disbelieve that which surrounds you every day.

Look up contrary in the dictionary - oooh, look an irrelevant semantic comment since its clear what you are attempting to say. Maybe its just me and I have this language superpower.

I find it amusing that you attempt the ol' "two wrongs" fallacy. Not to mention it doesn't change the fact that semantic word play does not an argument make.

That is the entire purpose of language.
Not word play, but the communication of concepts, ideas, knowledge, emotions, needs etc.

Unless of course word play is all ya got.

Oh? You might want to brush up on the subject of conceptual semantics, since you appear to be wholly concerned with lexical semantics.

 

Show me a peer reviewed paper that says the Big Bang didn't happen; that there was no definitive beginning to the universe. As an alternative, show where the experimental reconstruction of the Big Bang was held and definitive measurements taken. There is no direct evidence.

 

Ah, but the OP was about theists defending their timeline, something science can't do, either.

 

No, that might be a bit out of my capabilities, haha!

After I posted that though, I did start to second guess my hypothesis; as maybe it was just his way of saying that the Lord sees both short times and long times as one continuum.

 

Then the claims of both Plato and Aristotle regarding the existence of Socrates, must meet the same requirement(s). Can you show PROOF of claim that Socrates did exist?

 

"maybe"? Uncertainty abounds.