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

Fire does burn.

When you see fire,... put your hand in it.

 

But that's not where you ended it....you also said " that have not been proven to be true"

And as we see so often here, you don't believe ANYTHING can be proven true...if you don't already accept it as true.

 

I am seeing 'fire' on the monitor right now... I touch my hand to the "fire" and it feels cold. Now what?

 

Incoporeal, when you resort to "cutesy" snarks to basic questions.....how does that DISprove what I have said about your debating "style"?

 

These are the assumptions that have not been proven to be true:
"(1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[SUP][3][/SUP] Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid." The definitions of the word 'assumption' is where the remainder comes from:
"4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:" Meaning that the scientific method only has the belief of its followers as a foundation...

It seems that you do not like definitions and explanations that are offered by others... even when those others are not 'me'. Could it be that you are opposed to anything that does not fall in accord to your way of thinking? Could it be that you hold a bias against some other explanation? Could it be that your judgment is prejudicial in spite of the socially accepted definitions of terms?

 

It shows that you are not giving consideration to all the 'facts' that you have opted to use in your responses. I did as instructed. Now there is a problem with the fact that I followed the instructions to the letter. My goodness.

 

I'm simply saying the spiritual world and our physical operate on different laws.

 

BTW, back on-topic.....have you noticed that none of the Creationists have been...on-topic?

I'm still waiting to see the "Creationist time-lne". (No cupid dave, I don't want to see your "The First Day was 10 billion years, the Second Day was 550 million years, etc. chart, again.)

 

Oh yes? Could you explain the laws of the spiritual world, please.

If you don't know what they are, you shouldn't be claiming they're different.

 

Whether you're a YE creationist or an old Earth creationist, the basis for all creationism is Genesis and Genesis gets it horribly and impossibly wrong.

 

Obviously Genesis is flawed....because it is Young Earth...and thus needed to be revised into "Old Earth Creationism" to try to prop it up.

The basic chronology fails. Genesis uses the word "day"....same word used for a 24 hour day. Additionally, If you back-date (as the Bishop Ussur did) the ages given for the persons listed in the Bible, upto the approximate time history shows that Israel was established......you get a ball-park figure of Creation taking place about 4000 BCE (Ussur made it so precise he called it October 23rd, 4004 BCE).

Right off we know that is false....by simple astro-physics. If "the stars" were made on the Fourth Day of Creation....it would have been October 26th, 4004 BCE.

So....ANY star (even galaxies) more than 6018 lightyears from Earth.....should be invisible to us. There would not have been time for the light from those stars to reach us.

And of course numerous other flaws that show up from basic astronomy, geology, etc.


Sooooooo....they came up with "Old Earth Creationism" (several varients including Cupid Dave's "The First Day was 10 Billion years, but the Second Day was 550 Million years, and the Third Day was 60 million years" blah, blah, blah). Suddenly "days"...are not "days"....they're "ages"...thousands, millions of years. Despite the fact that the word "day" is used throughout the Bible and means....a 24 hour day.

I always got a kick from Old Earth Creationists who tried to claim "The 'days' in Genesis could have been millions of years long"....and then I asked them "Oh, so does that mean that Jesus was dead and buried for ....THIRTY MILLION YEARS?"

 

Are you 100% certain that it is not the interpretations by man that are in error?

 

IOW, "The Bible is perfect....it's just our human interpretations of it that are flawed"....right?

 

That is one possibility that cannot be arbitrarily cast aside.

 

If the human READERS of the Bible may be flawed.....could the human AUTHORS of the Bible siimilarly be flawed?

 

A person can still realize something without being able to define it.

 

That's completely unmeasurable, especially considering there's no reason other than wanting to that a person should believe the bible is anything BUT the word of man. We have no record of the source of the Genesis interpretations or even a record that there WAS a definite source. And considering that the alleged source was God, there should be no errors at all. None. That'd be like Albert Einstein being unable to explain E=MC2.

Occam's Razor tells us that the most likely cause of Genesis inaccuracy was because the authors of Genesis simply had no idea whatsoever. They made it all up.

 

All humans are flawed... including YOU and me.

 

Actually Occams razor states "that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

Now considering that the Bible has only one assumption... creation by God... and the scientific method contains three relating to objective reality.. (which three are the basis for the scientific method), then the rule of occams razor would be in favor of the Bible. In other words, the simplest answer is the one that should be selected... God did it.

 

Occam's Razor isn't just about the quantity of assumptions, it's about the substance. "God did it" is one gigantic completely unsubstantiated assumption that flies in the face of everything we've learned through science. When we're talking specifically about Genesis inaccuracies, which is where I invoked Occam's Razor, it is much more likely and requires nearly no assumption that the authors of Genesis simply had no rational basis on which to write what they wrote when you consider two things. First, it's entirely vague and non-descriptive, and two, even though it is simple, it still gets the chronology wrong. When we add to it the fact that the source for Genesis is supposed to be God, a being alleged to be all-knowing and all-powerful, there's really no rational explanation for the bible getting it wrong other than that the bible is a work of fiction.

 

And when we have learned that the scientific method is one gigantic unsubstantiated assumption that flies in the face of truth, decency, and honesty.... then you have no room to complain about one assumption that has according to you has "no substance".

Of course not.. that man-made 'logic' had not been developed at that time. They also had no reason to rationalize (make excuses for) what they were doing.

Like 'objective reality' has been clearly defined and given ample description? LOL. There is a thread entitle "what is objective reality' and all of the brilliant people on this forum, have not yet been able to provide such description that the description could be classified as a socially acceptable definition. Then there is another thread entitle "what is truth" and the same brilliant people on this forum cannot even satisfy a meaningful definition of that term. Now you want to complain about something being 'vague and non-descriptive'? That is the best joke I have heard all day.

Sure there is a rational reason... that reason is that God placed it in the hands of man who had already screwed up... Did God make a mistake in doing that? NO! It shows how really infantile yet arrogant is the thinking of man. You can place the label of 'fiction' on the 'Bible' if you so desire, however be mindful of the fact that there are scholars in this world who established a cataloging system for libraries and in their minds the 'Bible' is categorically NOT listed as "Fiction".