Creational Perception Ratio

[RickG]

you are trusting in conclusions that are based on assumptions, because nobody can wait millions of years for something to happen, so you are basing YOUR belief on assumptions that are formulated by people that do not have all the information necessary to state the truth of the matter exactly, and you chose to believe it. well that is your choice, I have no problem with that, but I'm just saying my trusted source is better than yours because it comes directly from the mouth of the One that created and recreated the whole thing.

Assumptions? Is that a reference to geologic dating methods? If so, what do you perceive as an assumption?

 

[RickG]

yes there is evidence, but the conclusion always depends on which dim glass your looking through.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Hallstone]

That's what organizations do, including Christian organizations; everyone has an agenda.

And that is why we no longer participate in the Organizations.

 

[Hallstone]

Assumptions? Is that a reference to geologic dating methods? If so, what do you perceive as an assumption?

The scientific models are incomplete, they like to believe that they aren't, but the fact is that no persons facts are complete , just like Paul said, we are looking at creation through a dim glass. There is information that has not been discovered yet, and there is information that will never be discovered.

 

[RickG]

And that is why we no longer participate in the Organizations.

Excuse me chief, but what you just stated is a very agenda oriented statement.

 

[RickG]

The scientific models are incomplete, they like to believe that they aren't, but the fact is that no persons facts are complete , just like Paul said, we are looking at creation through a dim glass. There is information that has not been discovered yet, and there is information that will never be discovered.

Look Hallstone, I really would like to have a conversation with you, but you keep rambling along making unsupported opinionated comments. Do you have any background in the earth sciences, specifically pertaining to dating methods? If not, why debase something you know nothing about?

 

[Hallstone]

Look Hallstone, I really would like to have a conversation with you, but you keep rambling along making unsupported opinionated comments. Do you have any background in the earth sciences, specifically pertaining to dating methods? If not, why debase something you know nothing about?

All I'm saying is we do not have all the information. We exist in a temporary matrix that exists within a permanent Spiritual realm, the forces that have been exerted upon this matrix are both physical and spiritual, so looking just at the physical residue from a damaged matrix is not going to provide a complete model, this is my observation and I have stated it, that's all, I just want to see if people will admit as much.

 

[RickG]

All I'm saying is we do not have all the information. We exist in a temporary matrix that exists within a permanent Spiritual realm, the forces that have been exerted upon this matrix are both physical and spiritual, so looking just at the physical residue from a damaged matrix is not going to provide a complete model, this is my observation and I have stated it, that's all, I just want to see if people will admit as much.

You are making quite a few opinions with no supporting information for any of them. I don't see how anything has to do with a discussion in the CFs science forums. I guess, let me ask you a specific question. How do you precieve geologic dating methods, robust, good, fair, unreliable?

 

[HitchSlap]

The scientific models are incomplete,

Bull pucky.

they like to believe that they aren't,

They're the best way we have to learn about reality and make predictive assumptions.

but the fact is that no persons facts are complete ,

Of course we don't have all the facts. Who ever said we had too?
Don't be silly and act as if we don't have all the facts, we can't know anything. You're starting to sound like those stupid presuppositionalists $ye 10 and E. Hovind.

just like Paul said, we are looking at creation through a dim glass.

Paul didn't know the first thing about the science. What's the point of even quoting someone as if what they said is relevant to current technology and scientific understanding.

There is information that has not been discovered yet, and there is information that will never be discovered.

Ok. Rest assured though, when we do discover it, it will be by real scientists with real understanding, not by the goofs over at the DI.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because the evidence is not readily available does not mean that it automatically constitutes an eternal conundrum, it simply means that the answer has not been discovered yet, or the technology has not advanced enough to discover the truth of the matter,

Don't you think you should have some evidence before you start making claims of what happened in the past?

For my part I believe in the Biblical Creation account recorded by Moses who recorded the events by speaking directly to God, there are answers to all the questions, and we will discover them all eventually,

We already have the answers to those questions. Life evolved. The Earth and Universe are very old. There was no recent global flood. We have evidence for all of these things.

What you believe is completely irrelevant to how things are. You could belief that the Moon is made of green cheese, but that won't change the fact that it is made out of rock. Reality does not bend to fit your beliefs.

if the halos formed then there must be a reason why they formed quickly, and we must remember that the One who designed physics is not bound by it. This matrix can be altered or manipulated at will by Him, so to state physical norms emphatically is presumptuous when referring to God.

There is no reason that the laws of physics would need to change in order to conform to your beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

We exist in a temporary matrix that exists within a permanent Spiritual realm, the forces that have been exerted upon this matrix are both physical and spiritual,

Since when? You seem to be making stuff up.

Why would we ever throw out the knowledge we do have in favor of beliefs that have nothing to back them?

 

[Hallstone]

Since when? You seem to be making stuff up.

Why would we ever throw out the knowledge we do have in favor of beliefs that have nothing to back them?

Its called Faith
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

The entire world was destroyed reconstituted, and remade 4500 years ago, the answers are there.

 

[Loudmouth]

Its called Faith

Faith has no bearing on reality. You can have faith that the Moon is made of green cheese, but the Moon won't change into green cheese just to conform to your faith based beliefs.

The entire world was destroyed reconstituted, and remade 4500 years ago, the answers are there.

You need more than bare assertions.

 

[USincognito]

you are trusting in conclusions that are based on assumptions...

ASSUMPTIONS! POOF!

 

[HitchSlap]

Its called Faith
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

The entire world was destroyed reconstituted, and remade 4500 years ago, the answers are there.

"Faith is believing in something you know ain't true."

 

[ScottA]

Presumably such a table would be expensive. If I were thinking of buying such a table I might seek out a skilled master craftsman and ask if such a table might be made today. I would certainly locate an expert in antiques, especially furniture of that period and ask them to validate its age.

If rather than purchasing a table I were buying into a belief system that would impact virtually every aspect of my life then I would be foolish not to seek out experts in the matter. If these experts were to assure me that the table, excuse me, the planet, was as old as it appeared to be and if they were able to show me, in detail, how they had arrived at that conclusion, then I would avoid that belief system.

The point of the OP, however, is that there are experts...and then there are experts, and that if you choose an expert because they suit your agenda, then you would be following the wrong expert and be just as wrong as they are.

So, then, in your search of the correct expert and the origins of truth...you would come to several noteworthy forks in the road, none the least of which would be the historic Pharaoh and Moses. History tells us that regardless of Pharaoh's culture and science...he failed...and did so, for the same reason stated in the OP...and the same reason science continues to fail today. Moses prevailed.

Repeating the same mistakes over and over again, is the definition of insanity.

 

[ScottA]

Look Hallstone, I really would like to have a conversation with you, but you keep rambling along making unsupported opinionated comments. Do you have any background in the earth sciences, specifically pertaining to dating methods? If not, why debase something you know nothing about?

Hallstone has clearly stated that all models are incomplete, as compared to what can be ascertained from the word of God. If that leaves any "debased"...then they are debased. But when a man knows God - he does not "know nothing." On the contrary, he knows the All in all.

If Hallstone has not claimed "no contest" - then allow me: Comparing the knowledge of men to that of God - there is no contest.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Faith is believing in something you know ain't true."

For that to be true, you have to deny martyrdom, which is a rich part of our past (and present).

 

[HitchSlap]

For that to be true, you have to deny martyrdom, which is a rich part of our past (and present).

And you have to deny self deception, which is also a part of your past.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hallstone has clearly stated that all models are incomplete, as compared to what can be ascertained from the word of God. If that leaves any "debased"...then they are debased. But when a man knows God - he does not "know nothing." On the contrary, he knows the All in all.

If Hallstone has not claimed "no contest" - then allow me: Comparing the knowledge of men to that of God - there is no contest.

Sorry, you don't get to play. This is the part of the forum where we value evidence.