The Creationist Corner

[rockytopva]

Kant distinguishes the mind in two dimensions, sensibility and understanding. Sensibility is the minds way of receiving representation of things (intuition- insight), Understanding is how the mind actively thinks about those objects. Theories about the forms of intuition and the categories of the understanding lead to distinguish phenomena (appearances as filtered through our senses and understanding) from noumena (things themselves as they exist independently from the mind which we can never know).

Phenomena - Our theories of how things occurred before 4000 BC as filtered through our senses and understanding
Noumena - The reality of previous events that has instigated our current reality, which things exist independently from the mind which we can never know

I do not believe we can have a complete understanding of what occured before 4000 BC. All we can do is build a filtered view as these things are noumena and exist independently from the mind which we can never know. Only if God reveals unto us these things can we know for certain.

 

[SkyWriting]

I do not believe we can have a complete understanding of what occured before 4000 BC. All we can do is build a filtered view as these things are noumena and exist independently from the mind which we can never know. Only if God reveals unto us these things can we know for certain.

"One cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past — conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events." http://www.heartlandforensic.com/writing/forensic-science-and-the-scientific-method

 

[Nithavela]

Or you could politely ask me to change it.

 

[RickG]

You cannot use date methods of your suggestions to find the age of the universe. The earth came into existence many billions of years after the time God said... Let there be light! Instigating the big bang.

Then how do you come up with a 15 billion year old universe without using a dating method? And just to make myself clear, I am more interested in why you don't think dating methods don't work for the earth. That is why I asked you to pick one and let's discuss it.

 

[RickG]

Because one can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one possible explanation for that evidence.

(PDF) Download the Inferential Test Proof (PDF)

When speaking of the "physical" Earth, yes we can. As to your link, I wonder if you have actually read it, as when I click on it I get "file not found".

 

[RickG]

↑
There was no evidence of man before 4,000 BC... None! Null! Void! All scientific dating analysis is merely a comparison and the result of someone setting a theoretical date behind the analysis.



I don't see how his statement has any effect on the the age of the universe.

I'm not surprised.

 

[SkyWriting]

When speaking of the "physical" Earth, yes we can. As to your link, I wonder if you have actually read it, as when I click on it I get "file not found".

That's a shame. My linking to it from a popular forum
can result in bandwidth usage that must be paid for by
somebody. Webmasters must balance their budget like
everybody else.

 

[RickG]

That's a shame. My linking to it from a popular forum
can result in bandwidth usage that must be paid for by
somebody. Webmasters must balance their budget like
everybody else.

Doesn't matter. My comment pertained to Earth Science, your link had something to do with Forensics, therefore, not applicable.

 

[SkyWriting]

When speaking of the "physical" Earth, yes we can.

No you cannot, unless there is only one possible explanation for your data.
And a lack of conflicting experts does not qualify as the correct answer.

 

[SkyWriting]

Doesn't matter. My comment pertained to Earth Science, your link had something to do with Forensics, therefore, not applicable.

Weak try and false argument. The topic is evidence, examination of it, and theorized conclusions. Forensics applies.

 

[RickG]

No you cannot, unless there is only one possible explanation for your data.
And a lack of conflicting experts does not qualify as the correct answer.

Let me put your comment to the test. I have a rock I dated. The results I came up with are 27.5, 25.3, 26.4, 27.8 and 25.5 Ka. What is the correct answer?

 

[rockytopva]

Let me put your comment to the test. I have a rock I dated. The results I came up with are 27.5, 25.3, 26.4, 27.8 and 25.5 Ka. What is the correct answer?

Was she a pretty rock?

 

[RickG]

Was she a pretty rock?

Only in the eye of the beholder. Have you decided on a dating method to discuss yet? Also, you still haven't told me how you came up with the age of the universe without a dating method. Just wondering, maybe it is something I can use.

 

[rockytopva]

Only in the eye of the beholder. Have you decided on a dating method to discuss yet? Also, you still haven't told me how you came up with the age of the universe without a dating method. Just wondering, maybe it is something I can use.

Here is my primary dating method...

 

[rockytopva]

That and the fact that the universe is expanding out from a point of origin...

 

[rockytopva]

Let me put your comment to the test. I have a rock I dated. The results I came up with are 27.5, 25.3, 26.4, 27.8 and 25.5 Ka. What is the correct answer?

On the Lutheran Satire they tell of a Bishop John Shelby "Jack" Spong ,@00:20, a retired American bishop of the Episcopal Church... Who according to the video...

1. Is less Orthodox than a dead donkey
2. Really hates conservative Christianity
3. Frequently suggests that the Apostle Paul was gay
4. Deny's the virgin birth
5. And the incarnation
6. And the resurrection
7. And the ascension
8. And the very existence of a theistic God

You are not another Bishop John Shelby "Jack" Spong I hope!

 

[RickG]

That and the fact that the universe is expanding out from a point of origin...

So you have to "measure" the expansion and its rate. That is a dating method.

time = (distance x speed)

 

[RickG]

Here is my primary dating method...

And how do you verify the validity of the contents of it?

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no point in going on until you acknowledge that you were wrong about your claim that order never arises naturally without input from intelligence.

You mean with additional support other than one
comment from a discussion forum? Sorry.

 

[USincognito]

Based on Young Earth Creationism. Here are a 101 scientific facts if you care to read them...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

Did you een look at that link? Rationalwiki debunks every one of the claimed evidences. Some of them are simply insipid like the age of Niagara Falls. The only thing the age of Niagara Falls tells us is the age of Niagara Falls.