Proof of what?
The PROOF you put words in the mouth of your holy's LORD. And also proof that what most of the churchmen and christians 's words are words of men.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
A Powerful Case for God
- Thread starter Frodo
- Start date
The PROOF you put words in the mouth of your holy's LORD. And also proof that what most of the churchmen and christians 's words are words of men.
The PROOF you put words in the mouth of your holy's LORD. And also proof that what most of the churchmen and christians 's words are words of men.
Wrong again.
Already told you whether I go or not is irrelevant. Why you need me to chaperone you?
I have already attended a few of these talks over the years. Or too expensive to afford student rate and you need me to pay for you?
Are you sure you are that general? Another of your usual tua kang way.
Proof of what?
Proof that you are a groundless liar who put words into your imaginery lord's holy mouth.
Wrong again.
What wrong with Ahmed deedat's book?
What's right with it?
Are you sure you are that general? Another of your usual tua kang way.
You give me your name and address and I go buy ticket and mail to you lah.
You give me your name and address and I go buy ticket and mail to you lah.
I pm you. Let everyone of us see how your are going to deploy your old evasive tactic.
I pm you. Let everyone of us see how your are going to deploy your old evasive tactic.
Hi bro drifter, pls attend and give us a report here ok? dun fail us can? much appreciate your attendance and feedback. thank you
That will depend on fraudo honouring his word. His replies to post here are nothing.
How come you didn't ask TS for a report too?
I pm you. Let everyone of us see how your are going to deploy your old evasive tactic.
TS has said his attendance is not contingent on anyone or factor. You looked set to go.
Do give a FR pls.
I pm you. Let everyone of us see how your are going to deploy your old evasive tactic.
There's no PM from you.
You have nothing to say, so nothing wrong lah.
You tell me what's right with it and I tell you what's wrong with it.
That depends on you actually sending me a PM with your name and address.
My replies are nothing except that they continually expose your as being abysmally ignorant.
You tell me what's right with it and I tell you what's wrong with it.
Can't you read english, the grounds already mentioned. You are just groundless and want to run in circle. Dumbass!
There's no PM from you.
Wtf! I pm you already. Readers following your posts would know you would evade and evade...
Then how come my inbox don't have your big name?
So you vouch that everything Deedat say is correct and true?
[h=1]Creation Science Rebuttals[/h][h=2]Technical Journal (TJ)[/h]
In an article in TJ, young earth creation science theorist (astronomer) John Hartnett reports on the apparent problems of secular astronomers to come to an agreement on the theories of cosmology and the scientific origins of the universe[SUP].[/SUP][SUP][/SUP] (The article resurfaced as the Daily feature on the Creation Ministries International website on 6 April 2006).
The subtitle proudly proclaims that nearly 100 years after Einstien's theories were formulated, they still disagree. Of course they do. Getting thousands of scientists to agree on one issue is a nearly impossible task. Rather than provide a point by point rebuttal for this article, it is merely necessary to make a few observations.
When you consider young earth creation science, there are very few actual research schools where data is gathered and analyzed. The Institute for Creation Research is the main one, but there are a handful of others, probably less than 20 young earth colleges.
When you consider that there are thousands of colleges and universities that accept an old earth, and there are tens of thousands of scientists researching cosmology at those colleges, it is no surprise that they do not all agree on the principles of cosmology. Add to that the thousands of research scientists in the private sector, and you can see the problem...thousands of scientists each with their own ideas about cosmology. In many cases, the ideas match, but in some instances, they do not. Answers in Genesis typically will find the disagreements, and report on those. However, as a whole, cosmologists all agree that the earth is old.
How Does Science Work?
How does a scientific idea get accepted? Scientists submit their ideas, in the form of research papers, to peer-reviewed journals. If the science is found to be sound, the article may get published. Then, other scientists can examine this new idea, and provide feedback for it. If the idea stands up to this review, it will probably be accepted...at least until a new theory replaces it.
With thousands of scientists, it is easy, as this TJ article shows, to find scientists that disagree. However, what Answers in Genesis does not tell you is that although they disagree on many issues, one issue they agree on is that the universe is old. There is no disagreement on the age issue.
Young Earth Peer Review?
The problem for young earth creationists is that when they submit their articles for publication to a secular journal, they would be rejected, on the grounds that they are not scientifically sound. Young earth proponents would argue that they interpret the evidence differently, but in all cases I've examined, the underlying science is bad.
Thus, young earth creationists created their own "peer-reviewed" journal (TJ, or Technical Journal), with their young earth peers providing the review. However, since they all agree already that the earth is young, it takes the significance out of the peer-review part...they all already accept the bad science in the first place.
Conclusion
When a young earth author says that secular scientists don't agree, it should come as no surprise to anyone. However, although they don't agree on a standard model, most of them agree that the universe is billions of years old. I use the term "most," because there are some young earth creation science theorists who could possibly be called scientists...but that is the topic of another article.
[SUP][/SUP] Hartnett, John, Cosmologists Can't Agree and Are Still in Doubt!, TJ 16(3): December 2002. Available online at www.answersingenesis.org, under TJ, and on CMI at www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559/
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life?
http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/magazines/TJ/v16/TJ16_agree.htm
In an article in TJ, young earth creation science theorist (astronomer) John Hartnett reports on the apparent problems of secular astronomers to come to an agreement on the theories of cosmology and the scientific origins of the universe[SUP].[/SUP][SUP][/SUP] (The article resurfaced as the Daily feature on the Creation Ministries International website on 6 April 2006).
The subtitle proudly proclaims that nearly 100 years after Einstien's theories were formulated, they still disagree. Of course they do. Getting thousands of scientists to agree on one issue is a nearly impossible task. Rather than provide a point by point rebuttal for this article, it is merely necessary to make a few observations.
When you consider young earth creation science, there are very few actual research schools where data is gathered and analyzed. The Institute for Creation Research is the main one, but there are a handful of others, probably less than 20 young earth colleges.
When you consider that there are thousands of colleges and universities that accept an old earth, and there are tens of thousands of scientists researching cosmology at those colleges, it is no surprise that they do not all agree on the principles of cosmology. Add to that the thousands of research scientists in the private sector, and you can see the problem...thousands of scientists each with their own ideas about cosmology. In many cases, the ideas match, but in some instances, they do not. Answers in Genesis typically will find the disagreements, and report on those. However, as a whole, cosmologists all agree that the earth is old.
How Does Science Work?
How does a scientific idea get accepted? Scientists submit their ideas, in the form of research papers, to peer-reviewed journals. If the science is found to be sound, the article may get published. Then, other scientists can examine this new idea, and provide feedback for it. If the idea stands up to this review, it will probably be accepted...at least until a new theory replaces it.
With thousands of scientists, it is easy, as this TJ article shows, to find scientists that disagree. However, what Answers in Genesis does not tell you is that although they disagree on many issues, one issue they agree on is that the universe is old. There is no disagreement on the age issue.
Young Earth Peer Review?
The problem for young earth creationists is that when they submit their articles for publication to a secular journal, they would be rejected, on the grounds that they are not scientifically sound. Young earth proponents would argue that they interpret the evidence differently, but in all cases I've examined, the underlying science is bad.
Thus, young earth creationists created their own "peer-reviewed" journal (TJ, or Technical Journal), with their young earth peers providing the review. However, since they all agree already that the earth is young, it takes the significance out of the peer-review part...they all already accept the bad science in the first place.
Conclusion
When a young earth author says that secular scientists don't agree, it should come as no surprise to anyone. However, although they don't agree on a standard model, most of them agree that the universe is billions of years old. I use the term "most," because there are some young earth creation science theorists who could possibly be called scientists...but that is the topic of another article.
[SUP][/SUP] Hartnett, John, Cosmologists Can't Agree and Are Still in Doubt!, TJ 16(3): December 2002. Available online at www.answersingenesis.org, under TJ, and on CMI at www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559/
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life?
http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/magazines/TJ/v16/TJ16_agree.htm