• 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.

Creation Science Rebuttals

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
Creation Science Rebuttals

Technical Journal (TJ)

Cosmologists Can't Agree?

From TJ, Volume 16, Issue 3, December 2002


Review by Greg Neyman
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 7 April 2006

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. (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.


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. Click here for more.

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? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Creation Science Rebuttals

Technical Journal (TJ)

Cosmologists Can't Agree?

From TJ, Volume 16, Issue 3, December 2002


Review by Greg Neyman
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 7 April 2006

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]1[/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.


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. Click here for more.

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? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Creation Science Rebuttals

Technical Journal (TJ)

Cosmologists Can't Agree?

From TJ, Volume 16, Issue 3, December 2002


Review by Greg Neyman
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 7 April 2006

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. (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.


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. Click here for more.

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? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Creation Science Rebuttals

Technical Journal (TJ)

Cosmologists Can't Agree?

From TJ, Volume 16, Issue 3, December 2002


Review by Greg Neyman
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 7 April 2006

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]1[/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.


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. Click here for more.

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? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.

The only way for you to get rebutted (here's that butt word again :p ) is to actually take this article and confront the speaker this Saturday. One on one, in front of many. :wink:
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Paul A. Poland refutes Creationist Dr Wieland's claims.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/wieland_information_pp.htm

Two things the abysmally ignorant village atheist missed.

Since DNA is genetic information,

1. Where did the genetic information first come from?
2. Mutations are mistakes that distort and corrupt existing genetic information, how does it increase and get new information to get scale to turn into feathers? For you to call feathers modified scales is begging the question. But betcha don't get the point.:wink:
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
Two things the abysmally ignorant village atheist missed.

Since DNA is genetic information,

1. Where did the genetic information first come from?
2. Mutations are mistakes that distort and corrupt existing genetic information, how does it increase and get new information to get scale to turn into feathers? For you to call feathers modified scales is begging the question. But betcha don't get the point.:wink:

Gong cheebye kia trying to rape science with your layman outlook..:wink: Any professional you know claim mutations are mistakes?

The greatest mistake is the fake ang moh god had given your lau bu a very bad design. :wink:
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Gong cheebye kia trying to rape science with your layman outlook..:wink: Any professional you know claim mutations are mistakes?

The greatest mistake is the fake ang moh god had given your lau bu a very bad design. :wink:

A layman outlook trumps absymal ignorant village atheist anytime.:wink:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna8.htm

Taken from first paragraph, "In the human genome, there are 50,000 to 100,000 genes. As DNA polymerase copies the DNA sequence, some mistakes occur. For example, one DNA base in a gene might get substituted for another. This is called a mutation (specifically a point mutation) or variation in the gene."

It is not hard to own an abysmally ignorant village atheist. Now, if you be so kind as to give yourself butt-kicks until it is as red as this?:wink:

12270d1236636215-climbing-jacket-baboon_asscrop.jpg
 
Last edited:

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is true creationists differ on the details but the broad principle is that of creation. For that matter, atheist-evolutionists also cannot agree on many details. Not all agree with Darwin's evolutionary theory of natural selection only. Disagreements do not debunk the collective theories expounded by the originators, else we might as well say all theories are wrong since we can't agree.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is true creationists differ on the details but the broad principle is that of creation. For that matter, atheist-evolutionists also cannot agree on many details. Not all agree with Darwin's evolutionary theory of natural selection only. Disagreements do not debunk the collective theories expounded by the originators, else we might as well say all theories are wrong since we can't agree.

The thing is that abysmally ignorant atheist drifteri doesn't even know what a mutation is and want to question my educated layman view.:wink:
 
Last edited:
Top