A Powerful Case for God

[drifteri]

So you vouch that everything Deedat say is correct and true?

I reproduce some of Ahmed Deedat's text, sure you are able to address theologically point by point? Or using your usual norm dismiss everything in one liner? This is how good you are, typical christard

 

[Frodo]

[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

Crafty abysmally ignorant village atheist want me to refute old earth creationism so that he can sit back on the sidelines to nurse bruised butt.

 

[Frodo]

I reproduce some of Ahmed Deedat's text, sure you are able to address theologically point by point? Or using your usual norm dismiss everything in one liner? This is how good you are, typical christard

If I can address them, what makes you qualified to test them for correctness since you are an abysmally ignorant village atheist?

 

[drifteri]

Crafty abysmally ignorant village atheist want me to refute old earth creationism so that he can sit back on the sidelines to nurse bruised butt.

You think too highly of yourself, in the first place I don't I expect you to able to refute!
Till now, you can't even make up your mind who is the father of Joseph. You don't have the standard to refute the article. Baey pei say christard!

 

[drifteri]

You can't even tear down a single line, you are embarassing other mild christians in this forum. Are you ashamed of your impotent?

 

[drifteri]

[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

The dumbass fraudo don't even know I posted it to refute one of the super creation saturday speaker. Since the dumbass fraudo think too highly of himself, I will post this article in a new thread. It is not for fraudo to refute

 

[Frodo]

The dumbass fraudo don't even know I posted it to refute one of the super creation saturday speaker. Since the dumbass fraudo think too highly of himself, I will post this article in a new thread. It is not for fraudo to refute

Go take this article to conference and directly challenge the speaker lah, see who lau kui.

 

[Frodo]

You can't even tear down a single line, you are embarassing other mild christians in this forum. Are you ashamed of your impotent?

Same question, are you going to repent if I tear down one?

Or are you still going to be so arrogant and ignorant, abysmally?

 

[Frodo]

You think too highly of yourself, in the first place I don't I expect you to able to refute!
Till now, you can't even make up your mind who is the father of Joseph. You don't have the standard to refute the article. Baey pei say christard!

Who cares for your expectations?

You are in no way qualified to judge anything anyway, being abysmally ignorant village atheist.

 

[drifteri]

Who cares for your expectations?

You are in no way qualified to judge anything anyway, being abysmally ignorant village atheist.

Why are you more qualified?

I don't need you to care about my expectation, I have near zero expectation of you. Can only bull shit and evade all the way when you hold nothing wrong about a painting. You are just a dubious evasive liar slinging m&d on the wall and delusionally think that they stuck.

 

[drifteri]

Same question, are you going to repent if I tear down one?

Or are you still going to be so arrogant and ignorant, abysmally?

Don't need to be evasive and gong sia lan way. Everyone by now should know your dua kang, you can't tear down a line.

 

[drifteri]

If I can address them, what makes you qualified to test them for correctness since you are an abysmally ignorant village atheist?

Haha, till you are able to bring the cow home. This is an open forum, not your closed cult forum, so anyone can read and rebute..

 

[drifteri]

Go take this article to conference and directly challenge the speaker lah, see who lau kui.

You already lau kui.

 

[Frodo]

Why are you more qualified?

I don't need you to care about my expectation, I have near zero expectation of you. Can only bull shit and evade all the way when you hold nothing wrong about a painting. You are just a dubious evasive liar slinging m&d on the wall and delusionally think that they stuck.

Because I am not ignorant about my faith, unlike you whom I have shown is abysmally ignorant.

 

[drifteri]

Because I am not ignorant about my faith, unlike you whom I have shown is abysmally ignorant.

What did you said about marriage between close relatives in the bible?

See how you are going to evade this time....

 

[Frodo]

What did you said about marriage between close relatives in the bible?

See how you are going to evade this time....

Evade? No, I will take you head on. So what is marriage?

 

[Frodo]

Haha, till you are able to bring the cow home. This is an open forum, not your closed cult forum, so anyone can read and rebute..

Anyone but you, yeah.

Seriously, tear down then what? Pretend nothing happened?

 

[drifteri]

Because I am not ignorant about my faith, unlike you whom I have shown is abysmally ignorant.

You spewed so much lies and craps into the forum, you really forget what you said. Need my help again?

 

[Frodo]

You spewed so much lies and craps into the forum, you really forget what you said. Need my help again?

Be my guest, it just means you have to keep giving yourself butt kicks again.

 

[methink]

You already lau kui.

Hello bro drifter, do not let the lau kui part become a hindrance to both of you. I am only interested if anyone will be attending the conference.

As bro Frodo has agreed to buy you a ticket, please grab it! I hope you will be going. Have you really PM him?