I've always wanted to ask this...
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
mockery is personal attack too.you felt mocked?
-
you know your own intentions very well.
-
From what I see only the growing christians, mature, kind, repenting and willingness to be obedient to God christians are receptive of bible verses posted here.
The damn satanic ones are against God's words. This is SIN! Rejecting God's words is a sin. I believe God will in his own time , punish these christians.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
you know your own intentions very well.
"It is like a scholar trying to tell the mama shop owner how to run a business. " to equate Tcmc as a scholar is with due respect to his knowledge, BIC may not like to be equate with a mama shop owner. If there is a mockery it is the use of academic knowledge to prove a life experience...where do you stand?
"A non christian going into the Bible college and tell the students there what reference books they should use to pass exam." Tcmc is a non Christian, a disrespect? all Christians are students, in as far as our religion is concerned, that we humbly agree. When a non christian come into a Christian forum telling the Christians what non Christians books to use for academic purposes, I agree there is a mockery, but what it is?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
But you are taking many of your baseless statements as facts and telling the whole world they are facts (e.g earth is 6000 years old)
I dont mind you saying that it is a BELIEF of yours that the earth is 6000 years old, but it is not a fact!
So when there is a dispute in the accuracy of your statements, then something academically sound must be enforced. Like providing evidence, and using diff sources to back your claim.
BIC, I remember, you have not answered one of my previous questions.
Regarding the age of the earth, do you trust the process of radiometric dating to date the earth as 4.5 billion years old?
Tcmc,
Which post of mine had me declaring as fact that the earth is about 6000 years old? I said I believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and with good reasons too.
Do I trust the radiometric dating PROCESS? Of course I do, just like I trust the scientific method process. Do I trust the CONCLUSIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of the data? Not necessarily so. It's just like a calculator. Do I trust the calculator? Of course, it works in a defined and programmed way, and quite inerrant too. But Garbage in Garbage out. Your conclusions depend on what initial assumptions you have that you input into the process.
Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation: "The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Now you are comparing your religious beliefs with medical science like facts.
Then in another thread you say "Hannor, as though we all taking examinations in university like that for our beliefs. LOL!"
So do you want to treat your religious beliefs as exams (facts) or just beliefs?
So you want your beliefs to be akin to medical science facts and come under the same critieria in terms of proving, and reseearch? or just beliefs in general ? Ifbeliefs then dun need to prove and all that loh.
How cna you jus tchange your stand like that one?
Tcmc,
Different contexts lah!
Please take time to know the difference between knowledge and beliefs, experimental and historical science, facts and their interpretation.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
thats different. medical science is a very specialised area while religion or in this case proving of something that happens a few thousands years ago, is something that is not so specialised. To prove something has happened, it can be a eye witness account of jus 1 side ma. Medical practice is a many to one incident. meaning many researching to benefitting on a more minor scale but the proving of god or whatsoever thing, is a one to many thing. If really want prove he exist or wad... cannot be onli proving from a christian pov.I was addressing his complaint about using Bible to prove Bible. If that is circular reasoning, then it is also circular reasoning to use medical science to prove medical science, history to prove history, law to prove law.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Which post of mine had me declaring as fact that the earth is about 6000 years old? I said I believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and with good reasons too.
Do I trust the radiometric dating PROCESS? Of course I do, just like I trust the scientific method process. Do I trust the CONCLUSIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of the data? Not necessarily so. It's just like a calculator. Do I trust the calculator? Of course, it works in a defined and programmed way, and quite inerrant too. But Garbage in Garbage out. Your conclusions depend on what initial assumptions you have that you input into the process.
Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation: "The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."
BIC
You trust the radiometric dating process, yet you say it's not accurate. But the difference bwteen your beliefs of 6000 years old and the official 4.5 billion years is a very big difference. So where you actually stand my friend?
You say the radiometric dating process is not trustable. But it is also used to date the dead sea scrolls and christian relics? Lol..So now we cant trust the date of the dead sea scrolls is it?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
You trust the radiometric dating process, yet you say it's not accurate. But the difference bwteen your beliefs of 6000 years old and the official 4.5 billion years is a very big difference. So where you actually stand my friend?
You say the radiometric dating process is not trustable. But it is also used to date the dead sea scrolls and christian relics? Lol..So now we cant trust the date of the dead sea scrolls is it?
Tcmc,
You did not read properly. The process is OK. The issue got to do with the initial assumptions. What you get out depends on what you first put in. Dead Sea Scrolls we already know who wrote them, so even if you don't use carbon dating (which only date thousands of years, something you probably did not know) also not a huge problem. In any case, we are talking about dating human writings which do not go back more than about 5000 years old, versus the idea that the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
You did not read properly. The process is OK. The issue got to do with the initial assumptions. What you get out depends on what you first put in. Dead Sea Scrolls we already know who wrote them, so even if you don't use carbon dating (which only date thousands of years, something you probably did not know) also not a huge problem. In any case, we are talking about dating human writings which do not go back more than about 5000 years old, versus the idea that the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago.
Sure. Radiometric dating is ok for christian relics but not ok for theage of the earth.
Talk about chery picking and selective understanding
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sure. Radiometric dating is ok for christian relics but not ok for theage of the earth.
Talk about chery picking and selective understanding
Talk about your refusal to correctly understand the Christian answer!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Talk about your refusal to correctly understand the Christian answer!
In essence, your answer is "Yes I pick which one suits my belief, Even though evidence is there to show that I am wrong, Im gonna stick to MY beliefs".
Thats the essence of your answer, much like how yoou pick which commandements to obey in the bible too.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
In essence, your answer is "Yes I pick which one suits my belief, Even though evidence is there to show that I am wrong, Im gonna stick to MY beliefs".
Thats the essence of your answer, much like how yoou pick which commandements to obey in the bible too.
As usual, when busted and cannot out-argue your opponent you resort to caricaturing their beliefs. WIN liao lor.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
As usual, when busted and cannot out-argue your opponent you resort to caricaturing their beliefs. WIN liao lor.
Sure.
BIC, pleasebe aware that you are saying the below 2 statements at the same time ---
"I trust radiometric dating for christian relics completely because radiometric dating is accurate and also, I dont trust radiometric dating for the ageofearth because radiometric dating isn't so accurate"
I have to "caricature" your beliefs to simplify it for everyone what you are saying essentially.
This is what you are saying.
Cherry picking.
Contradicting.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sure.
BIC, pleasebe aware that you are saying the below 2 statements at the same time ---
"I trust radiometric dating for christian relics completely because radiometric dating is accurate and also, I dont trust radiometric dating for the ageofearth because radiometric dating isn't so accurate"
I have to "caricature" your beliefs to simplify it for everyone what you are saying essentially.
This is what you are saying.
Cherry picking.
Contradicting.
Tcmc,
Indeed you are playing daft and guilty of caricaturing my beliefs.
I said the process is OK. If you ASSUME the rate of decay is constant, and ASSUME intital conditions of parent and daughter elements, and ASSUME that throughout the whole period nothing happened to disturb the process, and know the ratios at present, you can always plug in the figures and derive a calculated age. But did you miss the point about the ASSUMPTIONS?
Carbon dating only dates thousands of years. Like I said which you conveniently ignored, the DDS were known to be written by the Essenes which lived during the intertestamental times. We roughly know their age already. I mean, what is the accepted date for writing? It is only in the thousands of years. Carbon-testing merely confirmed the age of the documents. Carbon dating also suffer from the same limitations as radiometric dating methods, they require assumptions to be made. But like I said, they only date thousands of years old. This is different from dating something SUPPOSEDLY millions of years old.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
As usual, when busted and cannot out-argue your opponent you resort to caricaturing their beliefs. WIN liao lor.
This described you more aptly
Pls understand I am trying very hard to make sense of all what you been saying., but I can't, cos its not coherent and rationale.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Talk about your refusal to correctly understand the Christian answer!
nah the xtian answers doesnt make any sense to the secular world. only a xtian will only understand xtian speak.
-
bible said the earth was 6000 years old.
but then paleontologist proved that dianosaurs fossils were at least hundred of millions of years old, from carbon dating etc. so does it make sense of 6000 years? talking about dino, when dino roamed the earth, humans werent around. so why god created dino first, and then dino was wiped off the earth? did god sent asteroid to earth to wipe them out cos of their sins
. so what sins did the dino committed? -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
This described you more aptly
Pls understand I am trying very hard to make sense of all what you been saying., but I can't, cos its not coherent and rationale.
Are you trying to understand what I am saying? Doesn't sound like it. You are too happy scoffing and mocking. Stop your patronising nonsense.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
bible said the earth was 6000 years old.
but then paleontologist proved that dianosaurs fossils were at least hundred of millions of years old, from carbon dating etc. so does it make sense of 6000 years? talking about dino, when dino roamed the earth, humans werent around. so why god created dino first, and then dino was wiped off the earth? did god sent asteroid to earth to wipe them out cos of their sins
.
so what sins did the dino committed?He didnt answer your question about the sins of the dinosaurs.
lol.
Anyway, BIC trusts carbon dating for christian relics like the dead sea scrolls, but if we use carbon dating for age of the earth, he sudddenly has a lot of "ifs", "maybes" and problems with carbon dating
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
bible said the earth was 6000 years old.
but then paleontologist proved that dianosaurs fossils were at least hundred of millions of years old, from carbon dating etc. so does it make sense of 6000 years? talking about dino, when dino roamed the earth, humans werent around. so why god created dino first, and then dino was wiped off the earth? did god sent asteroid to earth to wipe them out cos of their sins
. so what sins did the dino committed?Jacky,
You also believe the Bible teach that the earth is about 6000 years old? How did you come to this conclusion when Tcmc will say that the Bible does not teach it?
When you dig a fossil it does not come attached with an age label. The age is derived from the rock layers in which it was found. And dating the rocks require the making of those assumptions I highlighted earlier. It isn't rocket science like you make it out to be. You think a 6000 year old earth does not make sense. Tell me, does it make sense to find soft tissue or red blood cells in 65 million year old fossil? Or how about finding living fossils that still look the same after supposedly 65 million years have passed. They stopped evolving while during that time dinosaurs were believed to have evolved into parrots and eagles?
The Bible talks about a global flood that would account for the fossil record. Not all dinosaurs died in the flood. Those in the Ark survived and that's where we have documented accounts of ancient knights killing dragons, or the drawings and sculptures of dinosaurs in ancient buildings. Again I take it that you are IGNORANT of all these.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
He didnt answer your question about the sins of the dinosaurs.
lol.
Anyway, BIC trusts carbon dating for christian relics like the dead sea scrolls, but if we use carbon dating for age of the earth, he sudddenly has a lot of "ifs", "maybes" and problems with carbon dating
Tcmc,
If you think dinosaurs are capable of sinning, all the more you expose your own shallowness and false claim that you were some Bible study expert. You are just a fraud.
And did you say using carbon dating to date the age of the earth? LOL! You really know nuts about radiometric dating.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
He didnt answer your question about the sins of the dinosaurs.
lol.
Anyway, BIC trusts carbon dating for christian relics like the dead sea scrolls, but if we use carbon dating for age of the earth, he sudddenly has a lot of "ifs", "maybes" and problems with carbon dating
selective replying, he reply what he wants to reply as usual. diverting attention from the question as usual, the question remained unanswered
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
If you think dinosaurs are capable of sinning, all the more you expose your own shallowness and false claim that you were some Bible study expert. You are just a fraud.
And did you say using carbon dating to date the age of the earth? LOL! You really know nuts about radiometric dating.
the biggest fraudster here is you I think
you think your replies will convinced a 3 year old kid? are you taking me a fool out of your answers
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
If you think dinosaurs are capable of sinning, all the more you expose your own shallowness and false claim that you were some Bible study expert. You are just a fraud.
And did you say using carbon dating to date the age of the earth? LOL! You really know nuts about radiometric dating.
Excuse me, I know both are different but still you answers would most probably be "Oh they are accurate for christian relics only and not so accurate for age of the earth or fossils."
Your answer will be the same, no matter radiometric, cabron or uranium lead dating etc.
BIC, i didnt say dinosaurs can sin. I was referring to Jacky's question to you, that you didnt answer