True Age of the Universe - Biblical Fact - From Age 0 to Jesus

[ketllac]

---

Kung ako imong pa decidon part, mas makaingon pa ko nga mas tarung pa siya kaysa atua.
Depende kung na ex-convict sya sa accusation lang sa mga tawo nga nagdumot sa iyaha nga naa sa power which i believe mao na ang case.

so mas credible pa hinuon ka sa United states tax court..so mas credible imo opinion sa pila ka tuig nga court trials and proceedings..kanus-a nahimong credible ang opinion sa publico kontra court desisyon.?.then it follows nga tanan kaso sa pilipinas should be decided also through trial by publicity and through public opinion? mao ron hehehehe. kadakong sayop..

[Kenshiro]

@kenshiro


imong mga sources gikan sad na sa dili neutral nga mga grupo, ug sekta.





You are presenting evidences that aren't convincing enough to the scientific community.. that is why the key word there is disputed as you have used because we both questions the validity of our claims. so technically its not yet a conclusion because its been a dispute... basta naa diay dispute or doubt sa usa ka idea automatic ba nga dili tinuod.?

ang gibuhat sa creationists gi kuha ang mga facts kunuhay gi tagpi tagpi then i -connect to the conclusion that universe is young. ang naka bati pa gyud sa inyo position mo claim mo nga sakto inyo interpretation sa bible pero inyo facts sa pagsuporta sa interpretation gikan sa tagpi tagpi nga facts sa scientific discoveries, pero inyo i-criticize ang science kung dili mo favor sa inyo side..... your using kunuhay ug facts but to serve your own propaganda....gusto pugson ang facts para mo favor sa inyo propaganda nga mostly sa scientific community favor man sa idea nga ang universe pwerti ng tiguwanga..inyong posisyon pareha bitaw anang Dan Brown nga novel (angels and demons, da vinci code, etc) nga most materials are factual but ang conclusion faulty..because it doesnt follow from the premises..

Well if you are talking about neutrality science itself is neutral it considers the evidence and all variables before making a conclusion.

Well bro evidence is the key word if the evidence is strong enough we can make a conclusion.
It seems you based your facts on the what has been told to you by your concept of the "scientific community".
Your concept of the "scientific community says so" is equivalent to what media is telling you.

Its because of what they told you it is so. I find that disturbing like Blind obedience to the pope.
We are talking about evidence if you try to counter it by simply showing how bad it looks like with out any evidence then you are just a trash talker.

[ketllac]

Well if you are talking about neutrality science itself is neutral it considers the evidence and all variables before making a conclusion.

Well bro evidence is the key word if the evidence is strong enough we can make a conclusion.
It seems you based your facts on the what has been told to you by your concept of the "scientific community".
Your concept of the "scientific community" says so is equivalent to what media is telling you.

Its because of what they told you it is so. I find that disturbing like Blind obedience to the pope.
We are talking about evidence if you try to counter it by simply showing how bad it looks like with out any evidence then you are just a trash talker.

empty words part walay substance imo gisulte... I gave scientific discovery like radiocarbon dating that is hard to dismiss and I also emphasized the credibility of peer review from credible authority kay sa mangingilad nga si Kent HOvind nga tua ron sa prisohan..

kanus-a man nahimong credible ang bible when it comes to scientific explanation? ug kanus-a sad nahimong credible ang science when it comes to faith and morals? asa man sad ka mangitag source sa mga discoveries sa medicine, technology, didto ba sa bible? or didto ba hinuon ka ni Kent Hovind nga walay alamag ug PHD sa ing -ana nga field..we only rely on the expert of this field nga neutral ug secular..kay kung naay propaganda mapektuhan na ang resulta sa study.. of course we are relying sa ubang field nga dili nato linya...ikaw wala ba sad ka nag rely to what is being told to you? ug kung moingong kag dili aw all knowing ka or polymath.. ang big difference dire as a deciding factor is the word CREDIBILITY..

[Kenshiro]

@kenshiro

sabta imo gipost ug akoa....nganong naay Sunday or day one diha nga na create man ang Sun sa day 4.? wala may Sun sa day one aron mo determine nga naay day one..kana ba nga panabot sa time pareha sa atong naandan karon nga exactly 24 hours jud?

Good question

Its not called sunday its called the 1st day. Sunday was a term introduced by Rome through their pagan Sungod. As we see it as paganism so it is based on their pagan religion and has nothing to do with the 1st day.

I guess your question is that what is the light on the 1st day?
We believe God was the light on the first day and declared the 1st day basing on morning and evening. And the succeeding days were described as "And there was evening, and there was morning"

'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness He called 'night.' And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day."
Genesis 1:3-5

This is what I found on the light on the first day

This is only a problem if we fail to take into account an infinite and omnipotent God. God does not need the sun, moon, and stars to provide light. God is light! First John 1:5 declares, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all." God Himself was the light for the first three days of Creation, just as He will be in the new heavens and new earth, “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5). Until He created the sun, moon, and stars, God miraculously provided light during the “day” and may have done so during the “night” as well (Genesis 1:14).

Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Much more important than the light of day and night is the Light who provides eternal life to all who believe in Him. Those who do not believe in Him will be doomed to “outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12).

[ketllac]

@kenshiro

kenshiro wala koy question anang bible pero pareho ba ng time diha sa genesis ug sa time nga imong naandan ron?

Its not called sunday its called the 1st day. Sunday was a term introduced by Rome through their pagan Sungod. As we see it as paganism so it is based on their pagan religion and has nothing to do with the 1st day.

unya nganong naa may Sunday sa kilid sa day one? anyways its not about the word Sunday because that is just later adopted term from sungod..pero ang punto dire kana bang day one sa creation story ,24 hours gyud na nga pareha sa explanation sa astronomy nga mahimong 1 day kung ma complete ang rotation sa ato planet earth exactly 24 hours, to count it as day one nga wala pa man na create ang sun ug earth anang panahona base sa Genesis..btw sa theory of relativity mo exist ra ang time kung naay point of reference...like earths revolution around the Sun ug earth's rotation.. consultaha si lolo Einstein gud..

sabta ning hypothetical question aron makuha nimo ako punto..lets put it this way.. Ikaw kung pananglitan naa ka sa atmosphere nga wala tanan except ikaw lang usa naa bay day one nga mo exist nga exactly 24 hours ,1440 minutes and 86 400 seconds without the sun and the planet earth's "activity"?

[Grammaton]

so mas credible pa hinuon ka sa United states tax court..so mas credible imo opinion sa pila ka tuig nga court trials and proceedings..kanus-a nahimong credible ang opinion sa publico kontra court desisyon.?.then it follows nga tanan kaso sa pilipinas should be decided also through trial by publicity and through public opinion? mao ron hehehehe. kadakong sayop..

>Tanan bang accusation sa government dunay evidence? tingali wala ka makabalo or gi-deny lang nimo that anything the government wants ila jud makuha either by consent or coercion? samot na kung against ka sa ilang agenda. How about those people serving the CIA who were being imprisoned without any hearing?

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...r--TELLS-ALL--
McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ketllac]

>Tanan bang accusation sa government dunay evidence? tingali wala ka makabalo or gi-deny lang nimo that anything the government wants ila jud makuha either by consent or coercion? samot na kung against ka sa ilang agenda. How about those people serving the CIA who were being imprisoned without any hearing?

McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dili ang government ang issue dire kundili ang method sa justice system...layo nakag naabtan sa imo pag defend, ang deciding factor lies between your opinion ug decision sa united states tax court nga gi konbikto si Hovind kay wala ni bayad ug buwis that is beyond reasonable doubt..of course dili sa tanang panahon sakto ang justice systmem but ang punto kinsay mas credible ikaw ug ang tax system nga nakabalo pa nimo kay naa nila ang mga evidence? again it boils down to the word credibility..ayaw na abot anang conspiracy theory..i-kumpara lang kung kinsay credible nga tingog ikaw ba or ang tax court sa america..since niingon man ka nga wala siya sala kay gicontrahan lang.diha ra taman....ayaw anang CIA..hehehehe

masipyat ang justice system kay theres no such thing as perfect system pero dili nagpasabot kay lagi naay sipyat mo resort lang ta ug public opinion sa paghatag ug verdict..ug dili nalang ta motuo sa system.. mura bag " unsay opinion nimo grammaton about sa kaso ni hovind?, ingon dayon ka feeling nako murag dili siya guilty kay gikontrahan man gud, dayon decide ta nga dili lang nato i- convicto si Hovind kay feeling nato gikontrahan ra..kadakong sayop...again it boils down to those who have authority on this matter..

[Grammaton]

dili ang government ang issue dire kundili ang method sa justice system...layo nakag naabtan sa imo pag defend, ang deciding factor ani imong opinion ug decision sa united states tax court nga gi konbikto si Hovind kay wala ni bayad ug buwis..of course dili sa tanang panahon sakto ang justice systmem but ang punto kinsay mas credible ikaw ug ang tax system nga nakabalo pa nimo kay naa nila ang mga evidence? again it boils down to the word credibility..ayaw na abot anang conspiracy theory..i-kumpara lang kung kinsay paminawon nga tingog ikaw ba or ang tax court sa america..since niingon man ka nga wala siya sala kay gicontrahan lang.diha ra taman....

im not saying kung naa or wala syay sala. in fact he;s not holy. anha lang ta mo react kung say like the Pope magbuhat ug unusual nga butang which is against the character sa usa ka holy father.
dali raman kayo magbuhat2 ug accusation against anybody kung threat siya sa agenda. a very little imperfection pwede ra i-twist ug himuong dko nga issue. We can observe that in our politics also.

Dili gihapon na makatarug sa credibility ni Hovind bisan unsa pay i accuse sa iyaha!

[ketllac]

im not saying kung naa or wala syay sala. in fact he;s not holy. dali raman kayo magbuhat2 ug accusation against anybody kung threat siya sa agenda. a very little imperfection pwede ra i-twist ug himuong dko nga issue. We can observe that in our politics also.

Dili gihapon na makatarug sa credibility ni Hovind bisan unsa pay i accuse sa iyaha!

sige tagai ko sa iyahang educational background nga siya credible to talk about paleontology nga usa ka field sa pag decide sa edad sa earth? ikumpara kuno iyaha resume ni Mary Higby Schweitzer ..diha lang daan bagsak na imo argument...

[Grammaton]

sige tagai ko sa iyahang educational background nga siya credible to talk about paleontology nga usa ka field sa pag decide sa edad sa earth? ikumpara kuno iyaha resume ni Mary Higby Schweitzer ..diha lang daan bagsak na imo argument...

im not interested in it. The government's case against Hovind is contrived in order to keep his ministry quiet. klaro kayo na! pareha gud sa atua, ang tawo nga walay sayop pakasad-on pero kadaghan mga government officials nga corrupt but because of power, matabunan ra gihapon! in ani ka unjust na ang atong systema karon.

kung ganahan jud ka basin napa ni nga offer tingali ikaw ray makakuha ani o.........

Hovind's $250,000 offerAccording to Hovind's website, he has offered $10,000 since 1990 to those who can "prove the theory of evolution."^[56] He has since raised the amount of the reward to $250,000.^[57]