Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Index > General > Who Is Your Creator message forum > Cite just ONE 'lame' statement and we'll begin a debate
Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Cite just ONE 'lame' statement and we'll begin a debate

1. Since you're new, I will assume that you don't know that conjecture and accusations without specific examples and empirical evidence are not allowed:
See the above posting: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730388/

"Supporting articles, research papers are needed to substantiate your argument."

2. Please cite just ONE inaccurate statement that you are alluding to, then use a quote and reference using empirical evidence contradicting it. Then, we will begin a debate.

3. Teaching an unscientific theory (evolution) and allowing it to hinder and corrupt scientific research just because there is no other explaination is NOT how 'science' works. Go to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/scientific_criteria.html
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/big_bang.html
Example:
The 'observable' scientific phenomenon in which light is created from sound:
“First discovered in the 1930s as a byproduct of early work on sonar, the phenomenon is defined as the generation of light energy from sound waves.”
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/RI/RIS-Jwrbanek2.html

“How can sound be transformed into a brief flash of light? Recent experiments have provided new insights into this remarkable phenomenon, but its cause is not yet fully understood.”
“Sonoluminescence: the star in a jar” by Seth Putterman, Physics World, May 1998.

Since there is NO scientific theory explaning sonoluminescence, we suggest you make one up, call it 'scientific' and then teach it as a fact, just like the utterly unscientific theory of evolution.

4. For a theory that fits better and is clearly more scientific, go to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/genesis_account_of_creation.html

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Not to put too light a point on it, but your article on the big bang theory is kind of retarded and is worse than your average wikipedia article on accuracy.

I'm curious, however, for all the criticisms of the leading theory of how the universe was formed, do you have a theory that better fits the observable evidence?

Email  
Clarification - by who is your crea... - Sep 12, 2008 4:48pm
Obfuscation - by akg41470 - Sep 12, 2008 9:16pm
Stay on topic please - by who is your crea... - Sep 13, 2008 11:52am
The Big Bang did not create matter - by akg41470 - Sep 15, 2008 10:32pm
Strawman = Strawman - by akg41470 - Sep 16, 2008 9:55am
One more chance - by who is your crea... - Sep 16, 2008 2:15pm
Re: One more chance - by akg41470 - Sep 17, 2008 9:00pm
This is what happens ... - by who is your crea... - Sep 20, 2008 2:51pm
You are awful strict - by akg41470 - Sep 22, 2008 9:52am
'Just more material - by who is your crea... - Sep 22, 2008 2:44pm