A core argument

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:05 am

First YEC

Message 1:
"Hi Ash, Interesting that you 'know' how old the world is but you can't work out how to use the 'Bcc box'!
You said "I told you before, I WAS a Christian (unless God - assuming he exists - does not keep his Word and rejects some who 'choose him')."
Exactly my point, you knew - but now you think you don't - and the consequences of that will be eternal - you know that and it is your choice.
That 'choice' is far more important (for you) than trying to prove conclusively that those who still do know God are wrong. Because you can NEVER do that - you were not there.
There are better people than me who can 'debate' with you on the issue below, Ash. BUT I have to point out a couple of gaping holes in the very start of your email below. YOU SAY
"considered to be factual or probably factual information derived by the scientific method (including by direct observation)."
What was that? considered to be factual - probably factual - Based on the assumptions? How good is that?
And that is the whole problem with staking your claim so strongly, Ash The sieve has HOLES!
ALL the 'evidence' "might be considered to be factual" but that does not 'ACTUALLY make them factual'.
It all depends on WHO is considering it and what ASSUMPTIONS they use - ASSUMPTIONS are CONSIDERED - WOW and suddenly they become fact?
No, NOT fact but THOUGHT -
"PROBABLY" certainly does NOT mean 'CERTAIN'
So that makes YOUR "CONSIDERED THOUGHTS and ASSUMPTIONS" no better than mine or CMI or anyone else. Except for GOD, WHO WAS THERE AT THE TIME!
You were not".

Message 2:
"Ashley, GET A LIFE!
Many AIG/CMI people have so many science qualifications that they need bigger cards so you can read them.
To my knowledge you have NONE.
I have tried, as many others have, to be nice, to try to deal with the real issue - That BIG CHIP on your shoulder.
Quite frankly, I'm sure most who receive them simply hit the DELETE button.
Do you really think you are the only person who has suffered depression or whatever broke you and caused you to lose your faith.
Try remembering that that is exactly what satan is trying to do to all of us all the time. He Knows the truth even if you want to deny it.
As I have already said, you CANNOT, unequivocally prove your theories - or should I say the results of other peoples ASSUMPTIONS.
Try dealing with your own problems by facing up to them instead of hiding behind this silly crusade you are waging simply because you cant believe the obvious truth - Something cannot come from nothing - intelligence is required before anything can come into being. Even if you think it happened millions of years ago is irrelevant - it had to have a beginning. Explain that and you have the answer to it all. Apart from God is - there is NO answer.
And PLEASE NOTE the disclaimer below - it was on the last email I sent too.
It means this is between you and me - as was my last correspondence which you wrongly and unethically sent sent around the world without my authority.
I will overlook that, but not again. Why? Because God says "My word will not return to me void." In other words, speaking His truth will touch the person it was meant for even if that was not you - maybe someone you sent it to needed to read it more than you did.
This time, this is between us - if you don't like it take that up with me not the rest of the world.
Regards"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:10 am

Second YEC

Message 1 (first ever received from him)
"One final request to cease your discourtesy of sending unwanted email".

Message 2
"It’s actually the second such request, as you well know. And I made the request on behalf of all CMI staff because I have been made aware of the pattern of the exchanges to date, which don’t indicate any real desire to ‘come, let us reason together’.
I hate to disillusion your apparent desire to be seen as the heroic slayer of the creationist dragon, but the facts indicate that we do not run away from challenges which have substance to them—for example, our offer to publicly debate the champions of atheism/evolutionism at the last Global Atheist Convention, repeatedly refused. That is not the same as willingness to take part in protracted exchanges with timewasters.
Over and out".

Message 3
"I checked my sent box, and it was not there, but in my ‘drafts’ folder. You are right, you did not receive the first one. I do withdraw that part of the email. I reiterate my request that you be courteous enough not to clutter up our inboxes henceforth.
[ ]".
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:21 am

From my latest three emails (to several including these YECs, Mark Edon, Paul Braterman and Roger Stanyard):

Message 1 (sent last night, before the replies quoted above were made):
"It seems it is MUCH EASIER for fundamentalist Christians to shout and preach than for them - all of those copied in who are fellow YECs - actually to address the evidence. It seems that not a SINGLE ONE can show that the evidence from ice sheets - as described in my two emails earlier this week - does not easily disprove a 6,000 year old Earth.
I believe I have already clearly set out my view as it applies to [ ]'s denialism above: "Mainstream, peer-reviewed, real science normally proceeds within the CONTEXT of what is already considered to be factual or probably factual information derived by the scientific method (including by direct observation). Whereas 'creation science' (I don't necessarily include all intelligent design hypotheses within that description) sometimes ignores or goes beyond the relevant scientific context - including invoking the belief that their holy book contains an infallible guide to planetary and human origins as well as a guide to spiritual salvation". Just to add that YECs want to IGNORE evidence and consult Genesis instead concerning the past. In the words of Ken Ham on Facebook yesterday "this [pro-evolution] pastor is misleading them by using the word 'science' but really meaning 'historical science--belief about the past'".
[ ] previously wrote on 11 January: "Ashley and Professor Braterman, I don't need to be a scientist. Scientists are still getting it wrong...".
YECs seek to subvert science - because it frequently fails to help their cause. The 'presupposition' of scientists that YECs object to is that strands of physical evidence, considered as a whole, can actually tell us something about the planet's past (something probably happened - or seemingly did not happen as was previously assumed). They in effect wish to 'veto' all theories which do not accord with their ancient scripture.
Many highly Biblical Christians are ANTI-SCIENCE and they IGNORE or MISREPRESENT and REPEATEDLY QUESTION in particular what science has clearly shown to be INCORRECT. Oops, now I'm shouting too.
People like the AiG staff and Dr Sarfati repeatedly have avoided ANY scientific discussion of their Bible-inspired opinions (if they are too busy to do so perhaps they would kindly inform me). So far, in the case of many - not all - of the YEC copy recipients, all I have ever had back is smokescreens about 'assumptions/presuppositions/worldviews' or mere silence. SOME of them are highly scientifically qualified - whereas all I have as a scientific qualification is a basic Open University qualification obtained in 2009".

Message 2:
"The ice sheets visible today in Greenland and Antarctica refute a 6,000 year old Earth.
Your reply below confirms how scientifically qualified YECs are generally unwilling to discuss with sceptical enquirers any perceived flaws in the online 'information' that they provide for fundamentalist Christians about matters other than the Bible itself. As I wrote in a separate message yesterday: "People like the AiG staff and Dr Sarfati repeatedly have avoided ANY scientific discussion of their Bible-inspired opinions (if they are too busy to do so perhaps they would kindly inform me). So far, in the case of many - not all - of the YEC copy recipients, all I have ever had back is smokescreens about 'assumptions/presuppositions/worldviews' or mere silence. SOME of them are highly scientifically qualified - whereas all I have as a scientific qualification is a basic Open University qualification obtained in 2009".
There are four main and contrasting ways in which individual YECs react to emails: (1) Ignore totally (2) Complain about receiving them (3) Enquire about the sender's past/present Christianity or the lack of it and offer to pray for the sender (4) Largely avoid the main question asked, question the sender's 'worldview', and suggest that they read some more creationist materials".

Message 3:
"You are also asserting that my challenge has no 'substance', but you TOTALLY FAIL to address it.
Ice Sheets on Antarctica and Greenland disprove a 6,000 year old Earth.
I am not a member of ANY atheist body.
As for the other message from a YEC that I forwarded, the person claimed that I was ignoring a 'disclaimer' in a previous message from him (message now deleted) asking me not to forward the message to others. As I have just informed him, I recall NO such disclaimer".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:58 am

As just sent:




Whatever the purity of their motives, anyone teaching Christians that there was some sort of planetary catastrophe around 4,000 years' ago - namely a 500 year 'post-Flood' rapid Ice Age glaciation - is teaching a made-up YEC 'fact' that has no scientific validity.

There is NO scientific evidence for such an event at this point in time. In addition there is not the SLIGHTEST hint in the Bible that the Genesis Flood was followed by such an event. It cannot be used to 'explain' the size of eg the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

http://www.dmns.org/main/minisites/icea ... epth2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ark_1_10_1
"Numerical simulations of precipitation in the polar regions using conventional climate models with warm sea surface temperatures have demonstrated that ice sheets thousands of feet thick could have accumulated in less than 500 years." I sought to rebut that baseless claim in an email - to most or all of the copy recipients - on 2.12.11.

If there really was a global Flood 4,300 years' ago, I would NOT expect to see such massive ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:28 pm

Evolution myth-buster Dr David Catchpoole will shortly be touring 'middle England': http://www.creation.com/evolution-myth- ... catchpoole
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:57 am

But you can't catch Catchpoole in Poole.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument (and CMI dishonesty)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:12 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I've had a reply to the message below from David Catchpoole (a former evolutionist for a decade even whilst already a Christian - before he was 'nobbled' at a church talk):

"Ashley, you seriously want to trust millions-of-years interpretations of ice cores?
http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

http://creation.com/focus-271 (item under ‘Snow place for a base’)

David".

YES - I seriously DO.

ESPECIALLY after discovering and reading carefully the two CMI links that David supplied.

I already came across the following link earlier yesterday: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resourc ... ages_x.htm Of course, the main (15 year old) CMI link provides NONE of the details of compression that are given by USA Today, though I'm sure they were known in 1997.

"Evolutionists and other long-agers often say that ‘the present is the key to the past’. [YES - if there is no evidence to the contrary.] In that case, the 3000-metre-long ice core (brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992) would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation. [NO - it would NOT.] Allowing of course for compression of lower layers [YES - the inconvenient reality that you hastily gloss over], (which is also offset by the inevitable aftermath of a global Flood [GARBAGE - especially as the snow started forming the ice sheet AFTER any Floodwaters had receded], namely much greater precipitation and snowfall for a few centuries) [GARBAGE - especially as YECs now insist on a 'post-Flood ice age', and polar regions are drier not wetter during colder climatic periods] there is ample time in the 4,000 or so years since Noah’s day for the existing amounts of ice to have built up [only in the minds of foolish - or frightened - YECs] —even under today’s generally non-catastrophic conditions".

The other - brief - article also appears on first inspection to be misleading - about Antarctica and about how fast snow can 'pile up' in that continent. It also doesn't supply a live link to the BBC news website article that is mentioned - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3848133.stm) - which is suspicious, particularly after reading the BBC article. Note that this continent is HUGE. But the Halley Base is on the coast, NOT in the dry desert-like interior which is where the thickest part of the Ice Sheet is thought to date back 34 million years. In fact, to be accurate, Halley is sited on the FLOATING Brunt Ice Shelf (no wonder it's 'flat' there as mentioned by Professor Rapley)! Surprise, Surprise. How DISHONEST this part of the second link is.

Ice sheets are one area of science where YECs are clearly FORCED to LIE - by withholding or by misinterpreting evidence - in order to defend their position.

Young Earth Creationism - a ministry to recruit anxious conservative Christians into joining them in abusing the trust placed in them by other anxious conservative Christians. A ministry to lie, if necessary, for Jesus about science.

Though I don't totally rule out that God's 'opinion' is that Earth is 6,000 years' old, despite all the evidence to the contrary, because he has 'said so' - and that he may send non-converted people to hell for refusing to 'agree' with what they perceive as sheer nonsense (that also goes well beyond the Bible). From my own experience, and from the Bible's uncompromising pages, the Christian God (the Father anyway) is most certainly NOT known for any humility - and in addition his kindness is highly selective.

If he exists of course.

This message is being posted on the BCSE Community Forum (which is open to all including YECs - but does not often get advertised on YEC websites): viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2903

I assume that Mr Catchpoole - a speaker at two 'Carrying the Creation Torch' conferences in English churches in May 2012 - actually read these CMI articles before recommending them to me?

These same people at CMI are behind a planned ongoing international campaign which hopes that Richard Dawkins will become a YEC (Christian) and enthuses "you definitely won't want to miss our action packed adventures of destroying evolutionary dogma in the UK through critical examination" (is 'critical examination' what the CMI articles about ice sheets are eant to be offering?) Now, I can't prove microbes to Man evolution to anyone, but these fundamentalist Christians are very dogmatic INDEED about what they 'know' is false. http://questionevolutionuk.blogspot.com ... hoods.html



Somebody has just, about 5 minutes' ago, posted THIS link on CMI's facebook page, under their 15 YEAR OLD article by Wieland on the Lost Squadron. http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Do not worry, I am sure it will be rapidly hidden.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:17 am

In fact I suspect the person will be labelled a 'troll' by CMI as he has posted the same link under two other facebook discussions.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:19 am

CMI will either hide the link or insist that all the arguments given in it have already been debunked by their own scientific experts.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:10 am

I have some slides, and articles on the "Lost Squadron" ice layers. It has been a while (a few years), and I never finished the article. I'll dig around.

The basic issue is that the planes landed on the South East margin of Greenland. Marine humidity falls as snow on the margin at ~2 meters per year, with three to 8! melts per year. Melts are caused by rains replacing snowfall for as little as an hour. That means that you can have a lot of accumulated depth, and ice rinds in a few years.

Then, the ice cores used for climate research are from deep ice hundreds of miles from the coastal weather patterns.

Needless to say, but creationists are full of lies. Again.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:51 am

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:I have some slides, and articles on the "Lost Squadron" ice layers. It has been a while (a few years), and I never finished the article. I'll dig around.

The basic issue is that the planes landed on the South East margin of Greenland. Marine humidity falls as snow on the margin at ~2 meters per year, with three to 8! melts per year. Melts are caused by rains replacing snowfall for as little as an hour. That means that you can have a lot of accumulated depth, and ice rinds in a few years.

Then, the ice cores used for climate research are from deep ice hundreds of miles from the coastal weather patterns.

Needless to say, but creationists are full of lies. Again.



That's also what I found a while back after Tas Walker/David Catchpoole flagged the lost squadron 'evidence'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:50 am

Message sent to CMI just now:

http://creation.com/glasses-of-deep-time
Walker response:
"Your friend stated that since small clam fossils are found in the layers above large dinosaur fossils the Flood can't be the explanation for the geologic column. The obvious question to that is, "Why not?""
Answers in Genesis claim on their website that this should not be the case. They must be WRONG.
http://creation.com/deluge-disaster
"All these animals, so incredibly preserved, testify to catastrophic conditions that buried them suddenly. Land animals and marine animals have been overwhelmed and quickly covered in sediment. Whatever it was that caused this, it was huge, and it affected both the oceans and the land. If there really was a global Flood, just as the Bible says, then what would we expect to find? We would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth."
IF this happened, one would expect a RANDOM jumbled up fossil record.
Well done on CHANGING THE SUBJECT to the extinction of dinosaurs, by the way! [at the end of his answer]
http://www.nps.gov/dino/naturescience/s ... tology.htm
Sarfati response:
"As it happens, far from an adversary system in the area of origins, there is an unbalanced diet of one-sided evolutionary propaganda in the MMM (Mendacious Mainstream Media) and government educracy." What biased nonsense.
"I believe in science as well." That is HIGHLY MISLEADING and you know it! Did you not write: "The Bible, as God's written word, should be non-negotiable. Its teachings are propositional truth, and must be the foundation for all our teachings, including about the Flood. This applies not only to explicit statements, but to anything logically deducible from these statements. In fact, Jesus Himself endorsed the Flood as a real event, the Ark as a real ship, and Noah as a real person (Luke 17:26-27), so how can any of His professing followers deny it? No scientific model that overrules these clear teachings is acceptable". What you believe in, Dr Sarfati, is revelation. Not the scientific method - if it produces the 'wrong' results.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:59 am

David Catchpoole was a scientist - once. http://creation.com/no-fence-to-sit-on
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A core argument

Postby Steve660 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:06 pm

I hate to disillusion your apparent desire to be seen as the heroic slayer of the creationist dragon, but the facts indicate that we do not run away from challenges which have substance to them


So why has Tasman Walker steadfastly ignored my article about the Giant's Causeway in which I debunk his claims on detailed technical grounds? He has also ignored my article in which I do the same to his claims about Siccar Point. And we all know how Garner reacted when I took him on in painstaking technical detail over Set in Stone. Feel free to point all this out in your next exchange Ashley!
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: A core argument

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:49 pm

"I hate to disillusion your apparent desire to be seen as the heroic slayer of the creationist dragon, but the facts indicate that we do not run away from challenges which have substance to them".

Having re-checked this thread, the YEC who replied to me thus IS one of the speakers at the Super Conference.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9053
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests