A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 11, 2013 8:12 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Rising carbon dioxide levels did not bring an end to glaciations, but - following warming as Earth's orbit altered - almost certainly more carbon dioxide was released from the oceans as they warmed, exacerbating the warming trend.
Where's the "orbit" stuff come from? I can't make out from your quoting. What I do see in their article is a claim of a disruption to planetary thermal equilibrium - evidently by the redistribution of water from under- and over-the-ground to on the ground. Which in itself suggests, what with superheated water coming up and icy water coming down, that they need to produce some very well worked-out (ha!) calculations around what they are proposing.


Brian
In this earlier blog that he links back to:
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/noahs-f ... l-warming/
Walker claimed "Note the term “amplifying feedback”. This means that Milankovitch cycles are not enough to explain the Ice Ages, which is understandable considering the relatively small variations in orbital parameters for the earth. So, they added a positive feedback mechanism from CO2."

I was making the point (made by Al Gore in response to climate change sceptics) that sometimes in the pre-industrial distant past rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have lagged behind (natural not man-caused) warming and long-term icemelt rather than always preceded it - ie carbon dioxide levels still did and do matter for the climate.

Hope this makes sense.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Tas Walker - fraud?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 12, 2013 6:40 pm

I have just sent the following email to the lead researcher whose Science paper is highlighted in the new Tas Walker blog post (Walker is cc'd in):



"Julie Brigham-Grette

You may care to see THIS new blog post:
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/ice-fre ... l-history/
It highlights an online article that refers to THIS recent paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early ... c7683ee824

Around 24 hours' ago I attempted to comment critically on the blog
post - but my post has not appeared, nor has it even been flagged (this
being the normal procedure in such cases) as 'awaiting moderation'. An
email to Tas Walker has so far been ignored. It rather looks like I
might have been banned from commenting any further on Tas' blogs -
because I disagree with Bible-inspired Young Earth Creationism and
Flood Geology (I also felt that the blog misrepresented the conclusions
of the paper - though I stress that I have only seen the Abstract).

You may possibly wish to comment on the blog? I have not shown below
my attempted comment as I would be interested to see whether you - as
the lead researcher - arrive at the same conclusion that I came to.

Mr A Haworth-Roberts (UK)
(I have a limited science background, but am familiar with claims made
by YECs regarding Noah's Flood as described in the book of Genesis -
they date this year long worldwide event as having occurred around
4,300 years' ago.)"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Tas Walker - blog fraud?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 13, 2013 2:40 am

Email received from Tas Walker:
"Hi Ashley,
Your post did not appear as 'awaiting moderation' because it went into the spam box for some reason.
I note that the post is now on the bcse blog so it does not need to be posted a second time.
I hope you are well and that your hassles with your electricity are behind you.
Take care,
Tas"

I don't buy any of this and have replied as follows (copied to Julie Brigham-Grette):
"Liar.
I wanted my post to appear under your blog because your blog deliberately misrepresents the conclusion of the science paper you refer to (in my opinion).
Please moderate it. If I am mistaken, please tell me how by reply. I attempted to post at your blog 36 hours ago. My challenge is to the very contents of your blog (which I believe will mislead any non-discerning YEC readers who believe in your 'the flood and associated hot seas helped cause a recent rapid ice age' notion - so you should either publish my comment and refute it if you can, or else admit to me that you (somehow) misrepresented the conclusion of the Science paper and hopefully amend your blog post.
If you fail to approve my comment, I will simply conclude that I have discovered your attempt to mislead readers about the conclusion reached by the scientists, and that you wish to CONCEAL this fact from your regular readers (who probably will not look at the BCSE community forum).
It's your choice of course. But this post also goes onto this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2970&start=495
This message is being copied to the lead scientist concerned, Julie Brigham-Grette. I recall that you were criticised previously by ANOTHER scientist whose paper you recently blogged about. (As already mentioned, I haven't copied my attempted post to Julie by email as I wanted her to read your blog without being unduly influenced by anything specific that I have said.)
Ashley
PS I hope Jesus approves of lying because you have become a liar for Jesus. I have just re-posted my attempted comment under your blog. Yet it has vanished (again), apparently disappearing into the 'spam' box - again. I believe this is deliberate. The post is NOT 'spam'. It does not even contain any links. I suggest that you have arranged for any lengthy posts by me (and perhaps other awkward critics to go into 'spam'). Either that or you have a persistently, conveniently, faulty website."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 13, 2013 7:04 pm

Walker has a habit of misrepresenting scientists' conclusions - so as
to make them 'agree' with certain YEC (extra-biblical) fantasies.

In this case that the 'massive volcanism' apparently accompanying
'Noah's Flood' warmed the oceans causing massive evaporation and
snowfall ie a rapid 'ice age' after the Flood as the volcanic dust
cooled the atmosphere and blocked sunlight.

This YEC rapid ice age nonsense is not supported by the Brigham-Grette
paper - which found a warmer CLIMATE than previously assumed before the
last Pleistocene glaciation, NOT 'warmer oceans'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 13, 2013 8:38 pm

New email sent to ALL the researchers behind the Science paper highlighted by Tas Walker (marked urgent):


"Recent Tas Walker creationist blog post re your recent paper in Science (pl acknowledge)

Dear All

I would be very grateful if Julie Brigham-Grette or one of her
relevant colleagues could briefly comment on my recent emails (now
copied to all the researchers concerned) about the above topic. Either
cc'd to all or (should you prefer) sent to me only. This is the blog
post in question:
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/ice-fre ... l-history/

In particular, I would welcome your views on the following statement
by Mr Walker:
"And not surprisingly Brigham-Grette et al. discover exactly what
creationist geologists have been talking about for decades: the oceans
were warmer".

The Abstract of your paper mentions: "Evidence from Lake El'gygytgyn,
NE Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6-3.4 million years ago, summer
temperatures were ~8C warmer than today when pCO2 was ~400 ppm". As I
understand it, sediment cores such as those examined in this example
are used to interpret past regional climates, not past sea (or lake)
temperatures - though I realise that much of the high Arctic is, and
was ahead of the last Pleistocene glaciation, ocean or sea ice rather
than land. And, among other things, the ScienceDaily report linked to
in Mr Walker's blog reported: "Important to the story are the fossil
pollen found in the core, including Douglas fir and hemlock. These
allow the reconstruction of vegetation around the lake in the past,
which in turn paints a picture of past temperatures and precipitation".
Thus identified past land vegetation is thought to paint a picture not
of past sea temperatures in the high Arctic (far from land), but of
"past temperatures and precipitation".

I believe Mr Walker's blog post is in major part an attempt to inform
his often fundamentalist Christian readers that a group of mainstream
scientists have reached a conclusion which 'agrees' with a long-running
young Earth creationist fantasy about how a 'rapid ice age' allegedly
started less than 5,000 years ago, shortly after 'Noah's Flood'
described in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Specifically this is the
YEC claim that the 'massive worldwide volcanism' apparently
accompanying 'Noah's Flood' warmed the oceans causing massive
evaporation and snowfall ie a rapid 'ice age' after the Flood as the
volcanic dust cooled the atmosphere and blocked sunlight.

In my opinion, whilst a warmer climate than previously assumed might
have been accompanied by a warmer Arctic Ocean, this YEC 'rapid ice
age' nonsense is not supported by the Brigham-Grette et al paper. As I
understand it (having only seen the Abstract and the Science Daily
report, not the full paper) your paper found that there was a warmer
CLIMATE than previously assumed before the last Pleistocene glaciation
- not 'warmer oceans'.

As you may guess, my would-be post under Mr Walker's blog remains
BLOCKED. So far he can of course dismiss it as ONE person's viewpoint
only.

If you wish to read my attempted post, its text can be found here - on
an anti-creationist discussion forum that is open to all (post dated 11
May):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2970&start=480

I am trying to ascertain whether you agree with my attempted comments
(which Mr Walker has NOT so far disagreed with).

Thanks for any reply.

Mr Ashley Haworth-Roberts (UK)"
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Mon May 13, 2013 9:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 13, 2013 9:19 pm

I'd be happy to post reproduced comments like those I've recently addressed to Tas Walker at 'Conversations with Creationists'. However, when I clicked on the link I got the message "You do not have the required permissions to read topics within this forum" (not surely whether this comes up because there is no content there yet).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Tas Walker blog claim: lead scientist replies to my enquiry

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 14, 2013 3:43 pm

I refer again to this piece: http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/ice-fre ... l-history/

I received the following email from the lead scientist, Julie Brigham-Grette. It was not marked confidential but it was copied to me only - so I am not forwarding it directly to Tas Walker or anyone else who was copied in on previous emails.

"I had a look at the original web site and your comments here. I really hate to enter in because this Tas Walker does not have any interest in Science as a discipline of rigorous observation and testing. If he choses to take a literal interpretation of the Bible then it does not matter what we think or say. I do appreciate your challenging him but my experience is that creationists don't listen to scientific arguments. They don't accept the age of the Earth at 4 Billion years, so you can't even try to tell them about ice cores that record CO2 that dates to 800,000.
thank you, Julie BG".

I note that she has not disagreed with my interpretations in my attempted comment of 11 May (reproduced below):
"And not surprisingly Brigham-Grette et al. discover exactly what creationist geologists have been talking about for decades: the oceans were warmer.
"One of our major findings is that the Arctic was very warm in the middle Pliocene and Early Pleistocene [~ 3.6 to 2.2 million years ago] when others have suggested atmospheric CO2 was not much higher than levels we see today"."
The researchers discovered no such thing. Their conclusions from the abundant evidence relate to AIR temperatures ie the prevailing CLIMATE (the oceans may have warmed but they did not discover such).
I'm afraid that your 'warm oceans' ahead of Pleistocene glaciations are young Earth creationist dogma rather than an evidence-based reality.
"The quality of scientific research into past climates and the factors that drive them would be greatly improved if researchers were better read on biblical geology." In what way? The Bible says nothing about different climates before Noah's Flood or after Noah's Flood. In your earlier article that you link to you assert: "By ignoring the Flood they cannot explain the post-Flood (Pleistocene) Ice Age". Scientists have explained this event - and also identified when it happened (certainly not within the last 5,000 years). Orbital factors, leading to more unmelted snow during northern hemisphere summers [this word was accidentally omitted], and cooling oceans being able to store more carbon dioxide (an 'amplifying feedback' mechanism, as mentioned in your previous article).
Rising carbon dioxide levels did not bring an end to glaciations, but - following warming as Earth's orbit altered - almost certainly more carbon dioxide was released from the oceans as they warmed, exacerbating the warming trend.
Besides, without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere Earth's mean temperature would be much much lower. Scientists are right to worry about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels now reaching 400 ppm - once again".

The position remains that Tas Walker is still BLOCKING my comment, rather than publishing it and either accepting what I say or taking issue with it. He has not informed me that my interpretation of his main claim was in any way mistaken. He made the excuse that there is no 'need' to publish my comment under his blog - because it can already be read at the BCSE community forum. But do his blog followers come to this website?

Should anyone else comment favourably on what Walker said, especially on the scientists 'discovering' (recent) warm oceans as YECs have been telling us about for years point, I will attempt once more to question his interpretation of the scientists' conclusions - mentioning that I have been in brief contact with the lead scientist concerned and she did not take issue with my interpretation, and enquiring whether he is prepared to amend his article and add a brief footnote to this effect (I suspect not though, as he wants a YEC 'discovery' to be 'agreed' by mainstream scientists).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Tas Walker blog post

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 15, 2013 3:05 am

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/ice-fre ... l-history/
The post has now been amended (see comments also).

The following email was sent by Tas Walker to some of the researchers, myself, and one or two others who I had copied in:
"Dear All,
For all those who have been contacted by Ashley Haworth-Roberts, I
just want to let you know that I have updated the item in question at
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/ice-fre ... l-history/
My aim is to present information that is
factually correct, but I do that from within a different interpretive
framework.
If there are any concerns or questions feel free to contact me.
Take care,
Tas Walker".

I have replied as follows (also copied to Cowboy Bob who was uncritically praising the post on his blog):
"Thanks.
Cowboy Bob Sorensen - please NOTE.
That creation geologists have been, we are now told, saying for
decades that "the climate in the Arctic was warmer in the past" (at the
end of 'Noah's Flood') comes as news to me. I know that real scientists
don't think Arctic air temperatures were very much different to today's
around 4,300 years ago.
"Creationist models of the post-Flood Ice Age have been discussed in
creationist literature for decades, and are the only models that
provide a plausible mechanism for the cause of the Ice Age." I know
that I am not alone in profoundly disagreeing with this assertion
(which I think may be new in the blog post). By the way, we are STILL
in an 'ice age' today (but not a glaciation).
But I will flag the amended version of the post on the BCSE community
forum, along with the short message below and this brief reply".

Well it took four days but we got there in the end.

Though if I was one of the research scientists I still would not be very happy with the statement:
"And not surprisingly Brigham-Grette et al. discover exactly what creationist geologists have been talking about for decades: the climate in the Arctic was warmer in the past". Because their research relates to ~ 3.6 to 2.2 million years ago not 4,300 years ago. Though a careful reading of the amended article should prevent confusion or the false impression that the scientists have actually discovered greater warmth than previously thought just 4,300 years ago.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 15, 2013 3:23 am

If you are a YEC reading this thread, kindly note that sometimes there IS science content on this community forum.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed May 15, 2013 9:37 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I'd be happy to post reproduced comments like those I've recently addressed to Tas Walker at 'Conversations with Creationists'. However, when I clicked on the link I got the message "You do not have the required permissions to read topics within this forum" (not surely whether this comes up because there is no content there yet).
Sorry Ashley, I didn't get it quite right. I set the new forum up speculatively and didn't try to use it. It seems I didn't set the permissions, which it was supposed to copy directly from Free For All. I'll let you know when it's working. Thanks.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 15, 2013 8:00 pm

http://creation.com/aim-spit-and-catch
Aim Spit and Catch in a Pool(e).
:)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu May 16, 2013 4:45 pm

From CMI's Facebook page:
"Gall mites magnificently preserved in amber ostensibly 230 million years old are just the same as mites today."

How about this version?
"Gall mites magnificently preserved in amber 230 million years old are ostensibly just the same as mites today".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu May 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Just noticed this blog site. Despite initial appearances, it's NOT promoting the YEC brand of Christianity:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.co.uk/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 21, 2013 12:32 am

More CMI propaganda: http://creation.com/attenborough-60-years
The Denton quote is almost 30 years old and I think he WAS some sort of creationist back in 1985.
"During the Flood, catastrophic plate tectonics (not today’s claimed drift rates of 2–15 cm per year) could have supplied the massive catastrophic geological processes that lifted up the Himalayas and other mountain ranges some 4,500 (not 65 million) years ago." UTTER GARBAGE. If this CPT drivel is about a supercontinent 'rapidly' breaking up, how on Earth could it explain the formation/raising to greater heights of the Himalaya and seashells being found high up there - this being via SUBDUCTION ie plates COLLIDING?
"As we have often said, creationists and evolutionists have the same data. It is how the data are interpreted that leads to differing conclusions." CMI's interpretations are unscientific and ridiculous. The mainstream scientific explanations have stood the test of time.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 22, 2013 10:12 pm

If you suffer from insomnia, this may help: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=LgDaViPUfZY
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron