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 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:55 pm

Very interesting:
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/02/ ... mment-4410

EDIT:
Pleased to note that this other blog has started up again (he posts a lot of good stuff though sometimes I find the way he writes a little heavy going or slightly unclear):
http://questioninganswersingenesis.blog ... mment-form
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 Feb 05, 2014 7:45 pm

Lucky that there were no human casualties from this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26035447
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 » Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:10 am

Message as sent to AiG via the website:


Far-fetched claims about creationist 'predictions', by David DeWitt.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... redictions

"In the historic debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, Nye insisted repeatedly that the creation model was not scientific and that it did not make predictions. This was in spite of the several creationist predictions that Ken Ham had outlined in his opening statement. Though many more could have been given, this sampling should have sufficed."

What nonsense.

At one hour and 58 minutes (when he finally sort of answered the specific question that was asked) Ham asserted that he had made 'predictions' earlier in the debate eg that there should be one human race today because the Bible indicates one race or that there should be 'kinds' of life today because Genesis 1 refers to kinds. What drivel. The Bible predicted NOTHING with respect to the (single) human race at the time it was written nor with respect to 'kinds' of living creatures then or now - it simply referred to the blindingly obvious that could be observed at the time ie people all appear to be the same and distinct from other animals, and other forms of life vary considerably and there are 'kinds' of birds or sea creatures and so forth.

Ham first referred to intelligence, 'kinds', the flood, the human 'race', a 'young' universe and the tower of Babel during his main presentation - beginning at around 37 minutes. And - although I did not jot this down in my notes because the point made no sense to me - Ham in effect claimed that his creation model 'based' on the Bible made various 'predictions' that can be tested by 'observational' science (ONLY by 'observational' science not the other kind that Ham rejects).
- that we should find evidence confirming that an intelligence produced life (I agree that mainstream science cannot disprove that the complexity of life was the result of 'intelligent design' though that does not rule out evolution of the said life from 'simpler' forms);
- that we should find evidence today confirming reproduction 'after their kind' (well what else could possibly happen - and evolutionary theory does NOT say that a dinosaur gave birth overnight to a bird; he also cited a 2014 scientific paper pointing to a single origin for dogs - which of course humans bred from wolves by ARTIFICIAL selection ie domestic dogs are NOT part of whatever God created on 'day six' according to 'kinds');
- that we should find evidence today 'confirming' Noah's global flood (apparently the fact that there is a fossil record - who would have thought it, not the writer of Genesis though - is this 'confirmation');
- that we should find evidence confirming 'one race' of humans (well we find one race TODAY as in biblical times quelle surprise - but also fossils of OTHER hominids which lived much earlier on, so that 'prediction' fails at least with respect to what we have discovered about the PAST);
- that we should find evidence 'confirming' the tower of Babel (the evidence being that - hold the front page - in biblical times and indeed today different languages are spoken by humanity);
- that we should find evidence of a 'young' universe (but we DON'T).

Thus, in order, these 'predictions' are:
- questionable;
- not a prediction at all;
- a failure since how could there NOT be a fossil record;
- mostly not a prediction at all (unless you are predicting using the Bible that the single extant human species when it was written would not change in the next few thousand years) and partly a failed prediction (with respect to certain fossils we have found which date to pre-biblical times);
- a failure (or if the prediction is that there will be many languages that is not a prediction but merely an observation);
- an utter failure.

Bill Nye ASKED for predictions from Ham because he understandably did not believe he had received ANY. As at least one person commenting on your Facebook page points out. And your foolish colleague Roger retorts: "one example of prediction that Bill gave was Tiktaalik, something that happened in the past. Ken's examples were no different. Since the Bible is true, we would expect our study of genetics to confirm that". ONE of Ken's six 'predictions' actually was a prediction. The rest were either FAILED predictions or not predictions AT ALL. Pathetic.

DeWitt is largely making excuses and offering diversionary tactics - days after Ham's INEVITABLE failure to offer meaningful 'creation model' predictions (because his creation is simply NOT a viable model of origins for a modern scientific era).

Though he is honest about the self-imposed, unnecessary and unscientific CONSTRAINTS that 'creation scientists' work under when formulating hypotheses. His refusal to accept a prevailing evolutionary view of Neanderthals (which was later overturned as more data became available) is not so much a 'prediction' as a lucky guess (that Neanderthals were more genetically similar to us than previously thought) and simply shows that science is never perfect and there is always more to learn before theories can be confirmed. Besides neither our species nor Neanderthals are/were descended from a literal Adam and Eve since no such 'first couple' really existed. So any 'prediction' by DeWitt is largely falsified by genetics and history.

And did DeWitt specifically predict that our species interbred with Neanderthals? Probably not since I suspect he insists they were 'fully human' anyway. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... dewitt.asp
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

David Coppedge having another rant

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:26 pm

Wilful ignorance and kneejerk scepticism on full display from the intelligent science denier who bans me from making questioning comments under his blogs (which include the rants shown in green):
http://crev.info/2014/02/downfall-of-homo-antecessor/

He seems unaware - or simply dismissive - of the fact that this area is one of the fastest eroding coastlines in the UK, the south east part of England is sinking due to isostatic rebound in the north of the UK, sea levels are rising anyway due to thermal expansion, and we experienced more wind storms and floods than 'normal' between April 2012 and May 2013 (with strong onshore easterlies at times during spring 2013). Thus - in the period that humans have been around to notice them or look for them - we may have discovered MORE such footprints like this in southern Britain in recent times than previously. There have been other beach discoveries this winter eg in Wales (spring tides mean very low as well as very high tides).

"But lo and behold, delicate human tracks burst into view in 2013 for a couple of weeks, then were gone forever. It’s much more sensible to view the tracks as fairly recent." Sure. If you are a bigoted young earth creationist.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0088329
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslides/happisburgh.html

(I've only skimmed the Coppedge article; this is not a comprehensive analysis.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:45 pm

CMI speaker Calvin Smith on a short UK tour.

These details are in an email I have just received (one of the venues is a cinema rather than a church).
Sunday 11 May 2014 6.30pm
Calvin Smith
King’s Centre, Millthorne Avenue, Clitheroe Lancashire, BB7 2LE England
Tuesday 13 May 2014 7.30pm
Calvin Smith
Vue Cinema, Cook Road, Dagenham Essex, RM9 6UQ England
Thursday 15 May 2014 7.30pm & 8.50pm
Calvin Smith
The Kings Church, Longmead Road Epsom, KT19 9BU England
Sunday 18 May 2014 6.30pm
Calvin Smith
Chapel Lane, Bodmin Cornwall, PL31 2LH England

More about Smith: http://creation.com/calvin-smith
He has no science background, as he himself admits.

According to the 'supporter' email:
"Christians take note. Atheist groups are becoming bolder and more militant in their presentation of evolution as fact and as a reason to discredit the authority of God’s Word.
What is ‘Creation Magazine Live!’?
Creation Ministries International (CMI) produces a TV show seen worldwide called Creation Magazine LIVE! that challenges humanistic assumptions based on such evolutionary teachings to embolden the faith of Christians and cause people to reconsider what the Bible says about origins.
This high impact program affects many lives.
Hosted by Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith (both speakers for CMI Canada), Creation Magazine LIVE! is seen on Revelation TV in the UK and many other countries.
Calvin Smith
From 10–19 May, Creation Magazine LIVE! is going ‘on the road’ to visit churches and communities all across the UK as host Calvin Smith shares the same type of faith-building information seen on the show. Don‘t miss these exciting events! A professional and dynamic speaker, Calvin will seek to deliver relevant, high impact sessions covering the key questions/areas surrounding the creation/evolution debate and the book of Genesis. An extensive range of creation resources (books, DVDs and magazines) will be available each meeting.
How can you be involved?
Host or join in hosting or supporting a Creation Magazine LIVE! event near you
Promote the Creation Magazine LIVE! TV program (seen on Revelation TV) to family, friends and acquaintances
Share your favourite Creation Magazine LIVE! episodes via social media
Run an origins-focussed evangelism campaign
Book a speaker in your local church!

Calvin Smith
“Great show thank you again for making my faith unbreakable, to be honest I was an atheist before I started watching now my whole family watches. Thank you again.” —Rob Y.
“My goal is to become knowledgable and then able to teach others of Bibilical Truths . I have watched you on t.v. and am very impressed with the revelation and knowledge you all have, its wonderful. My wife watches as well, keep up the excellent work of revealing Gods Truth. I wait for your information , thank you and be blessed.” —Kim G.
Please use these Creation Magazine LIVE! meetings to your advantage—advertise them among your circle of friends and acquaintances and bring them along!
Our Ministry Event Coordinator will make it easy for you to arrange what we pray will be a successful, faith-impacting event.
Please contact our Ministry Department at ukministry@creation.info. or send us your details here."

(Smith's sidekick in those anti-evolutionary videos on the CMI website, Richard Fangrad, is an expert on ... electronics.
http://creation.com/richard-fangrad)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

An ICE PACK of lies by Jake Hebert of the ICR

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:17 pm

I refer to a simplistic article by Jake Hebert of the ICR which is provocatively entitled 'Speedy Glaciers Trample Multiple Ice-Age Theories'.

http://www.icr.org/article/8007/
Well it mentions ONE rapidly recently moving Greenland glacier. And then changes the subject and asserts without elaborating that the evidence for multiple ice ages is "actually quite weak". And assures us that a fellow YEC thinks the Milankovitch theory is 'inadequate'. And fails even to mention ice cores! And cites this article claiming that it shows that secular geologists accept that "multiple-till layers can actually be the result of glacial advances and retreats within a single ice age" (that would I am sure be a 'single ice age' over the last few millions of years, NOT the 500 or so years that YEC ideologues and fantasists have to INSIST upon because of 'biblical timescales'):
http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... cent_Areas
Hebert goes on to assure us that the YEC 'post-Flood Ice Age' fantasy would have involved "rapid oscillations of the ice sheet edges" and that THIS "would have helped to produce the deposits that secular scientists erroneously interpret as evidence of multiple ice ages". Do 'secular scientists' only examine deposits at 'ice sheet edges' past or present? No, I'm sure they do not. But Hebert fails to explain why a (probably impossibly rapid) ice age glaciation triggered by Noah's Flood and NOT by the Milankovitch astronomical theory would leave abundant evidence of repeated oscillations between glacials and inter-glacials (such as the present day). Such as the "locations where glacial deposits are separated by deposits that are apparently not of direct glacial origin" which he acknowledges have been found.

I once challenged fellow YEC and 'flood geologist' Tas Walker on this topic.
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/prelimi ... um-period/
He appeared short of direct answers.

It's a pity Bill Nye did not debate one of the simpletons at the ICR. Their material is endlessly simplistic and downright weak and lazy.

Hebert does indeed insult the intelligence. Another anti-science ideologue out to fool the religious foolish.

(I've also flagged this in the current discussion at Eye on the ICR entitled (correctly) 'Jake Hebert insults the intelligence'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

A chance to criticise CMI and mock AiG as well

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:33 am

As sent to CMI in the UK (just managed to comply with an 1,100 word limit):

http://creation.com/from-the-seas-to-the-skies
"This is because, according to evolutionary theory, along the evolutionary way there should have been some animals (and hence some fossils) with partly formed legs, and some with partly formed eyes, and some with partly formed swimming tails, and some with partly formed defence mechanisms, such as body armour plating and protective shells".
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... lf-a-wing/
HOW is this wrong?
"Whoa! The fact that amphibians exist today does not prove that fish changed into them". Try telling Answers in Genesis about logic. "The logical argument for the fact that plants survived the Flood is actually quite simple. The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood. We see plants today. Therefore plants survived the Flood."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... vive-flood
You ask how Anchiornis could get to the treetops. Well, Answers in Genesis would 'answer' that it was an extinct BIRD! http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-02092013 (Part 1)


EDIT: when I clicked on send I was told that the word limit is in fact 1,000 words! So had to send the reply in TWO instalments.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 » Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:21 pm

Comment as sent on new CMI article:


http://creation.com/saturns-titan
Titanic effort by DC!

But:
http://www.universetoday.com/96456/bene ... -youthful/
"Titan is around four billion years old, roughly the same age as the rest of the solar system. But the low number of impact craters put estimates of its surface at only between 100 million and one billion years old."

"When you hear an upper limit of 10 or 100 million years for an observed process, keep in mind that’s what it is—an upper limit. It could be far less, including dates that fit the biblical time frame. The upper limits stated here, though, are disastrous for the evolutionary worldview".

But you are LYING Mr Coppedge; the non peer-reviewed Winder articles does NOT say or imply what you wish to suggest, and the ages suggested for the surface of Titan most certainly do NOT rule out a 4 billion year old solar system.

As both CMI and Coppedge routinely censor (not refute), this goes onto the BCSE community forum.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Peter Henderson » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:53 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Comment as sent on new CMI article:


http://creation.com/saturns-titan
Titanic effort by DC!

But:
http://www.universetoday.com/96456/bene ... -youthful/
"Titan is around four billion years old, roughly the same age as the rest of the solar system. But the low number of impact craters put estimates of its surface at only between 100 million and one billion years old."

"When you hear an upper limit of 10 or 100 million years for an observed process, keep in mind that’s what it is—an upper limit. It could be far less, including dates that fit the biblical time frame. The upper limits stated here, though, are disastrous for the evolutionary worldview".

But you are LYING Mr Coppedge; the non peer-reviewed Winder articles does NOT say or imply what you wish to suggest, and the ages suggested for the surface of Titan most certainly do NOT rule out a 4 billion year old solar system.

As both CMI and Coppedge routinely censor (not refute), this goes onto the BCSE community forum.


Titan's surface is completely irrelevant to the age of the solar system. Some planetary surfaces are young and some are old. So what ?

This is very basic astronomy.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:27 am

If Paul Garner is still reading this community forum, he should note that the guest blogger (creationist turned atheist) whose blog page is linked to here (he's named Matthew) took aim in a recent blog post entitled 'The Geocentric Argument' at one of PAUL's recent blogs (where of course NO comments are permitted):
http://brucegerencser.net/2014/02/creat ... iteralism/ (the guest post which also links to the 'Confessions of a YEC' site)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:26 pm

As sent:

http://creation.com/dawn-of-the-mammals
"These are not the various fossils’ real ages". Were you there? No you weren't - anti-science bigot.
"The platypus and the echidna did not “split from all other mammals around 200 million years ago”, but were created fully functional by God on Day 6 of Creation Week, some 6,000 years ago." Were you there? No you weren't - anti-science bigot.
"These were Earth’s very conditions following the global Flood of Noah’s Day." Were you there? No you weren't you lying anti-science bigot.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:55 pm

My latest comment here (in case it gets censored):


http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... ptive-god/
"I HAVE made substantial and substantive contributions here (I expect Adam would agree) - but all young Earth creationists are closed-minded ideologues who already have the Truth about science and God Thank You. You have only ever gone through the motions of acknowledging ANY argument I make against your far-fetched and anti-scientific claims.
I am posting this onto the BCSE community forum since it shows your total bigotry and dishonesty Tim.
Your implied suggestion that I [am] trying to convert people to evolution is hilarious.
I am trying to expose the lies of young Earth creationism. You don't like me doing that.
And yes, science has disproven a 6,000 year old Earth or universe. It did so before you were born."


I've also tried to add the following comment here (but it awaits moderation):
http://believervsnonbelievers.wordpress ... omment-607
"YEC blogger Tim Gilleand has mentioned the above, slightly breathless, video HERE:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... ptive-god/
He’s trying to argue that because I have not produced a six minute video, therefore I have made no substantial arguments against his preposterous claims (now and over previous months) and have merely ranted.
You may wish to check whether his claim is truthful."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:13 pm

Yep - the Dishonest Bigot Gilleand has censored my last reply to his garbage - because I showed that his hourglass claims were total nonsense (and scarcely biblical either).
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... omment-547

He has NO answer - except false accusations and then silent censorship.
If he is RIGHT then God is an evil, deceitful, sadistic liar. If.

PS He has also now silently censored an earlier response of mine - to "Men came up with the dating methods. God didn’t give them to us" - that he had earlier today/overnight tried unsuccessfully to refute, by accusing me of 'bait and switch' among other things.

My further response - which I know he will HIDE:
"You also censored my reply to this false claim (that dating methods are invented by men and do not exist in nature). Dishonest bigot.
Oh I’m being persecuted for Jesus, Ashley!
No for LYING. Just like every YEC blogger I’ve ever read."

They are all frauds. Every one of them.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 Mar 04, 2014 9:53 pm

Coppedge hopes this - his mini-rant in green essentially - will cause Old Earth Creationists and theistic evolutionists to repent of their moyboy folly. Moyboy? Please click on the link at the end and all will be revealed.
http://crev.info/2014/03/geology-fails-oxygen-test/
(I also looked at the Abstract of the paper in question, to try and see what Coppedge was bothered about, but am none the wiser for doing so - other than seeing that geologists have concluded that hematite is an unreliable 'marker' or 'proxy':
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/ ... 8.abstract)

Meanwhile:
http://news.sky.com/story/1220597/virus ... s-in-frost
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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 Mar 06, 2014 11:57 pm

My intended comment here, referring to a YEC 'rebuttal' of an anti-YEC video (not the best video I have ever watched). My comments 'awaits moderation' as I post this:
http://believervsnonbelievers.wordpress ... omment-636

""The following three papers give evidence of how different global conditions have affected decay rates". With respect they do NOT, as any reasonably intelligent person could quickly realise from reading the Abstracts - and to my knowledge no scientific papers have ever been published showing such an alteration or variation other than in rare cases under laboratory conditions and involving isotopes that aren't used in radiometric dating anyway. And this 1999 paper's Abstract says NOTHING about decay rate variations OVER time (even if it did Earth remains very old indeed NOT very young): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5441/882

Thus Tim is speaking lies.

"If we have found evidence of decay rates being affected by global conditions, why would it be far-fetched to believe the global flood may have affected the decay rates?" The question no longer applies for the reason given above. It refers to a FICTIONAL state of affairs instead of a factual one. Science does not deal with known FICTION.

"I love science". Funny, that love for science does not shine through in Tim's blogs. Nor in any other YEC blog - and most YEC bloggers are so bigoted that they either censor most criticisms and challenges they rightly receive questioning their 'science' and science denial or they forbid people from commenting altogether. Tim - like ANY YEC since the position is absurdly against realities (even if the Christian god exists) - loves what he wants science to show not what it does show. Plus science denial when that is unavoidably required for reasons of dogma. Tim may be sincere but he has shown me that he is sincerely wrong since he will not accept any argument that contradicts his own cherished theories.

"Perhaps your “science” is not as observed as you are so proudly assuming." Perhaps Tim is displaying his bigoted ignorance and denial? The idea that only natural selection, and no other evidence supporting naturalistic evolution, has ever been observed is a YEC standard lie.

"Although I am personally not an expert on isochron dating, it apparently isn’t a problem for creationism". It most certainly IS a problem for YOUNG Earth creationism. But being told this Tim will remain a young Earth creationist - and continue to insists that 99% of the world's scientists have got things wrong.

"If the atmospheric conditions affected the speed of decay during the flood – you wouldn’t know." I suggest otherwise. Decay rates of different radioactive isotopes would have been, under Tim's unbiblical and hypothetical scenario, affected differently - such that the dating methods would not largely agree in the way that they do (and some would probably age rocks at 4,500 years or less and others might point to an Earth much older perhaps even beyond 4.5 bn years). YECs fail to understand - or dishonestly pretend not to - that ANY decay rate variation could HYPOTHETICALLY have happened in the past but the ONLY variation they would accept is one (among perhaps hundreds of scenarios) that would hey presto confirm 'biblical timescales'. That is not science, it is religion conscripting 'science'. But if you tell a YEC this they still remain a YEC and they continue to criticise scientists into the future. Thus proving that their position is purely RELIGIOUS.

"The point is Bible-believers have specific reasons to dispute the uniformitarian assumptions you need to prove an old-earth." The reasons are not scientific. If they were, YECs would become OECs when shown that the science for a very old universe and Earth is watertight (indeed a minority do - because, despite pressure from fellow YECs, they DO also care about scientific realities as well as the reputation of the Bible).

People life Tim only value their own 'truth' - which is impervious to FACTS and hypocritically calls known facts 'lies' (I refer their to Ken Ham and his silly books). Yet they wish to portray themselves as more open-minded than everybody else!

"I much prefer dialoging with someone like you who will take the time to form a complete rebuttal argument rather than someone who will quickly put me down and plug their ears and yell “science” over and over to make them feel better about themselves". Who can Tim possibly be meaning? :) SOMEONE, one of the few who ever comments under his blogs, who will not buy his dogmatic anti-science? Such as here: http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... ptive-god/

I repeat - Tim is making false claims above regarding alleged decay rate variations over time. Not for the first time eg he also claimed twice that the 'evolutionist' many-branched tree of life is very similar to the creationist 'orchard'.

I would never embrace YEC if I was still an evangelical Christian since the position requires half-truths and deliberate falsehoods in order to deal with the science in a way that could convince anybody apart from a simpleton.

I could respect an OEC who questioned molecules to Man evolution. I do not go to their websites and berate them for either their faith or their questioning of evolution. Their position can be intellectually defended and they often have an open mind. If a YEC has an open mind he or she is ashamed to admit the fact lest they be accused of 'compromise' or backsliding.

End of rant."


EDIT - a further response to Gilleand nonsense now added at the Star Splitter video site believervsnonbelievers.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
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