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

YEC Tim Gilleand - DELIBERATE LIAR for Jesus

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:52 am

As ALSO posted and CENSORED by this fraudulent, knowledge-destroying YEC (in reply to his dishonest and desperate "I will respond to your fun comments ..."):
"If you censor the link here it will STILL exist – and expose your behaviour online:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=49643#p49643"

Ditto (in reply to his "How do you know that?"):
"How do you know otherwise. I believe the scientists."

He falsely makes it look like I cannot or will not answer his silly 'gotcha' questions.

I wonder whether these people have a conscience. They are never ever honest. They love lying and misleading everybody they possibly can.

The best way for Gilleand to confound me is to CHEAT and LIE.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC liar Tim Gilleand

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:17 am

Email reply as sent to Professor Tertius (copied to Tim):


"Prof T

Tim has also censored around eight attempted comments by myself in that thread.

The man is a fraud. Essentially another Biblical Liar. But you don't need me to tell you that.

He pretends to allow dissenting comments - but actually stamps on those bits of dissent that he apparently cannot deal with.

See the attached examples (three images). If the photo does not make this clear, my censored comment about Tim spreading 'wilful ignorance' was in response to Tim's ridiculous and ludicrous comment that began "I will respond to your fun comments like this when you just plainly step in it...". The person who treads in 'it' isn't me. Tim knows this unless he is really as stupid as he appears.

But I think he is arrogant - "I know better than all those astronomers - even if some comets do not come from the Kuiper Belt/Scattered Disk, they simply cannot be coming [typo now corrected] from the claimed Oort Cloud because I have decided unilaterally that the Oort Cloud does not even exist and is therefore not (implicitly) included with the creation account of Genesis 1".

The conversation in question has been DELIBERATELY AND FALSELY MANIPULATED in Tim's favour. The usual fraud and anti-intellectualism by the YEC crowd.

I would be interested to see some of the comments of yours that the fraud is hiding here:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/09/ ... /#comments"

This was after Prof T told me that Tim is censoring attempted comments by him under the same science-attacking blog post.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 Oct 06, 2014 1:43 am

My attempted new comment here, in reply to Rock Miller (but it has to get past Gilleand):
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/08/ ... ec-critic/

"Rock
Though I am no longer an active evangelical Christian, and never was a young earth creationist, I agree with the thrust of your comments. YECs have made bizarre claims online.
I am the person that Tim was blogging about (in a one-sided fashion). I also post in places such as the British Centre for Science Education community forum - which is open to all.
Mr A Haworth-Roberts"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 Oct 09, 2014 10:03 pm

Within the past half hour somebody with the initials JD has posted the following at the facebook page linked to below (see the conversation where they attempt to show up Dawkins as confused and stuck for a response when asked for an example of evolution increasing "the information in the genome"):

"Yes. Absolutely. Genetic information can increase in a genome.
Here's how.
Two steps:
1. A mutation called a gene duplication. This is where a gene (or a sequence of nucleotide bases) is accidentally duplicated on the same chromosome, or even on a different chromosome.
2. A mutation called a point mutation. This is where one or more nucleotides in a sequence accidentally get copied to a different nucleotide. (Like a typo.)
Now you could argue that neither 1, nor 2 produce "new genetic information" (depending on what your definition of "new genetic information" actually *means*).
But what is not arguable is that if 1 happens followed by 2, then you have a new gene. Where once you had one gene, now you have two genes, with different properties ... new genetic information.
1 and 2 don't have to occur in the same individual. 1 can occur, and then be followed even *generations later* in a descendant, by 2.
But if a gene is copied, and then later in some descendant, one of those copies gets altered, then you have a new gene ... new genetic information.
This is precisely how we seem to have the three pigments in the human retina that gives us three-color vision. (See source.) A gene duplication of the gene (called opsin) that gives us the long-wavelength pigment (responding to red light). Then later, one of these copies was altered by a point mutation that changed the frequency of the light it reacted to ... resulting in a new opsin gene that produced a third pigment ... one that responds to medium-wavelength light (green light). We even know *when* this event occurred ... sometime *after* the split in the primates caused by the continental split of Africa and S. America ... but *before* the split between the monkeys and the apes. This is why all New World primates (the monkeys of C. and S. America) do not have this three-color vision ... while all the Old World primates (from Africa and Asia, which includes all the apes, and humans) not only all have color vision, but this is caused by the exact same opsin genes."
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism- ... 1873982784 (second conversation)

Wonder if they will tolerate this post.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 Oct 12, 2014 11:21 pm

As sent to CMI:


http://creation.com/faith-can-move-mountainsnot-history
The person denying real history is David Catchpoole. Why would the fossil record and geological evidence point to millions of years and rule out a recent hill/mountain submerging flood if Earth is really only 6,000 years old and Genesis contained real history in every single detail? The 'secular' interpretation of the evidence is simply the logical one. The 'Biblical' one is fantasy and dogma. It is also anti-science. Hardly surprising since the Bible dates from a pre-scientific era and was not written to teach geology or meteorology.

I do agree that billions of years makes the likelihood of Christianity being true rather remote. Why would God wait so long to (a) create humans and (b) send someone [typo now corrected] to die on a cross for the sins (and simple lack of religion or lack of correct religion) of those humans?
"This makes sense of the billions of fossilized plant and animal remains in sedimentary rock right around the world—even in the highest mountain ranges (e.g. Himalayas)." A global flood would deposit fossils on top of mountains not formed of sedimentary rock as well. But the event did not occur.
"... it is more of a blind faith than biblical faith ...". No. It is informed faith. Whereas Catchpoole's faith in a global flood less than 5,000 years ago is foolish and wilfully blind faith - a belief insisted upon DESPITE the patterns of the fossil record. CMI reject real history - because it contradicts Genesis. Simples.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 Oct 14, 2014 12:26 am

Sorensen is partly correct this time. I do 'hate' the lying that young earth creationists indulge in every single week:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... crazy.html
Sorensen is one of their Liars in Chief and he also will not accept the clear findings of science.

"Dr Catchpoole gave links in that article to some of the science articles supporting the Genesis Flood ...".
No he did NOT.

Sorensen KNOWS that Sorensen is LYING. So do we all.

All but one of Catchpoole's links was to young earth creationist fantasies and NOT peer-reviewed or other science findings. And the remaining one did NOT support a worldwide flood:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144021.htm

Apart from that blatant LIE, Sorensen's desperate rant also does not refute a single point I made to CMI (and CMI have ignored my comments too). Thus there is nothing to refute in 'StormBringer's Thunder'.

Nobody could be such an honest imbecile as Sorensen might be mistaken for. No - he is a fundamentalist extremist bigoted career Liar.

I am not.

That is his 'issue'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 Oct 14, 2014 3:14 am

PS to my last but one post. Although I probably implied otherwise, I do not actually believe that a Genesis style flood lasting just months could carry small marine fossils all the way from the Bay of Bengal to the highest peaks in the Himalaya (or that they would migrate there before dying). But the YEC ideologues require such things to be true. Thus they must account for such fossils only being found - as far as I know - within or on top of SEDIMENTARY rocks within such mountain ranges. Rocks originally formed, gradually, under the oceans (or on land due to wind and so forth).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Another bad day for the Christian Lie Centre known as AiG

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:36 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Another liar lying

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:07 pm

http://creation.com/atheistic-opposition-response
IF Batten could refute the rebuttals of his list cherry-picked list he WOULD. It would be a PRIORITY for him. He clearly spent a lot of time on his deceitful list.

Who do these people think they are fooling? Oh yes, I forgot ...

Message as sent to CMI:
"
http://creation.com/atheistic-opposition-response
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=49883#p49883
Your God is a fraud if he is real and approves of your behaviour.
"We are an information ministry." You are a propaganda and pseudo-science ministry.
It is not only 'atheists' who deplore the evasive and dishonest behaviour of young earth creationist ideologues."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Bigots in action spouting the usual rubbish

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:15 pm

http://creation.com/atheistic-opposition-response
I refer to some of the comments under this cop-out. Notably from Scott J, Narindra R, Rev Ian C, Batten's riposte to Jason S, the responses made to Britonius M and the comment from Terry R.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 Dec 08, 2014 11:50 pm

(1)
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis
Snelling video lies about carbon-14 dating being a friend of young earthers being shredded (by Beckwith, Everchange, Dicus, Nelstead, Donlatrex, Vieth).


(2)
PS His colleague Georgia Purdom is trying (and succeeding) to indoctrinate/keep people indoctrinated on facebook re this article:
http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2014/1 ... oort-cloud
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPurdom
I quote from her facebook:
"Can you spot the unobservable assumptions about the past in this article on the "Oort Cloud?""

Do the YECs have a better SCIENTIFIC hypothesis to explain all the many comets and asteroids in and around our solar system?

These people are ANTI-science. And they don't have the guts to come clean about it.

This is the actual paper:
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content ... tract?etoc
The Perkins article, reporting it, states: "Previous observations suggest that the Oort cloud contains about 200 billion comets, the researchers note."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 Jan 07, 2015 11:55 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -on-earth/
Although comets (such as Lovejoy, which I gather is viewable through binoculars at present at around magnitude 4) really do come into the inner solar system and have always done so, they do not come from the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt but only the SUPPOSED Oort Cloud or SUPPOSED Kuiper Belt. If you are a young earth creationist 'pick and choose' enemy of sound scientific theory.
However, I do note this from Faulkner (especially his final sentence): "According to the evolutionary theory of how the solar system came to be, Earth ought not to have water. The planets supposedly formed out of a disk of material left over from the sun’s formation 4.6 billion years ago. The planets would have formed gradually by amalgamation of tiny dust particles. The problem is, the early sun would have heated the inner solar system sufficiently to have evaporated and blown away any water present in the dust that eventually formed the Earth. Furthermore, as Earth formed through this hypothetical process, gravitational potential energy liberated would have heated the early Earth to a molten state, driving away any water that might have survived."
Yet YECs are insistent that Earth's surface was never molten and without liquid water - because of Genesis 1 (not positive evidence showing it was originally formed covered in water - and 'formless and empty') and because of a since debunked argument about polonium halos*:
http://creationtoday.org/was-the-earth- ... ten-mass/#

Thus - if the Bible is wrong about an originally totally water-covered Earth on day one (not wrong 'scientifically' in the sense that it is not purporting to be science and the language is primitive and poetic) - we have a YEC astronomer admitting that Earth WOULD have been molten instead, with any initial water having been driven away. I note that his blog is entitled: 'Water Water, Everywhere, but not a Drop on Earth'.

* discussed towards the end of this post:
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress. ... ung-earth/
And in answer to the Creation Today factoid, all over the world granite exists that does not date as far back as the time when Earth WAS molten (4.5 bn years ago).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:14 am

Answers in Genesis and Snelling now accept the magnetic field has flipped, albeit it very rapidly.

After years of denying this:

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... ung-earth/

Mercury, a model consistent with the young biblical age of the earth and the universe of only about 6,000 years.


Actually, the heavily cratered surface of Mercury demonstrates the opposite.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4338
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 » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:53 pm

http://crev.info/2015/01/theory-of-earl ... ndermined/
'Theory of Early Oxygenation Undermined'
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-scientific ... seeps.html

From 'CREV':
"Those of us who know this new evidence should speak boldly to the evolutionists, telling them they cannot know past climate or evolution with this evidence; the world is consistent with a recent creation that always had habitable conditions for complex life."

Yeah Right - because one species of foraminifera has now been found living near methane seeps where there is little oxygen, hey presto this is evidence for a 'young Earth'. Creation science is EASY.

(Except that this finding could imply that oxygen came into the atmosphere and the oceans somewhat LATER than the scientists thought and NOT earlier, perhaps in so-called 'creation week' right at the 'beginning'.)


PS on 16 January: Sorensen likes the CREV nonsense. No surprise there:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2015/01 ... earth.html
However, Sorensen has posted the WRONG link! Not the CREV article but THIS:
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/e ... lcome.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Another YEC censoring reality because he cannot handle it

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:47 pm

My email as sent last night (only posted on this community forum because of the FURTHER email, below, that has proven necessary this evenong in the face of dishonest deception by a hardline YEC):
"I have submitted the following comment at the YEC blog below. I will see whether he answers my questions (unlike David Catchpoole of CMI so far in any reply to an email sent 24 hours ago about a new fishy article by him on the CMI website):
http://crev.info/2015/01/dinosaur-extin ... as-global/
"The only theory that makes sense of all the data (including the ignored data) is that a few dinosaurs survived the Flood, but were hunted down to extinction as pests or as trophies of conquest by men (dragon slayers). Worldwide, dinosaurs were buried in the Flood (that’s why they appear in mass graveyards in the “dinosaur death pose” indicating drowning. The few that came off the ark were killed by man over the next 3,000 years or so, without leaving fossils. Dinosaurs, in other words, haven’t been gone all that long. Humans are pretty good at wiping out species they don’t like, as 21st-century conservationists are well aware."
How exactly does all this tie in with Genesis 8 verse 17: "Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it"? Did the dinosaurs somehow fail to multiply on the Earth after your flood? And how and why did every single species of dinosaur - various species occurring contemporaneously pretty much on a worldwide scale unless you simply reject such 'post-flood' verses in Genesis - supposedly all become extinct within the last 4,500 years (whilst the other animals you mention did not)?"

My further email just now:
"
http://crev.info/2015/01/dinosaur-extin ... as-global/
The fraud running this young Earth creationist anti-science pro-Bible
website has, as far as I can tell:
- censored my questions;
- failed to answer them;
- frozen me out of his page ie when I use the same password that
emailed to me after I re-registered there last night I get an error
message.
Christians who reject YEC nonsense rarely if ever behave in such an
objectionable, fraudulent, arrogant and contemptible manner (before
pushing the same nonsense once again and acting as though 'nobody is
able to refute it').
I was going to add another comment that any claim or implied claim
that Noah's Flood was an 'extinction event' for some land species,
including some dinosaurs, would be totally unbiblical. But I can't -
unless I try re-registering once again in order to obtain another new
password - because Coppedge or whoever has ended the debate before it
even began because, unsurprisingly, he appears to have NO ANSWER to
simple questions and is comfortable with ADDING to the Bible or
IGNORING the Bible in order to defend 'the Bible' against evidence-
based reality."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8042
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 1 guest

cron