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 Aug 05, 2014 12:21 am

Two of these are based in the UK (and still alive as well): http://creation.com/scholars-uphold-genesis
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
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 » Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:20 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Two of these are based in the UK (and still alive as well): http://creation.com/scholars-uphold-genesis


I wouldn't describe Dr. Peter Masters a significant evangelical Christian leader Ashley. Don't know who the other one is you're referring to.

I've recently had a look on Monty White's "biblical foundations" website and I notice it hasn't updated for almost a year now. He appears to have given up speaking, possibly for family reasons or maybe due to ill health.

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org.uk/
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 » Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:04 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Two of these are based in the UK (and still alive as well): http://creation.com/scholars-uphold-genesis


I wouldn't describe Dr. Peter Masters a significant evangelical Christian leader Ashley. Don't know who the other one is you're referring to.

I've recently had a look on Monty White's "biblical foundations" website and I notice it hasn't updated for almost a year now. He appears to have given up speaking, possibly for family reasons or maybe due to ill health.

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org.uk/



I was also flagging this part of the Batten article (and the link he provided):
"C. Jonathan Stephen, Principal of Wales Evangelical School of Theology (WEST), formerly Brynterion Bible College, where he teaches systematic theology and homiletics (the art of preaching). He is past President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches in the U.K.
http://www.west.org.uk/rev-c-jonathan-stephen/831/"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
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 » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:14 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Two of these are based in the UK (and still alive as well): http://creation.com/scholars-uphold-genesis


I wouldn't describe Dr. Peter Masters a significant evangelical Christian leader Ashley. Don't know who the other one is you're referring to.

I've recently had a look on Monty White's "biblical foundations" website and I notice it hasn't updated for almost a year now. He appears to have given up speaking, possibly for family reasons or maybe due to ill health.

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org.uk/



I was also flagging this part of the Batten article (and the link he provided):
"C. Jonathan Stephen, Principal of Wales Evangelical School of Theology (WEST), formerly Brynterion Bible College, where he teaches systematic theology and homiletics (the art of preaching). He is past President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches in the U.K.
http://www.west.org.uk/rev-c-jonathan-stephen/831/"


Never heard of him Ashley.

Ham has done this before with Brian Edwards, who was supposedly well known in the UK.

When I think of major evangelical leaders over here it's the likes of Clive Calver and Graham Kendrick that come to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Calver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Kendrick

and who are not YECs as far as I'm aware, or at least don't consider the issue important.

The Rev. Charles Price is also well known in evangelical circles in the UK and he's definitely not a YEC.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

I simply do not trust YEC blogger Tim Gilleand

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:18 am

He has recently put me and others on pre-moderation under his silly blogs, for no valid reason (someone else, who has recently disappeared, was verbose and was put on pre-moderation and Gilleand is claiming that everybody 'has' to be on pre-moderation together - even though the problem was not at all of their making).

Now, despite a reminder which has not been acknowledged, he may be BLOCKING one of my attempted posts (now almost eight hours old) under THIS blog article:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... m-science/

My post - should Mr Gilleand shamefully decide to hide it - reads as follows:
""I suggest you read Dr. Wile explain why iron would not work as a way to preserve dino soft tissue in this blog”. I HAVE read it Tim, and – though a card-carrying YEC – Dr Wile is not dogmatic in the way that you claim.
Some quotes from his piece – in the order in which they appear:
“While the study represents an excellent first step in understanding how soft tissue can be found in fossils, it doesn’t solve the mystery of how it could be preserved for millions of years”;
“There are at least three things that indicate lots more research has to be done on this issue”;
(He says the scientists only have succeeded in demonstrating ostrich blood vessel preservation lasting two years, he suggests the authors need to vary the temperature more realistically with a freeze-thaw cycle, and he suggests that iron is not responsible for all soft-tissue preservation in dinosaur bones.)
He concludes:
“In my mind, then, here’s what Schweitzer’s excellent study demonstrates: In at least some cases, iron can preserve soft tissue for a significant length of time. How long? That’s hard to say, especially since real-world conditions weren’t used in the experiment. Nevertheless, the study at least provides us with a starting point for explaining the preservation of soft tissue in fossils. If the study is extended and starts to use real-world conditions, it might explain how soft tissue can be preserved for hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years. I am not sure how it could be used to explain the preservation of soft tissue over millions of years, but I remain open to the possibility.""

Gilleand's claim was flatly false. The other YEC - Jay Wile - was not behaving in the bigoted fashion that Tim appears to wish was the case.

Whether RianDouglas - the other critic of YEC dogma currently in the thread - will see this is of course another question.

I have not lost all faith in Gilleand. It is possible that he is simply busy and will eventually approve my post - and either accept the validity of what I say or start wriggling.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Gilleand is a LYING HYPOCRITE

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:05 am

He has cleared around 12 further posts but is refusing to clear mine and falsely claiming - despite a reminder earlier - that there's nothing to clear (LYING YECs lie about everything under the sun, including that their website is crap and letting them down).

My latest comment:
"When are you going to publish [typo now corrected] my post LYING HYPOCRITE Gilleand?
Your claim that you saw no unapproved post of mine is TOTALLY FALSE. I will expose you.
If you don't allow my post and admit I am RIGHT or try to pretend otherwise then you are LYING by censoring something proving you wrong. Liars go to Hell.
I am going to expose you. I've already waited long enough and you are LYING TO ME, hypocrite."

PS Just checked - I have just found and PHOTOGRAPHED the post of mine that Gilleand is falsely claiming he never received or cannot find, and is deceitfully and hypocritically failing to approve (because it shows him to be a Liar and that would never do). These people are evil.

PPS An email has just been sent re Liar Gilleand and also the even worse Liar Wolcott (see other thread). The photos of the Gilleand blog did not come out very well, so I have just taken a couple of BETTER photos of my censored post and the subsequent blatant Gilleand lies when I challenged him. (Happy to forward to anyone having trouble reading the text on the originals.)

EDIT: due to rushing too much, there was a typo in my email. It should have read "I would not send emails like this if I did not know for certain that both of them are cynically LYING about me and/or to me and that they absolutely cannot substantiate let alone prove to anybody that I am not telling the truth". Rather than "I would not send emails like this if I did not know for certain that both of them are cynically LYING about me and/or to me and that they absolutely cannot substantiate let alone prove to anybody that I am not."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Hypocrisy and Deceit in action YEC style

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:36 pm

With regret I have to report that Liar Fraud and Hypocrite Gilleand is REFUSING to approve the following comment under his blog:
"Tim
Thank you for finally approving my comment. But how am I to know that you did not lie that you could not find it (despite a specific reminder I sent) and then only approved it because I sent that email? Which I consider attached ‘damning’ photos – because the photos proved your assertion, that the post was not there and awaiting moderation, wrong. My email (which Rian won’t have seen) did not say my missing post was damning. I quote: “See also the two attached photos which are totally damning.”"

I emailed him saying:
"Please do not claim that you cannot find it. It's timed at 4.48 pm and appears just over halfway down.
If you are going to censor me (again despite telling me that you don't censor), kindly JUSTIFY your decision.
Whilst it may have been accidental, you misrepresented what I wrote."

These people are evil.

Gilleand - ONLY after I chased my post after he had approved about 20 posts by someone else - FALSELY claimed:
"Of course I'm not going to approve that comment. It has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. The conversation is about evolution, not about my comment policy."

My email reply:
"It IS about your comment policy BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN CENSORING ME WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND THEN LYING TO ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE THREAD (and blaming me if I dare mention it and you censor me AGAIN). You started this. Your sinful behaviour is being reported at the BCSE community forum. With regret. Like I said - YOU started all the problems by censoring me without JUSTIFICATION and in order to try and MISLEAD and pretend that you are 'never wrong'. You are evil."

It is evil to manipulate threads so as to censor every post that proves the blog author was at best clueless and at worst cynically and deliberately lying in order to try and make himself look good. And to censor ad hoc and without proper justification (I am not verbose like the other person was) - and then censor AGAIN because the person censored complains politely about the previous BAD behaviour.

This smacks of 'Christian revenge'. Because I sent an email telling everybody about his disgusting falsehood yesterday where he claimed he could not find my post even though he KNEW it existed because I QUOTED it and reminded him twice.

Hope that Lake of Fire is not real.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

What will the liar do this time?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:16 am

Two attempted new posts under this:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... mment-1106

"Does Sorensen SERIOUSLY believe that Gilleand REALLY could not find my post - which he attempted to censor until I sent a wide circulation email (mentioned at the British Centre for Science Education community forum) with relevant photographic evidence showing the absurdity of Gilleand's claim, which caused Gilleand to then 'find' my post after all. It being the case that the post in question showed that the Gilleand claim here regarding Dr Wile's article on iron was nonsensical. This happened after I even sent Gilleand a reminder email QUOTING THE POST'S CONTENTS IN FULL.
Surely a blog is set up whereby the author can systematically go through any as yet unapproved comments without having to trawl through all the comments which are already visible? If not, why not?
So I do not buy the 'gremlin' theory of Sorensen or the 'tiredness' theory of Gilleand. 'Thick as thieves'.
Actually since Sorensen believes the absurd and frequently extra-biblical claims of leading YECs, I suppose he must believe Gilleand's claims here :)
If I am 'off-topic' then so are you."

"He has a whole section called “what other geneticists say” and quotes quite a few leading geneticists that agree that man is in genetic entropy:
“Kondrashov, an evolutionist who is an expert on this subject, has advised me that virtually all the human geneticists he knows agree that man is degenerating genetically."
Tim keeps repeating this quote in or under his blogs. I assume this is the Sanford article in question:
http://creation.com/genetic-entropy
The relevant section of Sanford's article does NOT use the phrase 'genetic entropy'.
Nor does the phrase appear in this link (in the paper's Abstract):
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/ ... 7.abstract
Nor does the phrase appear in this link (in the paper's Abstract):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094
As I am SURE I must have pointed out to Tim at least once BEFORE here. But Tim appears to favour the 'Goebbels' approach.
And please do not wriggle and tell us that the 'genetic entropy' that Sanford believes in is really what mainstream geneticists also accept, but are simply using other titles to describe!. I don't think even Sanford is claiming that (in this article at least).
Sorry, Tim. Your version of reality is normally disprovable fantasy.
It is a novel thing for YECs to misrepresent fellow YECs rather than the opposition - but Tim seems to have talent for doing just that :)
I believe RianDouglas has made very similar points as well."


If Gilleand has sufficient courage and just a bit of honesty he will allow these comments.

But based on my previous online experiences of this man I am not holding my breath.


EDIT - he has now approved the comments.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Censorship by YEC Tim Gilleand

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:51 pm

He has failed to approve the following under THIS blog:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... mment-1342
(The comments relate to THIS propaganda offering which I've already flagged in another thread:
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/m ... -creation/)


"So Scott Whynot BMSc, MSc (PT) and MD Candidate is simply ‘ignorant’? What rubbish YECs talk."

"But he is not lying no matter how you spin it.”
You do not know that.
The author does not explicitly define “Gain of Novel Information’. The closest he comes is “A GONI must involve a mutational event or series of events that enable the production of novel protein(s) that can perform a specific and previously unknown activity.”
I discussed the Lenski experiment briefly in my review here (chapter 4):
http://www.amazon.com/review/R20EDOWA9ET8XI
“Dawkins’ thorough description of the Lenski experiment in his chapter 5 showed that different E coli populations found differing ways to grow larger, but when two of the populations appeared to follow the same evolutionary path the researchers found that 59 genes had changed their levels of expression in each – remarkably, all in the same direction. Sarfati’s response is to refer to an article by Michael Behe which claimed that the changes were ultimately due to changes in just one named control gene. Sarfati also downplays the ability developed by one E coli population to digest citrate. Even if this development involved a gene losing specificity or a transporter gene being left permanently switched on, the novel result was the ability to digest citrate even though the conditions were aerobic – as they often are upon Earth – rather than anaerobic.”
The author’s phrase ‘hijacking good science’ is inflammatory – and hypocritical coming from AiG who call evolution and millions of years a ‘Lie’. The fact that YECs mostly use emotive propaganda language rather than reasoned argument is enough to raise my suspicions.
I have documented other instances of YEC websites like AiG, CMI and the ICR wilfully attempting to mislead supporters who they hope will not know better. For instance in THIS article:
http://creation.com/biologos-age-earth
See my comments under here:
http://www.godofevolution.com/another-m ... qus_thread"

"
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/m ... -creation/
Is the author interested in offering people a detailed examination of what he himself calls “the evolution of citrate utilization in aerobic conditions”? No. All he is apparently interested in is sounding technical – and then claiming in an ad hoc fashion that “no novel information was gained in this instance as this ability was the result of previously existing information being rearranged and used in a different way”. As if that even refuted evolution (it may ‘assert’ very good creation but it does not refute evolution).
According to Wikipedia’s page on the E. coli long-term evolution experiment: “Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle”. According to the author is his para 11: “It is important to note that E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among other required factors). The genetic changes that underlie this particular adaptation are complex, but a key event involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter”.
Thus it sounds to me at least like as Gain of Novel Information so-called DID occur. That being, according to the author himself, “a mutational event or series of events that enable the production of novel protein(s) that can perform a specific and previously unknown activity”.
Why does the behave like he does? Because “it is important for Christians to have a good understanding of the experiment in order that we may defend and demonstrate the truth of God’s Word through its findings”. It’s all about twisting awkward science in favour of YEC dogma about the Bible. For those who are more interested in ‘defending scripture’ than in the discoveries of science."

He has to resort to censorship - because he keeps making idiotic statements which I keep exposing for what they are.


EDIT - the censorship is happening here too:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... al-debate/

"Rian
Tim is arguing with himself. Reassuring himself that HE has not been persuaded because that would be evil. He exclaims “Gotcha”. But he knows that he has not persuaded anybody else. And if we are going to damn ‘uniformitarianism’ regarding decay rates in the past because ‘we weren’t there’ how does Tim know that the decay rates were not much slower in the past? Or perhaps they were slower than today for certain isotopes but faster than today for other isotopes? Now that would be confusing.
“We know they were faster because the bible says so?” NOT.
I debate with YECs because they need to be constantly reminded that their beliefs – which in all probability they will never give up – are absurd and are also denying real knowledge. (They of course regard me as a troll/persecuter/stalker etc – because YECs are closed-minded and simplistic people who have decided, from the Bible, that the Bible is infallible and that everybody ‘must’ always be wrong.)"

"The idea that science is unable to determine that certain things did NOT happen in Earth’s past (even if scientists once thought they did either because of incomplete interpretations of available evidence, or because of sacred texts, or because of myths/legends) is utterly ludicrous. But that is what many YECs ideologues would have us believe is the case."
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
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 Aug 15, 2014 1:53 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28788547
'Cosmic grains pre-date Solar System'.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6198/786
'Evidence for interstellar origin of seven dust particles collected by the Stardust spacecraft'.

I don't really follow - Stardust did not leave the solar system to collect its samples. Or do they know that interstellar dust also finds its way into parts of the solar system?

But these provisional conclusions are unquestionably WRONG! How could other stars have been in existence before our Sun? The Bible clearly says that the Sun (and Moon) were created before the stars (one assumes before our neighbouring planets too)! And the Bible says that the Sun is not a 'star'! And the Sun contains less lithium than other similar type G stars!
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
Ken Ham 60-second audio - 'The Sun - It’s Not Just Another Star'.
(The aliens would think the Sun is another star. Ooops I forgot. Ken Ham says there are no aliens.)


EDIT on 15 August 12.50 pm. Ken Ham stated that the Bible never refers to the Sun as a star. He did not expressly insist "the Sun is not a star". He seems to concede that our Sun might be a special sort of star. Lest I be accused by anybody of 'misrepresentation' (my words above were not quoting Ham but interpreting his words).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC throws in the towel

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 15, 2014 5:29 pm

Email as sent:


The YEC Evil within Christianity

As I have pointed out before, YECs frequently cannot answer reasonable questions including ones pinpointing their own gross intellectual dishonesty.
Actually, when pushed they DO have an 'answer'. CENSORSHIP, BANS, REFUSAL TO ENGAGE ANY MORE, AND SOMETIMES VILIFICATION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AS WELL.
Fundamentalist religion - as events in Iraq have shown - is always evil at its heart (even when that is not leading to violence or to lying about science eg there is still showing of contempt for outsiders or attempts to manipulate insiders).
What has prompted this email you may ask?
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/08/ ... ec-critic/ (new blog post which is all about me)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=765 (please see my post at 00.51 am BST on 15 August)
I am sick and tied of the lying and subterfuge of that nice Mr Tim Gilleand (who is no better than the YECs who are recognisably nasty to all their critics and sometimes also spread false claims about them in places where the critic cannot defend themself).
These people appear not to have any conscience whatsoever regarding their own online conduct.
This one has basically 'thrown in the towel'.
I knew the new blog was about me as soon as I saw it (and also saw that Gilleand was still silently censoring all my posts from last night that show up his errors and his excuses for fellow YEC liars). And it's not as if I have vast intelligence and intellect - but he still cannot deal with me anymore.
The new blog post is an attempted manifesto for young Earth creationism as the 'only' Christian 'answer' to suffering. I have never been a young Earth creationist and am certainly not going to start now. The blog tries to express Christian love - but I am afraid it is a cover for serial dishonesty and inappropriate censorship by someone peddling pseudo-science and refusing point blank to consider the possibility that he could ever be wrong about science and the past. And I do not know who else who visits his blogs, and who is either not a Christian or not a YEC, has been seriously 'listening' to any of his leftfield arguments. A number of critics besides me have been vigorously challenging Gilleand recently (under his posts where I am being censored, as shown on the above BCSE community forum link).
I have also received an email from Gilleand today. It appears to contain the same text as the new blog post.
A H-R
PS Here's another example of a hardline YEC refusing to answer challenging questions regarding his extreme claims:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 8120850262 (This is not Wolcott's own page so he cannot censor willy nilly.)
PPS Anybody copied in who does not want emails like this about YEC Christians only has to inform me of the fact.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
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 Aug 15, 2014 8:04 pm

Yesterday a short email I sent to Sorensen about this blog post -
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/08 ... and-2.html
- was also copied to the bible.and.science.forum for information.

They have made the following detailed comment by email copied to Bob. Apparently they also posted it at 'The Question Evolution Project' - but it was almost instantly censored from that page without any detailed response being made (none is visible).

">What chance of the people you censor ever becoming Christians when they see your dishonest and bigoted behaviour?

Sad but true. Personally, I never thought that the "Lying for Jesus" movement would become so prominent that Young Earth Creationism would become the #1 greatest obstacle to the Great Commission for those of us evangelical Christians in the USA.

I can still remember "the good old days" when the most common objection that people had when they realized that I was a Christians was: "There are just too many hypocrites in the church. I don't want to be around a bunch of hypocrites." But I haven't heard that complaint in years. Now, especially if I"m dealing with people in a Bible Belt area it is, "Sorry. If I have to throw away my brain to be Christian and lie like a rug, I'm not interested." When I asked what they mean, they say things like this:

"You know: the whole 6,000 years old earth business and each animal being zapped into existence. And then lying with slogans like "There is zero evidence for evolution." and "Evolution is a theory in crisis" and "Scientists are abandoning The Theory of Evolution in droves."

"Maybe I could handle it if they just said, "I don't find the evidence for evolution convincing", but to sound confident they lie constantly."

"I remember when I was young a man came to our church and ranted about The Theory of Evolution dying a rapid death and all the scientists were allegedly embarrassed of it. It was collapsing under its own weight, he claimed! Yet, a half a century has gone by and because of genome mapping, the theory is stronger than ever. That's just lying."

No, the lying tactic just isn't working for Young Earth Creationists. A lot of people realize that abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics, yet they lie and say "The biology textbooks are full of goo-to-you evolution!" YECs misuse terminology but textbooks don't. "Goo-to-you" is a creationist term. Plus, in any case, "goo-to-you" is what the Bible teaches: Genesis 2:7 is one of many examples: HADAM ("the human one") was formed from THE DUST OF THE GROUND. Life from non-living ingredients. That is the very definition of abiogenesis! And it is right there in the Bible, if the YECs would ever bother to LEARN from the Bible. And whether you call it "primordial soup" or "goo", "the dust of the ground" is where all life came from, and when you add water (which is required for all life) to "the dust of the ground", you get primordial soup or goo! Learn it! Live with it! We shouldn't have to explain these basics to Young Earth Creationists----but I have to do it all the time!

Yes, Genesis is very clear with the first stage (the dust of the earth, the chemical elements of the earth's crust) and the last stage (the human.) But Genesis says nothing about the intermediate stages that God used. For that, the Bible says he gave us another revelation with answers: the creation itself. Yes, "the heavens are telling" of the God's marvelous works, but many Young Earth Creationists refuse to listen to God's answers within his creation.

Bob, don't you think it is time for creationist lying to end?

In fact, here's one from your Facebook page. It is a good example of how YEC nonsense only creates more obstacles other Christians have to waste time on before we have credibility to present the Gospel message:

>That fits, since Evolution is actually an ancient pagan religion.

Even beyond the jaw-dropping ignorance of such claims, a religion is a belief system which differs from mere philosophy by virtue of a BELIEF IN SOME TRANSCENDENCE. Yet YECs are always complaining that evolution (like all real science) is methodologically naturalistic! So which is it, Bob? If evolution is a religion, it must revere something that is transcendent. But if it too "naturalistic", it CAN'T be transcendent!

Of course, if a Young Earth Creationist ever used terminology correctly and honestly, they probably couldn't be Young Earth Creationist. (It violates membership rules.)


ICE CORE ARTICLES

Ashley, I don't know why I wasted 15 minutes of my life but ice cores is a topic in which I'm well read and I thought it would be interested to check out how the YECs lie on this one. But my first impression was how oddly written was this poorly organized collection of random lies and undocumented ramblings. If one of my undergrads---let alone the PhD candidates---handed in a paper that incomplete and ambling, I would have lasted all of three or four paragraphs, and would have written across the top in red: "Unacceptable. See me during my office hours." NO professor would have wasted time on what was just a propaganda piece trying to persuade the uninformed, not a serious attempt at following the evidence where it leads. And that brings me to a topic of Bob's Facebook page: Are "creation scientists real scientists"?

Real scientists do real SCIENCE. And for that, the question is whether or not they use the scientific method to guide their research. Yet all of the "creation science" organizations stress that they start NOT with the evidence but with with a DOCTRINAL STATEMENT saying that any and all evidence which does NOT agree with the organization's founder's personal interpretations of the Bible is rejected.

Think about it. The "scientists" vows in advance ---under threat of job loss (whether formal employment or contract work)---to NOT follow the evidence where it leads. I think YECs understand this bias problem. But rather than SOLVING it, they simply pretend that real scientists DON'T follow the evidence and somehow START from a biased position. No. That's not how the academy works. In fact, probably the most common reason for a peer-review paper being rejected is that for one of a number of specific reasons, the paper fails to supports its hypothesis and conclusion with proper methodology and evidence. (In other words, the paper has flaws, failures, and gaps which MAY even be due to bias, whether deliberate or not doesn't matter.)

Dr. Krauss and Dr. Dawkins certainly spew bias when ranting about their anti-theism, but their peer-reviewed science is first rate. My general contempt for their arrogance and anti-theism and pontifications on topics in which they have very little knowledge does NOT change the fact that their SCIENCE is worthy of my respect because it lives up to the professional standards of the scientific method. You see, I can't LIE about their work just because I dislike their anti-theism and because they are annoying arrogant twits. I can oppose them without lying about them. (See the difference, Bob?)

I considered critiquing the ICE CORE articles, but I'm sure Bob would ignore a presentation of facts. The article reads like they are many years behind the science. Secondly, they misrepresent the science constantly. Thirdly, whenever they make a bombastic statement requiring some kind of solid basis, one would AT LEAST expect a helpful citation. But we are always expected to "take their word for it", even when they are basically refuting the entire science academy. Fourthly, they work their way up to a crescendo where the reader is keen to see the argument culminate in some devastating evidence against scientists' methodology----but then they move on to the next topic instead! Fifthly, they outline some of the problems that scientists have to deal with processing ice cores but they stop short of how scientists developed quality control and multiple processes to verify conclusions by multiple methods. They leave the reader to assume that the field of ice core dating is hopelessly riddled with problems, something only a very biased---AND DISHONEST---person(s) would do.

Even so, the most galling problem for me was the traditional Young Earth Creationist lie of confusing CONSILIENCE with "circular reasoning". Few YEC lies are more obvious. When scientists have multiple methods they can use to verify a result, that is a GOOD thing, not some kind of "logical fallacy". But the consilience gets WORDED in the article as if the scientists are using a circular reasoning to verify the results. Someone with the time and patience on their hands would do well to catalogue some of the most common types of CONSILIENCE (one of the greatest strengths of the evidence for an "old earth" and The Theory of Evolution) and how YECs use oddly worded descriptions of scientists' methodology in order to trick the gullible into THINKING it is circular reasoning. Yes, radiometric dating and strata rock and mineral composition can be used to help identify strata and observations of the fossils can be used to help identify the fossils, but that does NOT mean that radiometric dating can only be confirmed by the fossils and the fossils by means of the radiometric dating. But only a minimum of effort is necessary for tricking the naive into thinking that this is circular-reasoning. Who would have thought that consilience, the very source of our very greatest confidence in our science, could be turned into an alleged liability? Who would have thought that? Anybody who understands the LYING FOR JESUS that is the "creation science" movement.

Yet, the greatest weakness of the paper---which is quite devastating to the Young Earth Creationist position--- is the tired old YEC strategy of trying to find something POTENTIALLY if not actually wrong with each aspect of ice core science. The reality doesn't matter to them: only the planting of doubt in the minds of the science-illiterate and naive reader. Each aspect of the physics, developed over many decades of careful experimentation and CROSS-VERIFICATION of accuracy by everything from tree rings to historical records to corals, chalk layers, and fungii fields---and failing to mention to the reader that those years alone add up to far more than any Young Earth Creationist accepts for the age of a "young earth." Yet they conclude the article by the out-of-nowhere sweeping assumption that 800,000 layers of ice cores, which are in the REAL world are differentiated by more methods and discriminating techniques than what the authors admit in the article, can be reduced to just some 6,000 years or perhaps just the 4300 years since the flood. Of course, they have provided ZERO evidence for a young earth, but they THINK they have successfully debunked all of the world's ice core specialists. That is ALWAYS the "martyr complex" of the YEC mindset. The resolute few against the many scientists of the worldwide conspiracy of the science academy. It's always David against Goliath. No matter what the science topic, somehow the same small group of "creation scientists" ---we all recognize the two dozen names which constitute the potential "propaganda pool" of authors for every such article. Those guys sure have a lot of science specialties!

Of course, much like "The dog ate my homework!", creation science authors will always claim that their paper was outstanding and even downright SUPERLATIVE----but those mean, unfair, biased scientists fear the exposure of their worldwide conspiracy and will "bury" the paper so it never sees the light of day. Yep, we know the ol' story and we know the routine. But truth be told, they don't really care. The purpose of such articles is to reach out to non-scientists and keep the donors encouraged.

Been there. Done that. Yes, I was a teenaged YEC. But I couldn't continue to look the other way after I figured out I was being lied to by my "creation science" heroes. Of that group, only John Whitcomb Jr. remains alive today. But sadly, the new generation of "Liars for Jesus" make the founders look like paragons of virtue. Yes, "creation science" has become an embarrassment in crisis.

Professor Tertius
Bible.and.Science.Forum@gmail.com"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
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 Sep 17, 2014 11:38 pm

http://www.icr.org/article/8343/
This is all they've got.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC extremist plumbs new depths of stupidity

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:46 pm

http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/09/ ... -opponent/
Liar.
The evidence for the Oort Cloud is COMETS.
This goes onto the BCSE community forum (you probably will like the publicity and if not - tough).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC science denier and bigot Gilleand strikes again

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:18 pm

http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/09/ ... /#comments

Me: "The trajectory of many comets suggests they do not come from the Kuiper Belt/Scattered Disk."

Him: "I will respond to your fun comments like this when you just plainly step in it….
Those trajectories are only evidence that they come from something other than the Kuiper Belt, not that they come from an oort cloud. That’s like saying there must be Coke in my refrigerator cause I’m holding one in my hand now. No… it could have come from another source than the fridge."

Me (but awaiting moderation like he is awaiting the Second Coming): "Please stop spreading your wilful ignorance online. It is not helpful to anybody."

I'm posting this here because he has a nasty habit of randomly censoring facts that show his claims to be utterly ridiculous and fact-free.

He either does not know or does not care that the Oort Cloud is likely to surround our solar system in all directions (three dimensions not two).

It is people like this that Bill Nye was talking about the other year. They wilfully spread ignorance and confusion about nature and physical reality, and refuse to educate themselves and actively try to take other ignorant people along with them in their foolishness (for the gospel so it must be 'alright' then).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8061
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