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 » Fri May 25, 2012 2:27 am

I have seen an online pdf of chapter 1 of Paul Braterman's 'From Stars to Stalagmites', which outlines how science ascertained the age of the Earth.

There don't appear to be any Amazon reviews of the book yet.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby cathy » Fri May 25, 2012 8:45 am

have seen an online pdf of chapter 1 of Paul Braterman's 'From Stars to Stalagmites', which outlines how science ascertained the age of the Earth.

There don't appear to be any Amazon reviews of the book yet.a_haworthroberts

Is that for sale? Within my tiny budget? Would be interested to read it if yes.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 27, 2012 2:22 am

Just reading through chapter 1, and I noticed this: "Leonardo described fossil shells found far inland,
high up in the Apennine mountains that form the backbone of Italy. He
reasoned that they could not possibly have got there in the forty days of
Noah’s flood, and inferred (correctly) that land and sea had changed
places over much longer periods of time".

Shells, whether fossilised or not, do not float as far as I know.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
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 May 27, 2012 4:24 am

I genuinely think that sometimes YECs don't realise quite HOW nonsensical and contradictory their Bible-inspired hypotheses are:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-to-note-
05262012 (item 4)
"Snider-Pellegrini, on the other hand, recognized the global Flood
described in the historical account of Genesis 6:8 could provide the
power to remodel the earth's crust";
"Snider-Pellegrini surmised that the breakup of the supercontinent was
followed by the rapid horizontal shifting of the plates of the earth's
crust into the configuration we see today."

Could (almost all of) the landmasses of today have moved from one
single landmass to where they are today within just 4,300 years (never
mind perhaps circled the globe as well)?
NO.

Are all landmasses, and the tectonic plates they sit on, moving away
from one 'centre of origin' - somewhere with seasons presumably (see
Genesis 8:22) - today? (Has AiG ever heard of subduction zones? Your
article implies that you HAVE.)
NO.

"For instance, a collision between continents travelling at today's
speeds measured in inches per year would barely amount to a fender
bender". Says WHO? It would of course take TIME. Something YECs never
have enough of!

"The catastrophic plate tectonics model also explains how layers of
sediment laden with marine fossils came to be deposited all over the
earth". GARBAGE.

Why? BECAUSE YECs SAY that marine shell fossils were deposited on
mountain tops (which they claim only existed at their present height
AFTER the Flood) by the Flood - AND that the Flood involved a
supercontinent breaking up and landmasses starting to move APART. NOT
landmasses COLLIDING.

You CANNOT have it BOTH ways.

One further question for you not to answer, regarding the alleged
Flood allegedly leaving marine shells high in the Himalaya (if the
continents were sometimes colliding rather than moving apart). DO
SHELLS FLOAT?

According to a new science book by a copy recipient of this message:
"Leonardo described fossil shells found far inland, high up in the
Apennine mountains that form the backbone of Italy. He
reasoned that they could not possibly have got there in the forty days
of Noah's flood, and inferred (correctly) that land and sea had changed
places over much longer periods of time".

It rather looks like Leonardo da Vinci had one up on the creationist
Antonio Snider-Pellegrini.

"Biblical history concerning Creation and the Flood are not at
variance with the observable facts of science, only with the
interpretations made by those who reject the history in God's Word".
Biblical history - never mind the extra-biblical inventions of YECs
science deniers - is at variance with REAL history. And it is ignorant
of PRE-HISTORY. People like you IGNORE the obvious meaning of
inconvenient OBSERVABLE science. Such as supernovae. And such as the
feet of AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Moon Fire » Sun May 27, 2012 9:15 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I genuinely think that sometimes YECs don't realise quite HOW nonsensical and contradictory their Bible-inspired hypotheses are


You silly non-believer you!! You forget that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of god so it doesn't matter what mental contortions *you* think they're going through, they just need to not contradict scripture.......
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

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

Postby Paul Braterman » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:48 pm

cathy wrote:
have seen an online pdf of chapter 1 of Paul Braterman's 'From Stars to Stalagmites', which outlines how science ascertained the age of the Earth.

There don't appear to be any Amazon reviews of the book yet.a_haworthroberts

Is that for sale? Within my tiny budget? Would be interested to read it if yes.


It should be available in the UK mid-June. and yes, I would be delighted if people who have read it would post on Amazon, for good or ill.
Paul Braterman
Paul Braterman
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:03 pm
Location: Glasgow

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:54 pm

My message as sent concerning this blog post: http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2012/06/ ... nd-is-not/

"The whole viewpoint boils down to this: creationists and
evolutionists have the same evidence, different conclusions, based on
different starting points." The YEC conclusion is that much evidence
must be ignored, whereas the conclusion of scientists is that
evidence
can and should be interpreted.

"A young-earth creationist does not
ignore evidence." Oh yes, he or she DOES (normally). Your friends at
Answers in Genesis IGNORE the evidence that Australopithecus
afarensis
walked bipedally and that Yutyrannus huali was a dinosaur with seven
inch long primitive feathers. They also ignore my emails pointing out
how their website articles deliberately ignore that kind of
inconvenient evidence thus misinforming many of their zealous
readers.

"The YEC response is that it is not deception [by God]; it is incorrect human
interpretations of evidence stemming from ignorance of Biblical
revelation." When YECs DO bother to interpret the evidence, or more
accurately SOME of the evidence, their interpretations are frequently
ridiculous (eg a tsunami-like flood worse than 2004 or 2011 can be
outrun by clever or agile animals including humans even where there
are
no hills), or contradict other YEC interpretations (eg a tsunami-like
flood as just described can also account for the totally non-random
and
'tidy' fossil and geologic record), or fail to take account of what
is
already known including from so-called 'observational science' (eg
comparing real fossilised bones with bones of deceased extant animals
whose physiology and behaviour are well known).

One of your least well argued blogposts. Obviously you have NOT taken
on board the evidence
and rational arguments that I have put forward in my many emails
(which
I've sent given that it is apparently not possible to comment
directly
below your blogs).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
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 Jun 20, 2012 6:57 pm

I intend to listen to this later on: http://www.biblicalcreationministries.o ... oung-earth

Hugh Ross - one of Ken Ham's FAVOURITE Christians. ;)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
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 Jun 21, 2012 1:41 am

David Catchpoole is at it again:

http://creation.com/fossilized-mating-turtles
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .2012.0361
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-locked-in-stone-1.10850

"No wonder that paleontologists have increasingly moved away from true uniformitarianism (`the present is the key to the past'), and begun invoking more catastrophic scenarios. (Under no circumstances, however, must it be allowed to resemble the worldwide Genesis Flood.)"

In order to be able to explain all the varying worldwide evidence of catastrophes at various points in pre-history, a worldwide colossal flood a la Genesis simply is not required. Science should not invoke the unneeded and reject what is already available by way of evidence and known events and processes.

"Actually, it [a stratified lake] doesn't even work that well for the turtles, i.e. if there were no other fossils found at Messel. One would have to believe not only that the same mysterious set of events befell all nine of these allegedly entranced turtle couples, but that all of them were later mysteriously protected from decay and predation."

LIAR. In the Nature article I read "Ultimately, the same harsh conditions on the bottom kept their bodies safe from scavengers as sediment accumulated on top of them". And turtles are unlikely to decay rapidly?

I do note, however, that the turtles are thought to be of similar age to Ida - suggesting that both may, possibly, have died through the same natural event. In fact I'm surprised you didn't mention Ida in your article.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
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 Jun 21, 2012 1:48 am

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ng-bullets

I suspect that this is unscientific guff. Why?

NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE TO A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE PAPER.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Paul Braterman » Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:24 am

It's the false dichotomy game. "Strict uniformitarianism" is long since out of the window; think of Snowball Earth, the Permian Extinction, and indeed, if we stick to what was known in Darwin's own lifetime, the Ice Ages. So what?

Poor turtles; :( not only overwhelmed in the very act by natural disaster, but then made the subjects of perverse non-sequitur. :roll:
Paul Braterman
Paul Braterman
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:03 pm
Location: Glasgow

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:44 am

A very interesting (more than two hour) debate on the age of the Earth.
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/o ... x?mediaid={E0E337F0-020C-4FB3-AACC-8A87996207C0}

Some brief comments - mainly from the initial four talks (before debate and questions).

HUGH ROSS
Said quite a lot about the YECs' Light Time Travel problem. Suggested that Isaiah 40:22 refers to an expanding universe (he agrees with the Big Bang).

ANDY McINTOSH
He's more convincing when speaking of what the Bible says eg in Genesis. But he poured out bucketloads of pseudo-scientific arguments and claims eg white hole cosmology, massive floating forests pre-flood, coal all formed by the flood (catastrophically and - somehow - without oxygen), fossil graveyards (sometimes certain mammals alongside dinosaurs), polystrate trees, soft tissue in dinosaur bones, carbon 14 in coal and in dinosaur bones, the Big Bang too dependent of huge amounts of unseen Dark Mass/Matter and Dark Energy. Hugh Ross basically shredded most of these. McIntosh too thought an expanding universe is implied in Isaiah 40:22 - though he rejects Big Bang cosmology. Note that McIntosh also plugged 'Set in Stone' describing it as a film which "points to the [Genesis] flood"!

KEN SAMPLES
The book of nature MIGHT correct a wrong INTERPRETATION of scripture. The Bible implies that scientific laws are fixed ie unchanging (eg speed of light). He said that RTB favour the Day-Age theory of creation.

STEVE LLOYD
He seemed both honest and a bit slippery at the same time. He rejected the Isaiah 40:22 interpretation of the other two and also the idea that the Bible - not for him a science text - teaches 'fixed scientific laws' (but it doesn't teach varying scientific laws either!). Physical death not from the beginning - the result of human sin, and Jesus had to die physically for humanity. Are there any YEC 'killer facts'? He sort of admitted there weren't - "science doesn't work that way". YEC-ism, by which he meant 'creation science' I think, is a "new scientific enterprise". He then claimed, wildly, that the signs of progress at this (fairly early) stage are "promising"! He sought to portray the OEC models of RTB - blending the Bible with mainstream geology and astronomy - as 'ad hoc'. (Surely one key explanation for the bigger and perhaps slicker YEC scientific investigations/efforts/searches for a 'new theory' is LOADS OF MONEY.) He also said that Paul Garner - his colleague - had discovered mica within Coconino sandstone. This suggested formation by water (rather than wind). He admitted though that this did not 'prove' Noah's flood.


This thread is also interesting: http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/grou ... rth-debate
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
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 Jun 21, 2012 5:04 am

Good to see John M being questioned at Premier. Not that he seems likely to be swayed.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Michael » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:40 am

Paul Braterman wrote:It's the false dichotomy game. "Strict uniformitarianism" is long since out of the window; think of Snowball Earth, the Permian Extinction, and indeed, if we stick to what was known in Darwin's own lifetime, the Ice Ages. So what?

Poor turtles; :( not only overwhelmed in the very act by natural disaster, but then made the subjects of perverse non-sequitur. :roll:



The next number of the Proceedings of the Geologists Assocciation (PGA) will have a paper on Buckland and Darwin's elucidation of glaciation in wales. It was odd how a catastrophist - Buckland and an ultra-uniformitarian - Darwin came to almost the same conclusion
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

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

Postby Michael » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:42 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:A very interesting (more than two hour) debate on the age of the Earth.
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/o ... x?mediaid={E0E337F0-020C-4FB3-AACC-8A87996207C0}

Some brief comments - mainly from the initial four talks (before debate and questions).

HUGH ROSS
Said quite a lot about the YECs' Light Time Travel problem. Suggested that Isaiah 40:22 refers to an expanding universe (he agrees with the Big Bang).

ANDY McINTOSH
He's more convincing when speaking of what the Bible says eg in Genesis. But he poured out bucketloads of pseudo-scientific arguments and claims eg white hole cosmology, massive floating forests pre-flood, coal all formed by the flood (catastrophically and - somehow - without oxygen), fossil graveyards (sometimes certain mammals alongside dinosaurs), polystrate trees, soft tissue in dinosaur bones, carbon 14 in coal and in dinosaur bones, the Big Bang too dependent of huge amounts of unseen Dark Mass/Matter and Dark Energy. Hugh Ross basically shredded most of these. McIntosh too thought an expanding universe is implied in Isaiah 40:22 - though he rejects Big Bang cosmology. Note that McIntosh also plugged 'Set in Stone' describing it as a film which "points to the [Genesis] flood"!

KEN SAMPLES
The book of nature MIGHT correct a wrong INTERPRETATION of scripture. The Bible implies that scientific laws are fixed ie unchanging (eg speed of light). He said that RTB favour the Day-Age theory of creation.

STEVE LLOYD
He seemed both honest and a bit slippery at the same time. He rejected the Isaiah 40:22 interpretation of the other two and also the idea that the Bible - not for him a science text - teaches 'fixed scientific laws' (but it doesn't teach varying scientific laws either!). Physical death not from the beginning - the result of human sin, and Jesus had to die physically for humanity. Are there any YEC 'killer facts'? He sort of admitted there weren't - "science doesn't work that way". YEC-ism, by which he meant 'creation science' I think, is a "new scientific enterprise". He then claimed, wildly, that the signs of progress at this (fairly early) stage are "promising"! He sought to portray the OEC models of RTB - blending the Bible with mainstream geology and astronomy - as 'ad hoc'. (Surely one key explanation for the bigger and perhaps slicker YEC scientific investigations/efforts/searches for a 'new theory' is LOADS OF MONEY.) He also said that Paul Garner - his colleague - had discovered mica within Coconino sandstone. This suggested formation by water (rather than wind). He admitted though that this did not 'prove' Noah's flood.


This thread is also interesting: http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/grou ... rth-debate



McIntosh tells porkies on geology
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests