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 cathy » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:46 am

McIntosh tells porkies on geology
McIntosh tells porkies full stop :evil:
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 Michael » Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:17 am

cathy wrote:
McIntosh tells porkies on geology
McIntosh tells porkies full stop :evil:


I stand corrected and have been put in my place
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 Paul Braterman » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:55 am

the same standard issue, yes/no, Uniformitarianism-is-falling crap that you'll find on Genesis Agendum sites such as WorldAroundUs; see http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/WorldAroundUs where I comment "...for a discussion of the balance between uniformitarian and catastrophist viewpoints, the reader is referred to an essay by Stephen Jay Gould (name unaccountably truncated to Stephen Jay) from 1975. From this, we are invited to conclude that “The move towards catastrophic interpretations of the geological record raises fundamental questions about the timescale required for these events to have taken place.” We are not told which geologists would subscribe to this statement, for very good reason that there are none such."
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 7:11 pm

The Premier link isn't working correctly. Sorry, I don't know why. But it can be accessed via the BCM website link - that I provided after Paul Garner had flagged it in his latest blog.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8533
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 7:49 pm

Paul Braterman wrote:the same standard issue, yes/no, Uniformitarianism-is-falling crap that you'll find on Genesis Agendum sites such as WorldAroundUs; see http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/WorldAroundUs where I comment "...for a discussion of the balance between uniformitarian and catastrophist viewpoints, the reader is referred to an essay by Stephen Jay Gould (name unaccountably truncated to Stephen Jay) from 1975. From this, we are invited to conclude that “The move towards catastrophic interpretations of the geological record raises fundamental questions about the timescale required for these events to have taken place.” We are not told which geologists would subscribe to this statement, for very good reason that there are none such."


The weakness of some uniformitarian ideas was that they did not recognise sufficently varying rates.

This may be illustrated by recent (30Years old by Fred Broadhurst) on the coal measures. A coal band could take 50-100,000 years to deposit - slow for a foot or so and the intervening 10 feet of fluvial sands could take a short time - almost years. , The same in the Silurian with alternating slate/silt and sandstone / turbidite. The former took yonks c100,000 and the latter almost minutes

Even so Lyell and Darwin both allowed rapid deposition and are not far from either the Agers of this world or early catastophists like Buckland
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 a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:00 pm

Michael wrote:
cathy wrote:
McIntosh tells porkies on geology
McIntosh tells porkies full stop :evil:


I stand corrected and have been put in my place



Andy McIntosh DID (in a fairly 'safe' environment) tell the truth about Set in Stone - whereas David Tyler, to put it politely, blathered and beat around the bush.

I have just made the FOLLOWING new comment under Stephen Moreton's review of the DVD (following Cathy's to David earlier today):
"David should be aware that Set in Stone was mentioned by fellow YEC Andy McIntosh in THIS recent Christian debate session: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/o ... x?mediaid={E0E337F0-020C-4FB3-AACC-8A87996207C0} (if this link fails, the debate can be accessed via the BCM website, as flagged by Paul Garner's latest blog)
McIntosh said that the DVD pointed "to the [Genesis] flood". That's rather MORE than David has implied, particularly under my review. McIntosh's verdict is scarcely surprising as Genesis creation, the biblical flood (and past geologists with religious convictions) are mentioned at Part 2 of the DVD. And at Part 17 (the concluding part) viewers are told "A new approach to geology is needed - perhaps a revolution as radical as the one brought about by Hutton... while catastrophic processes have been rediscovered ... they are still locked into the idea of long geological timescales and continue to be seen as rare events that punctuated an otherwise tranquil past ... we need to see catastrophism for what it is - the dominant force that has shaped our geological history". By contrast, David's first comment under my review was: "The DVD is not advancing a particular model of Earth history - the point being made is that the rocks typically provide evidence for catastrophic processes. Since the aim appears to be to stretch the minds of students and open up issues for critical evaluation, the DVD is eminently suitable for use with all students of the Earth sciences"".
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2QEUG29 ... hisHelpful
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8533
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:24 pm

STEVE LLOYD wrote: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.

So mica can't be deposited in an aeolian environment? That is just total cobblers
(i)Water and deserts, and indeed aqueous depositional, are far from mutually exclusive - though the marks are probably lead to assume so
(ii)The, probable biotite, mica in the sample of aeolian dune sand I have kicking around the house say's otherwise.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:52 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
STEVE LLOYD wrote: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.

So mica can't be deposited in an aeolian environment? That is just total cobblers
(i)Water and deserts, and indeed aqueous depositional, are far from mutually exclusive - though the marks are probably lead to assume so
(ii)The, probable biotite, mica in the sample of aeolian dune sand I have kicking around the house say's otherwise.



It's an easy enough mistake to make? Unless you used to be a materials scientist - like Steve Lloyd. http://www.bethinking.org/resources/cre ... choose.htm

Is Jon saying that mica can be deposited WITHOUT water, or that it might have been deposited by a flooding stream in a desert environment (rather than the catastrophe of 'Noah's Flood')?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8533
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:31 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Is Jon saying that mica can be deposited WITHOUT water, or that it might have been deposited by a flooding stream in a desert environment (rather than the catastrophe of 'Noah's Flood')?

Both are correct, mica can deposited without water, i.e. blown by wind, and as result of fluvial action, typically floods and ephemeral streams, in a desert.

Preserved desert environments often show an extensive and wide range of interdunal sediments, i.e. the stuff deposited between the more sterotypical dunes, these can include extensive evidence of ephemeral streams and ponds, as well as sheet floods. And in the absence of diagnostic sedimentary structures it can be pretty much impossible to decide whether a particular bed is fluvial or aolian in origin. Deserts are not dry as is often inferred by creationists and Coconino Sst was noted along time ago to have evidence for marine influence.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

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

Postby Michael » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:02 am

jon_12091 wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Is Jon saying that mica can be deposited WITHOUT water, or that it might have been deposited by a flooding stream in a desert environment (rather than the catastrophe of 'Noah's Flood')?

Both are correct, mica can deposited without water, i.e. blown by wind, and as result of fluvial action, typically floods and ephemeral streams, in a desert.

Preserved desert environments often show an extensive and wide range of interdunal sediments, i.e. the stuff deposited between the more sterotypical dunes, these can include extensive evidence of ephemeral streams and ponds, as well as sheet floods. And in the absence of diagnostic sedimentary structures it can be pretty much impossible to decide whether a particular bed is fluvial or aolian in origin. Deserts are not dry as is often inferred by creationists and Coconino Sst was noted along time ago to have evidence for marine influence.


I tried to argue this with Garner but he wouldn't have it. I had seen all this type of thing happening as I lived in a desert for a year so saw the effects of rain

It is impossible to argue with creationists as they have the answers
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 Roger Stanyard » Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:14 pm

Michael wrote:
jon_12091 wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Is Jon saying that mica can be deposited WITHOUT water, or that it might have been deposited by a flooding stream in a desert environment (rather than the catastrophe of 'Noah's Flood')?

Both are correct, mica can deposited without water, i.e. blown by wind, and as result of fluvial action, typically floods and ephemeral streams, in a desert.

Preserved desert environments often show an extensive and wide range of interdunal sediments, i.e. the stuff deposited between the more sterotypical dunes, these can include extensive evidence of ephemeral streams and ponds, as well as sheet floods. And in the absence of diagnostic sedimentary structures it can be pretty much impossible to decide whether a particular bed is fluvial or aolian in origin. Deserts are not dry as is often inferred by creationists and Coconino Sst was noted along time ago to have evidence for marine influence.


I tried to argue this with Garner but he wouldn't have it. I had seen all this type of thing happening as I lived in a desert for a year so saw the effects of rain

It is impossible to argue with creationists as they have the answers


I can only comment that Garner's arrogance is astonishing given that it now appears his first degree is far from being in geology (heck I did environmental science as part of my undergraduate degree) and he has never, ever, even remotely practised as a geologist. Moreover, it appears that even with my qualifications (which are basically in economics and management), I too can be a member of the Geological Society. How about me producing a learned paper on the economics of sand?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:02 pm

"Andy McIntosh DID (in a fairly 'safe' environment) tell the truth about Set in Stone ...".

I really meant that McIntosh admitted that the DVD was attempting, subtly rather than overtly, to point viewers towards the catastrophe of Noah's Flood as the explanation of the UK geology the three of them discussed or visited - I'm not of course suggesting that the DVD succeeded in showing that only ONE (recent) catastrophe explains places such as Mam Tor or Siccar Point and therefore the biblical 'age' of the earth was shown to be correct. But McIntosh didn't try to hide the motivation behind the DVD's production - it is not just a 'teaching tool' aiming to make geography or science students think more 'critically', there is an evangelistic and anti 'millions of years' motivation behind it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8533
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 28, 2012 3:29 am

http://creation.com/evangelicals-biblical-creation
http://creation.com/robert-j-m-gurney
"Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the word of God, but most of them (in the Western world, at least) do not believe that God created the universe in six literal days about six thousand years ago. Furthermore, they say that those who do believe it are interpreting the Bible wrongly. Why? Are they right? And why do so many of them say it? Also, why are so many resistant to even considering this matter? This opens up a huge area of discussion, and this brief foray does not intend to be comprehensive. Also, I write it in the knowledge that many `old-earth' Christians are very sincere in their belief and commitment to the Gospel.
First, my own experience. Although I never believed in macro-evolution, for many years I was convinced that the `millions of years' were a proven fact of science. I was aware that if this were true, it would mean that God's method of creation involved millions of years of death, disease, violence, suffering and waste. I was uneasy about this, but the evidence for a billions-of-years-old universe seemed incontrovertible. However, I kept searching for the truth and the light finally dawned when I came to realise that the millions-of-years scenario is by no means a proven fact of science and is totally incompatible with the Bible. In fact, the scientific evidence supports the literal understanding of Genesis 1-11. The turning point, for me, was when I read Refuting Compromise."

Has anybody here read this earlier work by Sarfati? I wonder how he managed to 'disprove' or 'seriously undermine' (my terms) millions of years. Or at least do so to Mr Gurney's satisfaction.

Although reading Gurney's article it would appear - surprise, surprise - that he became a YEC SIMPLY because of the Bible. His sole concern is 'sound doctrine'. The article tries to bind up acceptance of millions of years by Christians inextricably with evolutionism, but the theory of evolution "was invented by anti-Christians in order to exclude God from science". The 'argument' appears that millions of years convictions are rejecting Genesis creation - and thus opening the door to evolution instead of divine creation. Something OECs would doubtless strongly deny.

Guess what? NOT a SINGLE scientific argument for a young Earth is presented in the article (there's a link to a 2009 booklet by the same author entitled 'Six-Day Creation: does it matter what you believe?' http://ukstore.creation.com/catalog/six ... p-201.html). Just vacuous claims such as "Furthermore, most of the scientific evidence makes much more sense when interpreted according to the biblical creationist worldview, rather than the materialistic one".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8533
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 28, 2012 3:38 am

No real scientific arguments are made here, by a UK-based YEC, either. Or at least none that caught my eye when skimming the article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ohn-lennox

But then again the writer does not have a science background. Just a theological one. http://askjohnmackay.com/author/simon-turpin

He's a YEC simply because, as he says at the end of the AiG website article: "history has shown that compromise on Genesis undermines the Bible".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8533
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 28, 2012 3:57 am

http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answ ... before-man

"Dating Dinosaur Bones
Creation Research has received the following question:
What is the reason for dinosaur bones being carbon dated "billions" of years before humans?
Answer from John Mackay:
Many of you will realise that this is a totally misplaced question, albeit probably a genuine one. So we will take the opportunity of reminding folks that Carbon 14 dating, even if it did work, wouldn't give billions of years for anything. Carbon 14 is a short lived radioactive element with a half-life is only 5,730 years approximately. So using current technology, you could at the most, use it for objects that only went back 70,000 or so years. That having been said - surprisingly you do get dates for dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old using Carbon 14.
Here are two examples, with dates that are shocking to evolutionists.
[two old photocopied letters dated 1990 and 1991, from the University of Arizona, are shown in the pdf version of the answer]

To obtain C14 dates for dinosaur bones means either:
a) the bones couldn't possibly be so old, and/or
b) Carbon 14 doesn't work
One intriguing thing about radioactive carbon is because it has such a short half-life, then the closer you get to the present the more reliable it becomes. If you then compare it with historic data what you find that the further back you get in known history the more unreliable it becomes.
In fact it has all the major problems of a clock that doesn't tick the way it should. What do we mean by that? When you invent a new clock you need to know what the time is now, and if you're setting the clock to run backwards, you need to know how fast it ticks. To do that you have to have a way of knowing what the time was at measured known intervals back into the past. So when you set your newly invented C14 Clock, as Willard Libby did when he developed the method, it has to have a known rate of decay that can be measured against known historical time lapses, e.g.. the Birth of Christ, the reign of Julius Caesar, etc. Whilst it is so casually overlooked these days, the first inventor of the Carbon 14 method Willard Libby is definitely on record that the thing surprised him most, was that he didn't have any written records to compare his Carbon 14 method against that was older than 5,000 years. But he didn't let that bother him in any way, shape or form. He just went ahead and used it as if that little fact was ignorable. (Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624)
A good reason that there were no written records prior to 5,000 years ago is that the whole world was in liquidation i.e. inundated by Noahs Flood, which would also mean that the entire planet had been changed, and the Carbon 14 method is one dramatic loser as a result.
In the beginning the God created the world very good. Adam and Eve would have been protected from every source of producing radioactive carbon. Remember they had no clothes on; the environment was one of created perfection, and the atmosphere had been deliberately designed by God to ensure man's health and long life. In our modern world, high energy radiation from outer space bombards nitrogen, gives it extra energy, breaks it up and produces radioactive carbon 14 as a result. The radioactive carbon combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), which is absorbed by plants and get into food that is eaten by man and animals. These and other radiation sources are one reason we don't live to be "as old as Methuselah". But while we are alive, what goes in also comes out because you breathe out CO2, which includes some of the radioactive stuff. But as is well known, when you die you stop breathing out CO2, as well as ceasing to take in any more food. So the amount of radioactive carbon in your body at death, from then on will simply disintegrate by radioactive decay. The simple principle is the longer you have been dead, the less radioactivity you will have in your body. Ultimately it will be so little that it will be immeasurable. At present that limit is around 70,000 years.
However, to use such a method you must assume the world that has always functioned the same as today. But it is highly unlikely that Adam and Eve and any created animals were ever exposed to high energy radiation, nor did they ever breathe in any radioactive gases in the beginning. Radioactivity causes disease and degeneration, which is not very good. However, the world ceased to be very good after Adam and Eve rebelled against God and God cursed the ground in judgement. The world degenerated even more rapidly after Noah's Flood when the atmosphere changed drastically, and much more radiation could penetrate the atmosphere. This means absorption of radioactive carbon by living things has not been the same throughout history, which means Carbon 14 decay dating methods cannot be relied on for accurate dates."

Here endeth the sermon by John Mackay.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8533
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 6 guests

cron