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 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:25 am

The incoherent Mackay: "Adam and Eve would have been protected from every source of producing radioactive carbon... 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".

Is Mackay seriously suggesting the carbon 14 ingested by humans is toxic to us (enough to shorten lifespans)?

How (and why) were Adam and Eve 'shielded' from carbon 14? No atmospherically-produced carbon 14 would suggest a lack of protection of the surface of the planet from cosmic rays! But presumably the originally 'very good' creation didn't include cosmic rays - or harmful solar radiation - either. Sigh.

"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." So the Bible, by referring to a very good creation, is actually telling us that - initially at least - Adam and Eve were NOT affected by (trace amounts of) carbon 14 within the plants they ate? Presumably the SAME protection applied to all life - until the Flood.

Mr Mackay appears NOT to have read 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'. Or to have FORGOTTEN page 192 - where Dr Sarfati says that the Flood would have caused a lower atmospheric carbon 14 to carbon 12 (and 13?) ratio than previously - partly by "burying huge numbers of carbon-containing living creatures".

So either atmospherically sourced carbon 14 was buried in the Flood (and any left largely replaced by carbon 12 CO2 from supposedly erupting volcanoes during the Flood). Or there was no atmospheric carbon 14 in the atmosphere at all until after the Flood.

Take your pick (or reject both).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby cathy » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:44 am

Is Mackay seriously suggesting the carbon 14 ingested by humans is toxic to us (enough to shorten lifespans)?

Warning eating can seriously damage your health.

Let us get that salutary message out to creationists as quickly as we can :lol:
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 Brian Jordan » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:40 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:How (and why) were Adam and Eve 'shielded' from carbon 14? No atmospherically-produced carbon 14 would suggest a lack of protection of the surface of the planet from cosmic rays! But presumably the originally 'very good' creation didn't include cosmic rays - or harmful solar radiation - either. Sigh
Not a problem, Ashley: the cosmic rays hadn't had time to reach Earth in the short period between the Creation and the Fall. After which, Adam was able to see the dinosaurs that had been prowling outside the gates of Eden [(c) Paul Garner] and kill them and use their hides as an early radiation shield.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:57 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote: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".



From THIS blog http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/ I see that there have been many often intolerant, judgmental, extreme and quasi-political comments made below the article since it first appeared. Too intolerant even for CMI's Philip Bell in some cases!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:13 pm

The rather bizarre comments - only bizarre because Biblical Christianity is bizarre in 2012 if God really wrote the Bible - include:

"I was blessed to understand -and accept!- the literal sense of Genesis during my conversion. It was just an intrinsic part of the 'package.' And that happened after a lifetime of Marxism indoctrination and exposure to secular science all the way up to tertiary education.
But Jesus completely and irreversibly transformed my mind in that regard. The world, life, salvation and the Bible itself do not make any sense at all without a historic Genesis.
It then came as a surprise for me to find so many stern theistic evolutionists who call themselves Christians but use against a literal reading of Genesis the same arguments I parroted as an unbeliever. In so doing they place man's opinion at the same level or above God's revelation as epistemic sources on issues of origins without realizing how many concessions are given away, not only doctrinally but even scientifically as well."

and
"Before I came to Christ, I argued mightily from two, to me, insurmountable and irreconcilable hurdles. One was the sovereignty of God vs the free will of man. The other was evolution vs creation. I knew all along that, to be consistent, if I trusted Christ, I was going to have to accept it all...that God is the Sovereign of the universe and that He created it all in 6 days. Finally I did it, I put my faith and trust in the crucified, risen Lord, firmly believing that I was committing intellectual suicide. Intense Bible study, the teaching and witness of a wonderful, godly missionary and a certain book called The Genesis Flood changed all that. I learned that faith is logical and God is true, tho every man be a liar. The veil over our eyes that stops us from seeing is lifted in Christ. Now it is all so obvious to me, I marvel that I was ever able to accept the "goo to you" fable. This faith is reinforced day by day, thanks to your website and your itinerant speakers. Thank you".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:52 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:The rather bizarre comments - only bizarre because Biblical Christianity is bizarre in 2012 if God really wrote the Bible - include:

Finally I did it, I put my faith and trust in the crucified, risen Lord, firmly believing that I was committing intellectual suicide. Intense Bible study, the teaching and witness of a wonderful, godly missionary and a certain book called The Genesis Flood changed all that. I learned that faith is logical and God is true, tho every man be a liar. The veil over our eyes that stops us from seeing is lifted in Christ. Now it is all so obvious to me, I marvel that I was ever able to accept the "goo to you" fable. This faith is reinforced day by day, thanks to your website and your itinerant speakers. Thank you".


The Genesis Flood is the egregious stinking pile of creatocrap that lead to all of modern creationst lies about geology.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:59 pm

Another comment below the Gurney article, which gets my goat when I hear it, is the one "Science will one day catch up with the Bible".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Acleron » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:36 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Another comment below the Gurney article, which gets my goat when I hear it, is the one "Science will one day catch up with the Bible".


And yet no theist can ever find something in the bible that is not at this moment known to science. Funny that.
Acleron
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:11 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:05 am

Acleron wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Another comment below the Gurney article, which gets my goat when I hear it, is the one "Science will one day catch up with the Bible".


And yet no theist can ever find something in the bible that is not at this moment known to science. Funny that.


Welcome.
I'm not sure I quite grasp your point. Are you saying that everything in the Bible is SCIENTIFIC? Or that science knows MORE than the Bible? I'm assuming you mean the latter.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Acleron » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:36 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Acleron wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Another comment below the Gurney article, which gets my goat when I hear it, is the one "Science will one day catch up with the Bible".


And yet no theist can ever find something in the bible that is not at this moment known to science. Funny that.


Welcome.
I'm not sure I quite grasp your point. Are you saying that everything in the Bible is SCIENTIFIC? Or that science knows MORE than the Bible? I'm assuming you mean the latter.


And hi to you as well :)

Well I sure didn't mean to imply there is anything scientific in the bible.

I was trying to say that although plenty of theists have tried to show that some phrase in the bible (and in the koran) demonstrates that all scientific knowledge was already known by god, they are completely unable to produce a phrase or piece of text that shows us anything we haven't already found out ourselves.

The cutest explanation I've heard from such a theist is that all knowledge is present in the bible but that we cannot decipher it. The same point I was replying to.
Acleron
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:11 pm

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

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:32 pm

Actually, AKICIF (All Knowledge Is Contained In (science fiction) Fandom).
For the uninitiated, see http://fanac.org/Fannish_Reference_Works/Fan_terms/Fan_terms-00.html Ghosh, I didn't know that was there!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:11 pm

Non-YEC: "That's not true!"

YEC: "How on earth am I lying if I am defending the truth of the Bible against unbiblical teachings?"

Non-YEC: "I think a more pertinent question would be "Why on earth am I lying if I am defending the truth of the Bible against unbiblical teachings?""
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
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 Jul 18, 2012 5:45 pm

My email sent late last night to Creation Ministries International:





Mr Humphreys did NOT respond to my email below [one dated 6.5.12, reproduced on this community forum, regarding Humphreys claims about argon diffusion, and a 'young Earth'] - in case you were wondering.

Now he's written this: http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust

Which quotes this: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012LPI....43.1297P

And then claims in a new article, which I admit I have only skimmed:
"NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft is continuing to produce surprising new
evidence that Mercury's magnetic field is as young as the Bible says";
"However, the measured magnetism of basalts here on earth suggests
that Mercury's crustal basalts acquired their magnetism in a field at
least ten times stronger than Mercury's field today" (I know that
Humphreys hasn't visited Mercury and the footnote is to a 1978 paper
about Hawaii);
"Evidence for a large decrease of the field sometime in the past adds
to the theorists' perplexity. That may be why the analyzing team
apparently wanted to dilute that detail" (conspiracy, anyone?);
"Measurements MESSENGER made from orbit last year, compared with the
1975 Mariner 10 data, show that Mercury's magnetic field has weakened
by nearly 8% in the past 36 years, an astonishingly fast decrease"
(there's no footnote with that); and
"The fast rate of decay (half-life of 320 years) implies the crust was
magnetized only thousands of years ago". Half-life of WHAT ISOTOPE?

As the uninformed comments below from Oz say:
Amazing!
Fantastic!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
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 Jul 18, 2012 5:49 pm

Just seen that a Peter H made an observation underneath (since last night).

Dr Sarfati has 'put him right'. Though about EARTH and NOT Mercury. Might one infer that the super-intelligent is NOT entirely convinced by Humphrey's efforts regarding the magnetic field on Mercury?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
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 Jul 18, 2012 7:11 pm

I received the following comments from YEC John Heininger:
"Hi Ashley, appreciate your input. Don't have time to spend on forum,
but same old scientism by assumptions stuff. However, always read your
email. Thought you might be interested in this piece from New
Scientist.
Regards John.
Growth of Earth's core may hint at magnetic reversal 15:29 13 July
2012 by Will Ferguson
Lopsided growth of the Earth's core could explain why its magnetic
field reverses direction every few thousand years. If it happened now,
we would be exposed to solar winds capable of knocking out global
communications and power grids.
One side of Earth's solid inner core grows slightly while the other
half melts. Peter Olson and Renaud Deguen of Johns Hopkins University
in Baltimore, Maryland, used numerical modelling to establish that the
axis of Earth's magnetic field lies in the growing hemisphere ? a
finding that suggests shifts in the field are connected to growth of
the inner core.
There are signs that the next switch may be under way: rapid movements
of the field's axis to the east in the last few hundred years may be a
precursor to the north and south poles trading places, the researchers
speculate.
"What we found that is interesting in our models is a correlation
between these transient [shifts] and reversals [of Earth's magnetic
field]," says Olson. "We kind of speculate there is that connection but
the chaos in the core is going to prevent us from making accurate
predictions for a long time.""

I replied as follows:
"John
Thanks! (There are more comments under the Humphreys article now; Dr
Sarfati claims "In short, Earth has undergone very rapid reversals that
would have depleted the magnetic energy even faster" - but I think that
was a short-term event during each reversal. I also note that the text
you cite mentions lopsided growth rather than depletions.)
I gather that the magnetic North Pole has been shifting further north
and west recently, whilst Earth's magnetic field has been gradually
weakening.
I'll post your reply and this further comment on the BCSE Community
Forum. P'haps somebody there might be an expert on planetary magnetic
fields.
Ashley".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
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 3 guests

cron