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 Sep 13, 2013 6:41 pm

I wonder whether Tim Clarey could state with a straight face to an audience that occasional rapid rising to the surface of volcanic magma 'indicates' a 6,000 year old Earth. I fear that he could. YECs are so well-polished as they present their pseudo-science to the scientifically ignorant and the biased (this highlights a similar case http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... odynamics/).
http://www.icr.org/article/7701/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 12342.html (he does not actually supply a 'live' link to this paper)

"These findings present problems for old-earth theories that are based on sluggish magma movement." A bit of a strawman argument since Earth has not been dated based on the behaviour of magma but by radiometrically dating meteorites (and some other igneous rocks which are a little younger).

A couple cases of rapidly rising magma and Clarey writes this: "Evidence supporting rapid and catastrophic movement of magma fits the young-earth model, proving that millions and billions of years are not necessary to form the geologic features we see today." Noddy science. If this damaged YEC worldviews rather than being neutral, no doubt he would whinge that this is not empirical science but evolutionary 'story-telling'. But when there's the slightest hint of something potentially useful to latch onto for apologetics purposes then suddenly it's 'proven' that billions of years are never necessary for anything seen on Earth.

What garbage. What brainwashed people. (Oh, and they block my emails and appear not to have a response form on their website.)

Oh, and Clarey's also got a PhD you know. And I haven't.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Sep 13, 2013 7:01 pm

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
I see Ken Ham is urging his fans on his Facebook page to read the Purdom article which highlights all the dishonest tactics she used in the recent Al Jazeera USA debate with Nye and others.

Here is an example of the knowledge of science among the rabble rouser's biased Facebook fans, specifically a man with the initials BC: "Radio metric dating does not tell you how old a rock is it just shows you if there's any carbon left in the sediments". That is so bad it's not even wrong.

If I was American I would weep. And dishonest people like Ham and Purdom WANT people to be ignorant like this - when do you see them correcting the nonsense (in this case to do so would not fatally would YEC-ism, any more than it's already so wounded by troublesome facts)?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Sep 13, 2013 7:16 pm

Email as just sent:


Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his ignorant Facebook fans

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=47154#p47154

My post at 8.01 pm BST on 13.09.13:
"https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
I see Ken Ham is urging his fans on his Facebook page to read the
Purdom article which highlights all the dishonest tactics she used in
the recent Al Jazeera USA debate with Nye and others.
Here is an example of the knowledge of science among the rabble
rouser's biased Facebook fans, specifically a man with the initials BC:
"Radio metric dating does not tell you how old a rock is it just shows
you if there's any carbon left in the sediments". That is so bad it's
not even wrong.
If I was American I would weep. And dishonest people like Ham and
Purdom WANT people to be ignorant like this - when do you see them
correcting the nonsense (in this case to do so would not fatally would
YEC-ism, any more than it's already so wounded by troublesome facts)?".

The person is confusing radiocarbon dating (used on organic materials
that were once alive) with dating of igneous rocks by other methods of
radiometric dating (the former checks whether discernible, measurable
CARBON 14 remains not carbon per se). I could go on but I doubt I need
to...

Will Ken Ham correct the nonsense?

Does he even know that it's nonsense?

I would tell the person he's spouting nonsense but it appears that I
have been banned. Now I sort of begin to guess why.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Sep 14, 2013 5:12 pm

Message as sent to CMI from within their website:

"
http://creation.com/dinosaur-disarray
"Having abandoned a peaceful interpretation for Dinosaur National Monument, yet committed to rejecting the historical Flood recorded in the Bible, uniformitarian geologists stayed true to their worldview and retained an interpretation that needed millions of years of slow deposition. They now say that the dinosaurs were overwhelmed and buried by a series of floods. Not by the global Flood of Noah, but by much smaller local floods separated by long time periods. They believe that every time an area flooded, the dinosaur remains were deposited in the same location, slowly building up the sizable collection." Your article does not clearly show that geologists believe a multiple floods in one location over eons scenario (one you suggest further on in your article stretches credulity) - though I cannot access the 2006 article cited at footnote 3 as the website appears to be closed for maintenance. You admit that some geologists propose an alternative scenario partly involving droughts. And a slightly different third scenario for evolutionists is hinted at here by a 2008 creationist article, involving episodes of river flooding (this could mean flood events in varying locations along its course with the river being in spate): http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... l-monument

"However, a notable feature of the water-worked sandstone in which the dinosaur bones are entombed complicates the picture for uniformitarians—these rocks contain abundant grains of a rock called ‘tuff’. Tuff forms from the solidification of hot ash ejected from volcanoes. This, and layers of volcanic ash elsewhere in the formation, indicate that an explosive volcanic eruption occurred at much the same time as all the dinosaur remains were buried by flooding. No volcano is known in the vicinity of the deposit, and geologists have placed the nearest source for the tuff to vents in southern California or Nevada. Ash clouds depositing over such considerable distances point to an extremely catastrophic volcanic event."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... _eruptions
This - under 'explosive eruptions' - list various past eruptions in Nevada. The Windows Butte tuff, the Wah Wah Springs tuff, the Timber Mountain tuff, and the Paintbrush tuff. All of these large eruptions occurred long after the dinosaurs went extinct. And it seems odd that if these volcanoes all erupted big time, as claimed by young Earth creationists, just 4,300 years ago that they are all now extinct so 'soon' afterwards."

It took me around 90 minutes of digging around to compose the message (maybe I'm a slow as well as careful worker). Many people whether anti-YECs or YECs may find it difficult to spare that amount of time on one article.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Sep 14, 2013 7:50 pm

As sent to AiG from within their website (see also the 'rabble rouser' thread):


http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
Why doesn't Ken Ham or one of his colleagues check for and correct wrong information published on his Facebook page?

By 'wrong information' I don't mean creationist claims that I strongly challenge, I mean ignorant nonsense - possibly posted in good faith. Such as the nonsense posted yesterday by Benjamin Ciraulo: "Radio metric dating does not tell you how old a rock is it just shows you if there's any carbon left in the sediments".

See my posts here at 8.01 pm and 8.16 pm BST on 13 September:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=47154#p47154

You are I suggest making fools of yourselves. Is that in the interests of the gospel - let alone science and education?

You never acknowledge my communications. But you cannot hide from scrutiny because I also post them on the 'free for all' at the British Centre for Science Education community forum which can be read by anyone with an interest in creationism.

IF you have decided that ANY communication from an opponent of YEC-ism such as myself is by definition 'lies', and therefore you refuse even to look at it let alone read it, then you are more silly than I ever thought. Whereas IF you HAVE read this particular communication from me, but have still not corrected the nonsense (which no other fan appears even to realise is nonsense) then you must have a policy that ignorance about science from supporters of YEC-ism (or anyone?) need never be corrected.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:02 pm

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2013/09/ ... mment-2374

I have submitted the following for moderation under this new article:

"Sorry, but do you really mean 'steam beds' - and not 'stream beds'?
V. interesting article and I would love to see a DETAILED YEC response to it (the science not 'how is this biblical?' or 'were you there?'). I was not previously aware of 'inverted valleys' - or if I was the term itself is new for me."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Atheoscanadensis » Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:38 pm

This is random, but I thought you guys might get a quick chuckle out of some tortured logic.

I was talking to a YEC who contended that evolution was fatally flawed because it relied on the assumption of uniformitarianism. He said that all we had to base the assumption on was the entirety of human observation and he felt that this was insufficient given how little time we've been making observations compared to the length of the Earth's existence. So the alternative stance he is taking is to assess the veracity of uniformitarianism on the basis of no observations whatsoever instead of the meager observations made over the course of human history. This is pretty funny, but even more amusing is the fact that someone who believes the Earth is 6000-10000 years old is questioning uniformitarianism by using an argument that requires a belief in deep time.

Anyway, he declined to answer any followup questions (for obvious reasons), but I hope you guys get a laugh like I did.
Atheoscanadensis
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:00 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:55 pm

It's somewhat ironic that those who are forced to seek to undermine uniformitarianism and insist that certain scientific laws and processes 'must' have been very different to today in the past are those who think or believe by faith that Earth and the universe are a mere 6,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:17 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:It's somewhat ironic that those who are forced to seek to undermine uniformitarianism and insist that certain scientific laws and processes 'must' have been very different to today in the past are those who think or believe by faith that Earth and the universe are a mere 6,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Uniformitarianism is declared wrong because it cannot encompass the highly variant physical constants required to explain an universe only 6000 years old. Catastrophism is right because they believe in Noah's flood. Neither is viewed in a proper context.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, moon?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:40 pm

As just sent to CMI:


http://creation.com/moon-madness
I have not read the links (all my attempts to view the paper at your footnote 3 failed) but on the face of it you are making unsupported assertions about what a 4.5 bn year old moon would necessarily look like. You are also implying that scientists assume or apply uniformitarianism with respect to moon recession from Earth. "This means that the smaller impacts can’t have been very long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have hardened before the impacts. So it was a very short time frame for the cratering." It may also have been very long ago - during the Late Heavy Bombardment. "These scarps are global and their freshness and lack of cratering suggest very recent origin." Astronomers think during the last billion years or so. http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/ne ... r-orbiter/ And, again, what has uniformitarianism got to do with transient lunar phenomena (something you describe rather misleadingly as 'volcanic activity')? Or are you alluding to this report? http://www.universetoday.com/94583/scie ... volcanism/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

An ignorant fool offering 'answers'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:44 pm

I suspect that virtually everybody who is not a young earth creationist and who looks honestly and carefully at the scientific and historical evidence will conclude that 'secular' history appears much more plausible and comprehensive than does Bible history (taken as literal as by YECs).

Yet, if you become a Bible-believing Christian, you are (according to YECs) meant to insist that everyone who is not a Christian (and some who claim to be) really know that there is a God and that the Bible is true, are actively suppressing the truth of the Bible, and have chosen to believe and disseminate evolutionary lies - even though they know that the penalty for all that is eternal hellfire. Why does God hide behind fantastical and dishonest-looking apologetics - whilst apparently allowing the world at large to be hoaxed by false or somehow misleading scientific evidence? Why does God hide per se? I bet YECs would avoid trying to answer these questions. I suspect that people who become Christians - as I believe I did in 1979 - come to Christianity out of a combination of coercion, fear, ignorance of most of the science of origins (possibly abetted by Christians) and the feeling "well I can't be sure it isn't true and if it is true I will gain".

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
Meanwhile these YECs are offering a new 'wow' book claiming to provide 'answers' on matters scarcely touched on in the Bible itself such as 'The truth concerning climate change' and 'New genetically modified organisms'. This strikes me as somewhat presumptuous to say the least. No doubt the 'answer' on climate change is that it is from God and humans should not try to do anything about it (other than pray possibly). After all Ham was opining as follows on his Facebook page yesterday:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

"According to a news report:
[
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/ ... z2fTNiTh9v
]
“Earth could continue to host life for at least another 1.75 billion years, as long as nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid or some other disaster doesn't intervene, a new study calculates.”
So there you have it—at some time in the future, earth will cease to be able to host life! Which means, eventually no one will ever know they existed—so life is ultimately meaningless anyway. So why even worry about supposed global warming--life will end one day anyway—unless we can escape to Mars (yes, that is in the article too).
You know—scientists often can’t predict the weather tomorrow—but they know what will happen 1.75 billion years from now (but it could be as long as 7.79 billion— or it could be 3.25 billion years--just a little error margin). I’m sure they would be able to present this in public school and call it ‘science.’".

Ham's repeated claims to 'love' science are utter hypocrisy. What he loves is 'science' as secretly redefined by the YEC lobby.

And the man appears to be an IGNORANT FOOL who cannot understand basic English possibly because he was in a rush (that is the charitable interpretation). He appears to have invented an 'error margin' among scientists' predictions of a size that absolutely does not exist. If you actually read the article it says "They calculated that Earth's habitable-zone lifetime is as long as 7.79 billion years. (Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old)". Thus it is clear from the article that the maximum time Earth might remain habitable is around 3.29 bn years. As the 'Fox News' article states at the start (extremely clumsily as Earth's orbit will probably not change) "Somewhere between 1.75 billion and 3.25 billion years from now, Earth will travel out of the solar system's habitable zone and into the "hot zone"". 7.79 billion years only exists in Ken Ham's head!

Has anybody corrected his error on his Facebook page (and not been silently censored as I was recently)? After all, there are many many comments.

What do you think? The biased Facebook fans would be horrified at the prospect of Ken Ham spouting total scientific falsehoods - whether by accident or by design.

The word 'wow' DOES spring to mind when reading the online or published thoughts of Ken Ham.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

An ignorant fool offering 'answers'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:08 pm

Message sent to AiG from within their website:


viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=47273#p47273
(If you wish to learn something true, and correct a mistake on your part, please read my post of 3.44 pm BST on 22 September.)

I have also sent the following email to a number of AiG staff, other YECs, and also a large number of critics of YEC dogma:

"'An ignorant fool offering 'answers''
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=600 (My
post at 3.44 pm BST on 22.09.13.)
"I suspect that virtually everybody who is not a young earth
creationist and who looks honestly and carefully at the scientific and
historical evidence will conclude that 'secular' history appears much
more plausible and comprehensive than does Bible history (taken as
literal as by YECs).

Yet, if you become a Bible-believing Christian, you are (according to
YECs) meant to insist that everyone who is not a Christian (and some
who claim to be) really know that there is a God and that the Bible is
true, are actively suppressing the truth of the Bible, and have chosen
to believe and disseminate evolutionary lies - even though they know
that the penalty for all that is eternal hellfire. Why does God hide
behind fantastical and dishonest-looking apologetics - whilst
apparently allowing the world at large to be hoaxed by false or somehow
misleading scientific evidence? Why does God hide per se? I bet YECs
would avoid trying to answer these questions. I suspect that people who
become Christians - as I believe I did in 1979 - come to Christianity
out of a combination of coercion, fear, ignorance of most of the
science of origins (possibly abetted by Christians) and the feeling
"well I can't be sure it isn't true and if it is true I will gain".

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -from-aig/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29
Meanwhile these YECs are offering a new 'wow' book claiming to provide
'answers' on matters scarcely touched on in the Bible itself such as
'The truth concerning climate change' and 'New genetically modified
organisms'. This strikes me as somewhat presumptuous to say the least.
No doubt the 'answer' on climate change is that it is from God and
humans should not try to do anything about it (other than pray
possibly). After all Ham was opining as follows on his Facebook page
yesterday:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

"According to a news report:
[
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/ ... z2fTNiTh9v
]
"Earth could continue to host life for at least another 1.75 billion
years, as long as nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid or some other
disaster doesn't intervene, a new study calculates."
So there you have it - at some time in the future, earth will cease to
be able to host life! Which means, eventually no one will ever know
they existed - so life is ultimately meaningless anyway. So why even
worry about supposed global warming--life will end one day anyway -
unless we can escape to Mars (yes, that is in the article too).
You know - scientists often can't predict the weather tomorrow - but
they know what will happen 1.75 billion years from now (but it could be
as long as 7.79 billion? or it could be 3.25 billion years--just a
little error margin). I'm sure they would be able to present this in
public school and call it 'science.'".

Ham's repeated claims to 'love' science are utter hypocrisy. What he
loves is 'science' as secretly redefined by the YEC lobby.

And the man appears to be an IGNORANT FOOL who cannot understand basic
English possibly because he was in a rush (that is the charitable
interpretation). He appears to have invented an 'error margin' among
scientists' predictions of a size that absolutely does not exist. If
you actually read the article it says "They calculated that Earth's
habitable-zone lifetime is as long as 7.79 billion years. (Earth is
estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old)". Thus it is clear from
the article that the maximum time Earth might remain habitable is
around 3.29 bn years. As the 'Fox News' article states at the start
(extremely clumsily as Earth's orbit will probably not change)
"Somewhere between 1.75 billion and 3.25 billion years from now, Earth
will travel out of the solar system's habitable zone and into the "hot
zone"". 7.79 billion years only exists in Ken Ham's head!

Has anybody corrected his error on his Facebook page (and not been
silently censored as I was recently)? After all, there are many many
comments.

What do you think? The biased Facebook fans would be horrified at the
prospect of Ken Ham spouting total scientific falsehoods - whether by
accident or by design.

The word 'wow' DOES spring to mind when reading the online or
published thoughts of Ken Ham."

I was halfway through a pre-existing new post when I noticed Ham's
mistake. That is why the post is a bit wordy and does not get straight
to the point.

I cannot correct Mr Ham. I've been BANNED! But I will also send this
to AiG via their website, as they probably don't read my emails even if
marked 'urgent' because ignorance is bliss.

A H-R".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Sep 22, 2013 7:20 pm

As sent to CMI:
http://creation.com/origins-vs-operational-science
"It would be common for evolutionists to say that this dependence on the Bible to give us our historical framework for doing operational science biases us in a way that’s unacceptable for true scientists. But the evolutionary scientists have their own ‘scaffolding’ on which they hang their ideas. For instance, there are many different ideas about the relationships between various groups of animals and how they are related to each other, but all of them assume millions of years of evolution." The assumptions of real scientists are scientific ie discoveries. The assumptions of creationists are sheer faith that ignores evidence in favour of Bible dogma (extrapolating from scripture).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:59 pm

As sent to CMI:


http://creation.com/biogeography-against-evolution
The idea that you have somehow undermined geological 'deep time' is complete garbage, Mr Statham.
And there have been NO ice ages in the last 4,500 years. You are LYING. Such a thing is not found in the Bible either.
I have rebutted previously - in comments which CMI censored - the total nonsense that diamonds contain carbon 14 and 'confirm' a 'young' Earth. ALL your evidence questioning radiometric dating comes from totally biased YEC apologist and thus is I suggest scientifically worthless.

They have published a slightly garbled question from Mat Hunt but not answered it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

An ignorant fool offering 'answers'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:39 am

Re my two posts in this thread on the afternoon on Sunday 22 September:

Ken Ham has FAILED either to correct or to remove his nonsense on his Facebook page about an alleged huge 'error margin' in mainstream scientific predictions regarding Earth's future habitability. Despite me contacting Answers in Genesis staff twice by email and then from the website (as they recently silently and rudely banned me from posting any factual information on his Facebook page because it would appear that Ken and his minders want his followers to be clueless and ignorant about science and about current affairs).

I CONCLUDE THEREFORE THAT ANSWERS IN GENESIS PREFER FALSEHOODS TO FACTS. FAILURE TO CORRECT A MISTAKE WHEN IT IS CLEARLY POINTED OUT IS BOTH LYING AND - IN THIS CASE - AN ATTACK UPON SCIENCE.

EVEN IF THEY HAVE DECIDED NOT TO READ ANY COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER FROM MYSELF - BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT I SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT THEM AND TO THEM.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests

cron