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 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:06 pm

Apparently Coppedge had or has cancer. Perhaps I should make some allowance, if he tries to capitalise on my refusal to be side-tracked into answering his question "Where does reason come from?"
http://davidcoppedge.com/index.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
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 29, 2013 11:57 pm

More huffing and puffing from our friend David Coppedge.

I wrote earlier:
"I am not going to answer all your latest questions (I answered the main question). Make of that what you wish."

Yet he still demands:
"I read it. Now please re-read mine, and answer the question. Where does reason come from? You insulted me, saying you could not reason with me. Prove that you are capable of reason. You cannot just show up unannounced here, leave insults, and run. This is a discussion, in which you must take responsibility for your statements. Answer the question."

I stand by everything I have previously written. He now demands I tell him "where does reason come from" and demands that I 'prove' I am capable of reason. I have no intention of getting into a discussion about philosophy. He will have to take 'no' for an answer. Besides he has blatantly ignored my question about how old he believes Earth to be - which is more relevant to the blog post than is his question.

And I HAVE taken a photo of the all the posts under his blog. Should any of my posts disappear I will decide what further action if any to take.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
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 30, 2013 1:16 am

btw I am assuming that the 'Editor' is David himself. I've not been told anything different.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
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 30, 2013 1:35 am

I understand also that Peter L aka Eye on the ICR has submitted a comment. However it is not visible. It would appear that he is on pre-moderation for some reason and that Coppedge or whoever is still moderating his post.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
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 30, 2013 7:09 pm

Coppedge censored one of my posts sometime within the last 16 hours or so.

I have just replied as follows (which may also be in danger of disappearing):
"I see that the Editor has censored a brief, and I admit somewhat rushed, comment of mine very early today UK time which said "Your point about links is a silly one".

Please will you let me elaborate? Whilst I realise that David MAY have encountered critics who MIGHT have 'hidden' behind links, I do not do so. The whole reason for posting the link from 'Eye on the ICR' - in response to David's question - was that this was a thorough critique by a science student of a recent paper entitled 'Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules' by Mary Schweitzer and others which was published in the journal 'Bone'.

If this site has an undeclared policy of discouraging links, I must ask 'why'? Obviously bloggers are right to exercise some discretion, perhaps pre-moderating posts containing links.

But if I simply summarised material I had read on the internet, others would - or should - rightly ask where the information came from. Also, summarising a scientific paper or an article discussing one could be very time-consuming."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
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 30, 2013 8:58 pm

More science abuse from Issac Bourne - who CENSORS any critical comments that he is unable to deal with:
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1627
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
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 30, 2013 9:29 pm

Message sent to Mr Bourne/Ikester 7579:


""Evolutionists have nothing. Empirical evidence beats the “Deep Time” claim any day." LIAR

You DO realise that the fossil record is very incomplete, don't you?

"If time laid the fossils there would be no reason to have fossil grave yards because how would time gather life into one place to die?" What nonsense? Groups of animals could die together in a local flood a long time ago. It's not difficult to understand.

You will of course censor me. Perhaps you are afraid even to read my comment?"


EDIT at 0.26 am BST on 1 October: I think the comment was actually submitted under a 'contact' option rather than a 'comment' option as commenting appeared to have been disabled. Funny, that.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YECs CANNOT resist censorship

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:38 pm

Email to Coppedge et al:



http://crev.info/2013/09/dinosaur-tracks-in-alaska/
http://crev.info/feedback/
Note that this latter page - where it is stated "Feedback is NOT a place for ... posting links to your site or other sites" - can only be accessed via the link 'Leave Feedback'.

Why on earth are the rules for commenting on articles buried under such a misleading headline (in addition the invitation under articles is to leave a 'reply' - so the term 'feedback' implies comments on the website in general and NOT comments on specific articles)?

I did search for details of the rules on making comments and could not find them. Yet David Coppedge/the Editor - who has belatedly censored my questions instead of ANSWERING them - now seems to assume that I was aware of the rules and must have ignored them. NO - I was NOT, I was only aware of his recent remark "Comments are not for linking to other sites. I have let you get away with it, but from now on, state your comments in your own words".

The attached photo shows the polite enquiry that David has chosen to censor. I still do not know why he would not wish people to post links and would strongly question this policy. Why are creationists so afraid of information and facts?

I repeat:
"I see that the Editor has censored a brief, and I admit somewhat rushed, comment of mine very early today UK time which said "Your point about links is a silly one".
Please will you let me elaborate? Whilst I realise that David MAY have encountered critics who MIGHT have 'hidden' behind links, I do not do so. The whole reason for posting the link from 'Eye on the ICR' - in response to David's question - was that this was a thorough critique by a science student of a recent paper entitled 'Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules' by Mary Schweitzer and others which was published in the journal 'Bone'.
If this site has an undeclared policy of discouraging links, I must ask 'why'? Obviously bloggers are right to exercise some discretion, perhaps pre-moderating posts containing links.
But if I simply summarised material I had read on the internet, others would - or should - rightly ask where the information came from. Also, summarising a scientific paper or an article discussing one could be very time-consuming."

"We strive for high standards of accuracy." I suggest that IF that was true the author would not discourage or even censor factual links - after all he posts lots of links himself.

I should point out, meanwhile, that Tas Walker - who claimed these dinosaurs were fleeing Noah's Flood - continues to CENSOR without explanation or acknowledgement my attempted comment here:
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/dinosau ... er-alaska/

I tried to comment there as follows: "
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/dinosau ... er-alaska/
"Meanwhile another YEC simply gives us the FACTS about these dinosaur tracks, Tas (I have commented):
http://crev.info/2013/09/dinosaur-tracks-in-alaska/".

At least David has published (most of) my comments, including one that corrected - using reputable links - inaccurate information from another person that David did not challenge himself.

A H-R
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Coppedge takes a leaf out of the Tea Party book

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Email as just sent to Coppedge et al:


Childishness by YEC blogger David Coppedge?

http://crev.info/2013/09/dinosaur-tracks-in-alaska/
Last night I informed Coppedge on his blog that I had not seen the rules for making posts because they are poorly signposted (as I've highlighted in the email below which Coppedge has ignored).

However, any constructive criticism of his website is clearly VERBOTEN - please see the attached photo. He has banned me unless I answer a question that has nothing to do with his article at all. Does this behaviour remind anyone of any politicians in the US House of Representatives I wonder.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=630
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YECs flailing around over flowering plants

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:51 pm

http://crev.info/2013/10/evolutionists- ... es-around/
His two links - and the paper they discuss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/24331982
http://www.livescience.com/40088-flower ... saurs.html
http://www.frontiersin.org/plant_evolut ... 4/abstract

From Mr Coppedge on the origins of flowering plants story:
"They aren’t bothered by flowering plants popping into existence much earlier than thought, only to remain absent from the fossil record for a hundred million years, thereafter exploding into thousands of diverse, beautiful plants like roses, orchids and petunias... Aren’t those much more interesting stories? That’s the whole game! They love it. The more “abominable” the “mystery,” the better. Everybody likes a great mystery story. If they can keep the mystery running for 154 years, all the better. Nothing ever falsifies their scheme. They smile and chuckle and pat each other on the back when anomalies come. The only thing that makes them mad is the suggestion that the framework Charlie & Charlie bequeathed to them is questionable, if not unscientific. How dare anyone think such a thing! That would ruin our stories! Expel the heretics! Call them “anti-science”".

Anti-science.

Meanwhile YEC Georgia Purdom has picked up the same story on her Facebook page (The Question Evolution Project liked it, but does she like them I wonder):
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPurdom
"Evolutionists are having to rewrite history, again, as they've discovered that flowering plants existed as the same time as the dinosaurs. If they had started with the biblical account of creation they would already know this since plants were created on Day 3 and dinosaurs (land animals) on Day 6.
I had to chuckle when I read this statement:
"The ancestors of flowering plants currently remain a mystery, and scientists aren't sure what kind of events or conditions might have spurred their origin."
And it will continue to be a mystery to them until they accept God's Word as the truth about the past instead of their own man-made ideas".

Ah I see! Young Earth creationism has been proven by evolutionary scientists!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: David Menton LIES about fossils

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:46 am

Just listened to the podcast here:
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis

Menton claims a statement by science writer Roger Lewin to the effect that so-called 'macro' evolution (molecules to Man) was not explainable from the phenomena involved in so-called 'micro' evolution (the kind YECs accept, even though it is NOT in the Bible). Hold the front page.

And HERE it is.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4472/883.extract
Apparently Lewin wrote "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No". In 1980.

There's NOTHING like keeping up with the latest science, eh, Answers in Genesis.

And I see NO evidence here that Lewin EVER became a creationist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Lewin

Quote-mining for Jesus! He should be ashamed.

Menton also LIES through his teeth that Australopithecines were 'unquestionably' apes (ie NOT ape-men). He then talks about their heads - and says NOTHING about their lower body. Funny, that.

Younger Ham then hawks this stuff:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/p ... u=30-9-026

I am sending these comments to AiG - for them to place in their Inconvenient Rebuttals Trash Bin.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: David Menton lies

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:05 am

Had to shorten message due to character restrictions on that AiG Contact form - I will go back to using their News form:


WHY IS DR DAVID MENTON LYING FOR JESUS IN YOUR LATEST PODCAST?


Menton refers to a statement by science writer Roger Lewin about 'macro' evolution.

HERE it is.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4472/883.extract
Apparently Lewin said: "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No". In 1980.

There's NOTHING like keeping up with the latest science, eh, Answers in Genesis.

And I see NO evidence at Wikipedia that Lewin EVER became a creationist:

Quote-mining for Jesus!

Menton also LIES through his teeth that Australopithecines were 'unquestionably' apes (ie NOT ape-men). He then talks about their heads: and says NOTHING about the lower body! I know WHY.

Also, there is NO 'micro' evolution in the Bible.

You will chuck this in the trash.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC geology is pseudo-scientific nonsense

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:56 pm

I've just submitted the following comment for moderation here, in response to Andy Wortman:
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2013/09/ ... mment-2478


"Andy

As Joel wrote above: "Conventional geology provides a very plausible and scientifically testable set of theories for how this landscape could have evolved over long periods of time. Young earth creationism provides nothing but ad-hoc explanations with no evidence to support them."

I suggest that - as is the wont of young earth creationists everywhere - you play with words by suggesting or at least implying that one 'complex' short-term event or 'set' of events could achieve the same geological 'outcome' in the particular landscape Joel describes as a series of well separated and long-term events over billions then millions then thousands of years. From reading the information that has been presented here I strongly disagree (or are you saying God performed a 'miracle' ie something not scientifically testable or falsifiable).

You have now answered Jim's question. However, the way I read your reply is that you are trying to claim that in the space of around one year 'Noah's Flood' laid down thousands of feet of fossil bearing rock, eroded valleys, temporarily abated through some unspecified form of 'tidal action' so that basalt lava could then fill the valleys, then the waters returned again and eroded the softer neighbouring sandstone rocks leaving the former valleys as the highest points in the landscape.

I think your 'explanation' of how one 'complex' (you can say that again) event could achieve all that is utterly preposterous.

And what about Joel's stages 5, 6 and 7?

Young Earth creationism is anti-scientific religious apologetics pure and simple.

But I'm no geologist of course. I would be very interested to read any comment by Joel to the effect that he thinks your response accounts for ANYTHING. But I would not bet on reading any such comment.

Ashley"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Health and Safety on Noah's Ark

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:18 pm

Article as flagged at the Panda's Thumb blog:
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/03/228831363 ... noahs-arks
"The Creation Museum's mission is to show the feasibility of biblical stories. So with the Ark Encounter, they're also setting out to show what day-to-day life would have been like for Noah.
"Not only are we thinking through the different kinds of animals represented onboard and how you deal with 12 million tons of waste every day," Zovath says.
How exactly would Noah have accomplished that? "Very, very carefully I think," Zovath says. "I'm not sure how they did that"".

Noah had a problem with inconvenient animal waste.

Modern YECs have a problem with inconvenient facts.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and ice cap

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:48 pm

http://creation.com/
"Are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets old? We need to put on the biblical glasses and take a close look at the evidence".
http://creation.com/ice-sheet-age

I will look at this offering later. The phrase red rag to a bull already comes to mind...

If a young Earth creationist says a Christian should put on 'biblical glasses' that means that they should prepare themselves to dogmatically reject REALITY should that reality disagree with Bible 'history'. For such a person the Bible IS Reality - and Reality is DECEPTION. Thus I very much predict that Oard will NOT explain the evidence, he will instead explain AWAY the evidence (or simply ignore most of it or invoke scientifically impossible scenarios).

What a way to live. What a way to think.

What a deceitful God.

(Or no god and deluded humans.)

STILL waiting for CMI or AiG to comment on the massive canyon discovered under the Greenland ice cap (after the Oard article was written).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
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 5 guests