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

[a_haworthroberts]

As posted on Coppedge's website.

http://crev.info/2013/10/wrong-again-se ... mment-4960
"Sorry, Ashley, you have an outstanding question to answer in order to get unblocked, since you earlier violated the rules. Where does reason come from? I’m sure if you had an answer you would be able to give one.” I have told you many times that I have no intention of getting sidetracked, David. This site is about evolution vs creation not about reason. I have also told you that my violation of your rules in posting links was done was in ignorance — because I could not find the rules on your site, David, because they are poorly signposted (under the heading ‘leave feedback’ which to me implies feedback about the site in general not comments on specific posts). If you feel the need to censor me, fine, but PLEASE answer my question ie where do you get the following statement from: “five crania with more morphological variation between them than between the various proposed species of Homo”? I’m sure if you had an answer you would be able to give one. I have not read such a comment elsewhere. I think Mr Saboe would also welcome clarification."

[a_haworthroberts]

A further post:
http://crev.info/2013/10/findings-that- ... h-genesis/
If the evidence is so much on the side of the Bible (or rather the musings of modern biblical creationists) why do you censor critics if they won't answer a specific question?

It would be odd if there were no discoveries at all that could be matched with a false version of the history of the planet. (I agree that life sometimes appears designed, but that does not in an[d] of itself confirm Genesis literalism - which is refuted by a mountain of other evidence from both science and history.)

I've also just been censored and also banned by this bloke (see the Mary Schweitzer thread which began on 12 October):
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Freedom- ... 7305239016

At least my comments give you something to read, as there are few other respondents. Even if no other followers of your blog get to see them.

[a_haworthroberts]

Oh, look I've been silently - and without any warning - banned from the CMI Facebook page, after answering a question (also now removed) from Ruben who was posting nonsense about monkeys 'turning' into humans (in the thread about humans and chimps).
https://www.facebook.com/creationministries

I'm not aware that I broke the rules of the page. These people are so utterly FRAUDULENT.

If the Christian God exists he too is a liar. It's obvious.

[Peter Henderson]

Oh, look I've been silently - and without any warning - banned from the CMI Facebook page, after answering a question (also now removed) from Ruben who was posting nonsense about monkeys 'turning' into humans (in the thread about humans and chimps).
https://www.facebook.com/creationministries

I'm not aware that I broke the rules of the page. These people are so utterly FRAUDULENT.

If the Christian God exists he too is a liar. It's obvious.

I was banned for really posting very little Ashley so it doesn't surprise me.

Don Batten is claiming museums are misleading the public, along with the Carl Werner nonsense regurgitated, yet again. I can find virtually nothing debunking Werner's claims:

http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs

[a_haworthroberts]

Email as sent to CMI from within their website (thus they cannot block it):

"
https://www.facebook.com/creationminist ... 3167177144
Please tell me why I was suddenly and without warning banned from your Facebook page yesterday? In addition, all my posts in the humans - chimps thread were removed. One informed somebody that human DNA is NOT closer to bananas than chimps. Another informed somebody else that evolution theory does NOT say monkeys turn into humans and that we are descended from apes.
I'm a longstanding opponent of YEC creationist dogma but not anti-Christian. I contend that I did NOT break the rules of your page by 'trolling' or posting links to other websites. I am not aware than any other user complained about my behaviour.
I'm also flagging my enquiry at the BCSE community forum - which Dr Sarfati and others know about. Obviously, if you respond to my enquiry I will also post your response there. Equally, if you fail to respond I also plan to flag that.
Please tell me why I was silently banned and whether the ban is permanent. I'm under an impression that I have been banned for politely correcting nonsensical statements by others."

The rules also say "respectful disagreement is allowed". That is all I did. Perhaps they really mean "respectful disagreement is allowed but showing other users or CMI to be in error scientifically will lead to a permanent ban".

I have not specifically mentioned the above comment to CMI - SOLELY because there are restrictions on the length of any message sent to CMI using their contact form.

On Peter's comments, I was tempted to email Christine Janis about those Werner claims as she commented on other such claims at Amazon.com (but she may see Peter's comment).

[a_haworthroberts]

No response whatsoever from CMI so far.

Am I surprised? No. They banned me because posting facts on their Facebook pages poses some sort of threat.

The same reason AiG banned me - without warning and for no good reason.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs
A somewhat propagandist piece that cites NO peer-reviewed science paper merely a book written by a fellow YEC.
"In spite of all these factors, more and more modern animals and plants are being found in rocks where they should not be, according to the evolutionary view. There are so many examples (such as those discussed in Living Fossils), that it amounts to a strong confirmation that animals did not change significantly over time, that God made things to reproduce ‘after their kind’; providing a powerful challenge to the evolutionary story." UNSUPPORTED assertions, Dr Batten.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/11 ... useum.html
Mr Bob Sorensen laps up such propagandist stuff - and produces more propaganda of his own (whilst forbidding anyone from commenting under his blogs).
"You see, that would ruin evolutionary dogma". That is UNTRUE. But Bob has no interest in inconvenient facts.
"Creationists do not need to resort to subterfuge because the truth is on our side."
So WHY do you do exactly that on the internet, Bob? (By misrepresenting facts and/or presenting fallacious arguments - as I have described on THIS community forum previously. "You can't be the same age as your ancestor". No Bob - and evolution is about genetic changes of SPECIES over time NOT about changes to individual animals. The ancestor species may still exist in some places at the same time as the descendant species exists elsewhere. But Bob's brain cannot or will not cope with such a scenario. Dogs and wolves are both extant today.)
Sorensen has also written at The Question Evolution Project facebook page:
"Museums present the story of evolution quite eloquently. And dishonestly. Especially dinosaur-to-bird evolution, since they both lived at the same time." NO, Bob. SOME birds co-existed with SOME dinosaurs. Duh. NO falsification of either millions of years or of evolution as certain dinos did not turn into certain birds instantly and overnight (and become extinct as dinosaurs). Even if certain museums may not display (for whatever reason) or mention ancient fossils of 'modern' birds.

There appears to be some truth in the Werner claims:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ed-victory

But the facility that Bob's headline best describes is of course the CREATION MUSEUM in Kentucky. I have commented abundantly on this website about how AiG duck and weave with regards to primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs (as well as 'Lucy').

[a_haworthroberts]

YECs think that if a person is rejecting their pseudo-scientific nonsense in defence of scripture at the time of their death then the Christian God will send them to hell. If they are right then God is a LIAR.

That must be where I went wrong as an evangelical Christian from around 1980 to 2000+. I avoided lying for God and tried to stick to the facts as I saw them.

[a_haworthroberts]

Email I sent yesterday:
"What do you call a young Earth creationist who calls you
'hypocritical' under one of his blogs and then announces that "I will
be sending all of your further comments to spam". Jason Petersen.
http://answersforhope.com/cross-examina ... /#comments
(please compare and contrast with the attached photo - one of two
responses censored by the blogger)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=225

What do you call another young Earth creationist with a track record
of posting blogs full of bad science and poor logic, and who refuses
even to allow any comments under his blogs? Bob Sorensen.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/11 ... useum.html
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=495"
[I attached a photo of a post censored by Petersen which included the words "I have a photo of this screen. I may make use of it at some point."]

Email today from Tim Gilleand (who has for some reason censored attempted posts by me here: http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2013/10/ ... /#comments)
"Do you know what "I have a photo of this screen, I may make use of it
at some point" is? It's blackmail. Is that how atheists work? Two
can play this game Ashley, and you know quite well that's all it is to
you. I censored your newer comments because you are so far off topic
it's ridiculous. You have an agenda, and I can't fathom to think about
how long per day you spend fighting a god you don't believe in.
Your constant mass-emailing after being told so many times how wrong
it is, is unbelievable. To me, it screams "give me attention". I have
constantly explained my positions to you. I've never asked any of my
opponents to change their mind and embrace YEC, only to respect how I
come to that belief. You are not able to do that (which is a very
basic thing). I feel very sorry for you.
If after all the times we've discussed you still feel YECs are "anti-
science", then we have nothing more to talk about. When you realize
this is not an argument of science and evidence, that its about
something way bigger - you might be able to move on. Good luck and God
bless. I have tried my friend.
~Tim"

My reply (also copied to Jason Petersen):
"It was not blackmail. YECs have no shame about censoring those who
disagree with their far-fetched claims and show them to be bogus. I
knew Petersen without doubt would censor my reply (after calling me
'hypocritical' which is 'playing to the gallery' and trying to make
himself look good). I merely flagged that I might expose his behaviour
(he claimed he had 'nothing to hide' which is not speaking the truth).
I never said I was an atheist though I certainly do NOT 'know' God
exists.
Your claim that my post is off-topic is a total lie. You allowed the
post by Agnophilo (Ken Miller video) and it is totally relevant to
that. Even if you may be powerless to discuss the actual topic due to
ignorance of the issues. Your email reply when I asked for my post to
be moderated was petulant.
I am posting this exchange at the Agnophilo thread (I don't know his
email address). If you disagree you can say so there or at the BCSE
community forum - where this exchange also will appear as you have not
asked for confidentiality.
YECs behave disgustingly even if some of them are polite. Other
Christians behave well. I do not oppose them at all.
Today's YECs lost their 'arguments' about science before they were
born.
"If after all the times we've discussed you still feel YECs are "anti-
science", then we have nothing more to talk about". YECs are anti-
science even if they use the internet. I am sorry to tell you that
nothing you or others have said to me have persuaded me otherwise.
YECs always look for an excuse to censor. In your case you told me
previously that you don't censor. Are you afraid of somehow 'losing
face'? If so, why censor my post about human chromosome 2 which pointed
out that evolutionists appear not to have publicly addressed the
Tomkins claim that Juby was going on about? What have you to gain from
that?
But I suspect you are telling me I am permanently banned from posting
under your blogs (ie you - like Petersen, Coppedge et al will always
delete my posts). Is that correct? If so, then my lack of respect for
YECs like you (who have NO respect for opposing viewpoints however
factual) is richly deserved.
You may well be sincere but sincerity does not necessarily equal
factual accuracy.
Though I appreciate you mentioning it, your sympathy is pretty much
irrelevant. I lost faith because God betrayed me by sending mental
illness and paraplegia just under a decade ago. Not self-pity - just an
explanation of why I am angry with God. I only discovered YEC dogma
(and real science) after losing faith. I am not denying something I
once claimed.
Ashley".

[a_haworthroberts]

Petersen to Gilleand:
"No one who follows my site, to my recollection, has been convinced by
anything that he says. The only impression that they get is that Ashley
stalks me. I have challenged Ashley to a formal debate on creation v.
evolution in the past, I even came to his forum, but Ashley would never
accept it. He'd rather argue through comments, and I just don't have
time for a conversation that would never end. I am a graduate student,
I have a 40 hours a week day job, and I run a non profit organization.
Ashley's comments will remain where they belong--in my spam folder.
God Bless,
Jason"

My response to both:
"The many posts of mine that you have hidden (yes some of them did
complain about your prior censorship) were not 'spam'. If you run a
blog, you should be prepared to read and consider the responses you
receive - not just shove those from known critics into a 'spam' folder
as you habitually do.
My censored posts can be read here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=225
You are a fraud Mr Petersen. Though not quite as bad as Jason Lisle
and AiG - who hide criticism or fail to moderate it without even
announcing online that input is being deliberately suppressed (because
they cannot deal with it).
You also seem to have forgotten that I came to your blog after you
mentioned me by name in one of your blogs and speculated that I might
be 'bat crazy'. It seems like you are only able to dish out name-
calling but not take it. Playing to the gallery.
If anybody said they found my comments convincing, Jason would no
doubt censor them.
I refused a specific 'formal' debate with Jason as he wanted me to
argue for some proposition of other of HIS choosing! Meantime, Jason
came onto the BCSE site briefly but then rapidly scarpered. If Tim
searches there he will see that I am speaking the truth".

Jason again:
"Let me explain this to you, Ashley. It is my website. I can allow comments and send them to spam or trash I please. Most of your comments are mean-spirited, dishonest, not related to the subject, or all of the above. I have tried to give you a benefit of a doubt several times, in hopes that we could have a cordial discussion, but unfortunately, you were unable to behave. Thus, I started openly sending your comments to spam again. Due to your recent antics, I will not be giving you another chance.
You have now gone and called me a "fraud." That type of behavior is unacceptable and unprofessional. Every time you talk about me, you only prove my point. You need to start thinking about what you say about other people before you actually say it. All you are doing right now is making yourself look like a pretentious jerk. I am sure that you are an overall nice guy, but people who read what you say about me will not get that impression. I encourage you to take my advice to heart, and to not continue acting like someone who is foolish. I think you are a smart individual;however, you are letting your emotions run wild, and it is not benefiting you or anyone else.
If you decide to accept the challenge that I put forth months ago, please let me know and I can arrange the discussion for December."

My response:
"You are misrepresenting my hidden posts - which are in the public domain on the BCSE site as I have just told you. Thus you are a fraud. It is not my largely reactive behaviour which is the main problem. Sensible people will judge between us by seeing all the evidence. I provide all the evidence.
You provide SOME of the evidence, hide the rest, and then try to tell people what they should think about what you have hidden."

Jason again:
"Where has this "alleged" misrepresentation taken place? Please be
specific";

My reply:
""Most of your comments are mean-spirited, dishonest, not related to the subject, or all of the
above".
I suggest you go through the BCSE thread about you (the latest
exchanges today in fact appear at the '6,000 year' thread), pick out
the comments of mine that you sent to 'spam' and identify WHICH ones of
those fit your description above and why.
Alternatively we could just end this conversation".

Jason again:
"I have already pointed out that your posts prove my very point. In fact, my point was proven in the email that you sent me. The title of your thread says that I am a liar. And you didn't call me a liar because I lied, it was because you disagreed with me. My suggestion is that you pick up a dictionary or thesaurus and start reading. You might want to start at the word "lie." None of my readers who have seen your thread has been convinced by you that I'm a "liar."
Again, please let me know when you are ready to accept the challenge that I have issued to you months ago.
I am finished with this conversation, have a nice day Ashley!".

I have refrained from reacting to THAT.

If anybody wants to reach a conclusion on whether Jason has lied or has misrepresented the sum of my posts that he sent to 'spam', I simply suggest that they work their way through this other thread chronologically.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=225

PS And now ANOTHER email from Jason:
"Oh, you asked me to tell you which posts that you made that were mean-spirited, dishonest, off topic, or all of the above. The answer is: all of them.
Now I am good with ending the conversation. Have a nice day, and don't forget to pick up a dictionary or thesaurus".

AGAIN: If anybody wants to reach a conclusion on whether Jason has lied or has misrepresented the sum of my posts that he sent to 'spam', I simply suggest that they work their way through this other thread chronologically.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=225

They way to establish facts is NOT to trust an authority (including me) but to EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. I implore open-minded people to do so (as far as I recall I identified in the Petersen thread WHICH posts he censored - so all that is needed is to verify whether or not 'all' of them are "mean-spirited, dishonest, off topic, or all of the above".

I have nothing to fear from anybody (including Jason himself) doing just that.

I wanted to let Jason have the last word. However, I'm emailing the link to this thread back to him so he is fully in the picture.

[a_haworthroberts]

Gilleand has not told me whether I am permanently banned (presumably for complaining about him censoring me when I was NOT off-topic).

Perhaps he cannot decide (he too has the link to this thread).

[a_haworthroberts]

Further to my post at 7.04 pm, and in an effort to be helpful to Jason, I have systematically gone through my posts that he hid.

It all started here:
http://answersforhope.com/online-atheis ... comment-73

He hid my attempted post of 31 Jan 2013 - which can be read at the Sorensen thread. It read:
"Jason
I take your point that you did not expressly state that the BCSE was an atheist organisation. However your blog post title clearly refers to 'online atheists' and in your opening paragraph you said "I chose their site [the BCSE site although your previous blog post earlier this week did not identify the site] as an example of the inefficiency the new atheist movement’s ineffectiveness at responding to Christians". Thus you certainly did NOT state that the BCSE is against creationism, not against religion or atheistic. For someone not familiar with it to wrongly assume that the BCSE is an atheistic site would be an understandable mistake for someone to make. You also did not quote the organisation's full name, which is why I suggested you were 'uninformed'.
Until recently a young Earth creationist (Marc Surtees) used to post regularly on the BCSE community forum. Peter Henderson and Michael Roberts are both Christians.
"What I would expect for an agnostic is to be neutral on the position of whether or not God exists, but that is not the position that you take on the BCSE forums. Labeling you as an atheist would be quite accurate as I have never seen you stick up for any religion or any gods." You will not find any posts by me there stating that God does not exist. You may find posts by me criticising how the Christian god, assuming he exists, behaves. The views expressed are personal and I do not represent the BCSE in any shape or form.
"I saw no libeling in his blog. Even after reading your timeline on the BCSE forums, I still agree with Bob".
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ciple.html
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ssion.html
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ecord.html
Please don't tell me you approve of these!
(Some of Bob's libellous blog posts were subsequently taken down.)
The point is that whilst I have sometimes criticised young Earth creationists online, I do so with FACTS (as in my review of Jonathan Sarfati's book). Whereas Bob Sorensen is simply full of, frequently incorrect, insults.
At the end of December he accused me on Facebook at the Question Evolution Project page of having been banned from his Facebook page - despite me previously informing him that I had never posted there.
He wrote: "Note to all: Since Ashley Haworth-Roberts is a cowardly troll without the courage of his convictions, giving a "Like" to comments that are foolish, illogical, hateful and so forth, it is an automatic death sentence for the comments from now on. He said that he was banned from this Page, yet created his account *after* he made that lie. He cannot be bothered to actually comment himself." (Eventually, after I contacted Facebook, he removed the accusation. He has accused me of lying at least once, but has NOT substantiated his accusation as I showed at the BCSE community forum.)
There is plenty of what you call 'emotionally charged rhetoric' on Bob's Facebook page and in his many blog posts, in case you hadn't noticed.
I do NOT try to censor creationists. Nor does Eyeonthe ICR. I agree that Dawkins and Nye avoid debating them. However, whilst not a 'one on one', scientists HAVE recently debated creationists on UK TV (if you can access it, please enjoy): http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/#!/2013/0 ... ccept.html (blog entry dated 13 January referring to 'The Big Questions')
I'm adding this attempted reply to the BCSE community forum (which Alex has just visited) and also the thread at EyeontheICR. (I did the same with the comment which you failed in moderation.)
Ashley".

That response was NOT either mean-spirited, dishonest or not related to the subject. NOR did it contain 'too much emotion' as Petersen falsely claimed at the time (playing to the gallery). Rather it proved him wrong. That is why he censored it.

Any mean-spiritedness in my later posts would result from such a first encounter with the dishonest Petersen.

Below I list other censored posts - and will own up if any are mean-spirited (MS), dishonest (D), or nor related to the subject (NR). The dates are those when I reproduced the censored post HERE.
3.2.13 (Sorensen thread)
4.2.13 (Sorensen thread) MS?
18.2.13 (Sorensen thread)
20.2.13 (Sorensen thread)
19.3.13 (Sorensen thread) MS?
20.3.13 x 2 (Sorensen thread)
22.3.13 x 4 (Sorensen thread) MS x 1?
23.3.13 (Sorensen thread) MS?
24.3.13 (Sorensen thread)
24.3.13 (all posts from this point are in the Petersen thread)
26.3.13 x 4
6.4.13
2.5.13
11.5.13
12.5.13
16.5.13 MS?
18.5.13
24.5.13 MS?
13.6.13
22.6.13
25.6.13
2.7.13
10.7.13
20.7.13
5.8.13 MS?
28.9.13 MS?

A lengthy list, isn't it? Jason has hidden MUCH.

If Jason disagrees with any of this (I can't rule out the odd inaccuracy in which posts I have listed that were censored/mostly censored), let him explain WHY (with specifics).

If he does NOT contact me about this post, which I am flagging to him, I will assume that he now admits that he was MISREPRESENTING my posts that he previously sent to 'spam'.

[a_haworthroberts]

Now where did I put that dictionary?

[a_haworthroberts]

Petersen is misbehaving again, at this site (where his mate Sorensen once banned me the second I went there):
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

I have just sent the following wide circulation email:
"The attached photos should be self-explanatory; I attach the relevant links:
https://www.facebook.com/piltdown.superman
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=660
Jason Petersen appears to be sulking because I have called his bluff after he absurdly claimed that 'all' the posts of mine that he censored at his blog over recent months (and which appear on this site) were "mean-spirited, dishonest, off topic, or all of the above". He cannot justify his absurd comments so instead he plays to the gallery.
Yes - a fraud, as I said in an earlier email.
A H-R"

These people never learn.

See also my earlier post here of 8 Nov, at the Petersen thread, showing the hypocrisy of Petersen (who has the Right of Reply here but dare to exercise it because he cannot or will not seek to justify himself). True to form he HAD to delete my post - before anyone else there could read it, lest any of his fans might begin to have doubts about his behaviour.

LAST NIGHT AT 9.43 PM IN THIS THREAD I FOUND HIM OUT AT THIS THREAD AND HE KNOWS IT.

SO HE WHINGES AND TRIES TO MAKE ME LOOK BAD AND HIM LOOK GOOD ON FACEBOOK. AT A PLACE WHERE I CANNOT RESPOND.

[a_haworthroberts]

Comment as sent:

http://creation.com/salad-bar-christianity
Genesis is WRONG. Sites like yours can only produce pseudo-science. Unlike pro-science websites.
Have you ever asked God why this is so?