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 Peter Henderson » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:06 am

My level of scientific knowledge doesn't extend this far. I feel somehow inadequate to deal with highly technical YEC claims such as this one:

http://creation.com/native-folds-in-pol ... e-chains-6

I've no idea what this is all about :cry:
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:20 am

Peter Henderson wrote:My level of scientific knowledge doesn't extend this far. I feel somehow inadequate to deal with highly technical YEC claims such as this one:

http://creation.com/native-folds-in-pol ... e-chains-6

I've no idea what this is all about :cry:



Ditto.

Yet 64 people on the CMI Facebook page claim to 'like' it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:56 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:My level of scientific knowledge doesn't extend this far. I feel somehow inadequate to deal with highly technical YEC claims such as this one:

http://creation.com/native-folds-in-pol ... e-chains-6

I've no idea what this is all about :cry:



Ditto.

Yet 64 people on the CMI Facebook page claim to 'like' it.


Yep, up to 67 now Ashley.

When stuff like this appears I'm of the opinion the scientific community hopelessly underestimate the YECs.

Cleverly, they've managed to assemble quite a formidable number (albeit small in the grand scheme of things) of very well qualified people to write highly technical gobbledygook like this, which is virtually impossible for laymen like us to decipher.

You may well laugh at YECs, but people like Royal (what a strange name) Truman aren't one bit stupid.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

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

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:00 am

We cannot agree that this series of experiments demonstrates that about 10–11 random protein sequences produce native-like folds. The estimate that 10–11 random polypeptides would possess a native fold was based17 on clone 18–19. Additional information surfaced after this proposed estimate had been widely disseminated. Recall that the folding results were only possible in the presence of zinc, that “protein 18–19 forms an insoluble precipitate after 3 days”75 and that high concentrations of ATP were necessary for it to remain stably folded.30 Surely clone 18–19 cannot be considered a representative evolutionary starting point for a new true protein.

The DX variant with better solubility was not part of the original 1013 random sequences but of a larger space of random sequences, and therefore the proportion which folds properly needs to be calibrated accordingly. That the value is lower than 10–11 is certain, but how much lower? The secondary structures reported were found in crystals frozen76 at 90 K but were not found in the CD spectra at evolutionary-relevant temperatures. DX is also contingent upon the presence of chelating zinc. Furthermore, ATP was also found77 associated with a β-sheet in the crystal structure of DX, suggesting that all or most secondary structure could be an artefact, caused by zinc and ATP, forming only at temperatures around 100 K (–173°C).


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :?: :?: :?: :?:
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

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

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:51 am

Peter Henderson wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:My level of scientific knowledge doesn't extend this far. I feel somehow inadequate to deal with highly technical YEC claims such as this one:

http://creation.com/native-folds-in-pol ... e-chains-6

I've no idea what this is all about :cry:



Ditto.

Yet 64 people on the CMI Facebook page claim to 'like' it.


Yep, up to 67 now Ashley.

When stuff like this appears I'm of the opinion the scientific community hopelessly underestimate the YECs.

Cleverly, they've managed to assemble quite a formidable number (albeit small in the grand scheme of things) of very well qualified people to write highly technical gobbledygook like this, which is virtually impossible for laymen like us to decipher.

You may well laugh at YECs, but people like Royal (what a strange name) Truman aren't one bit stupid.


He doesn't even remotely appear to be a practising scientist or on the scientific circuit. In fact he's a training manager at BASF in Germany and appears to specialise in SAP and logistics. Which have nothing at all to do with his paper.
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 » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:39 pm

The CMI website states: "Royal Truman has bachelor’s degrees in chemistry and in computer science from SUNY Buffalo, an M.B.A from the University of Michigan, a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from Michigan State University and post-graduate studies in bioinformatics from the universities of Heidelberg and Mannheim. He works for a large multinational in Europe".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 » Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:03 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:He doesn't even remotely appear to be a practising scientist or on the scientific circuit. In fact he's a training manager at BASF in Germany and appears to specialise in SAP and logistics. Which have nothing at all to do with his paper.
OTOH he has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and can clearly talk the talk. At first sight, this lengthy treatise looks like a literature review but in fact seems more like a cherry-picking exercise intended to show that biologically functioning proteins could only have arisen by ID. It's something of a Gish Gallop and the sort of claim that is easily if lengthily made but would require as much work to refute as it took him to produce. Time and patience would be needed to go through it productively.

For now, I'll just say that whenever these people produce large improbabilities they mean that the improbable is impossible - and they often vastly over-state or misrepresent the improbability as well. Rather than dig over his claims, I'd much prefer to see a proper literature review from the other side before I worry about Truman.

Ashley: the quote from CMI doesn't invalidate Roger's account of what Truman does for a living now.
"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, Earth and universe?

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:07 pm

By the way, if anyone has the right combination of time, energy and enthusiasm to go into Truman's claims, or into counter-claims, we might consider splitting this part of the thread off into Science Only, as Truman isn't openly preaching.
"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, Earth and universe?

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:18 pm

"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, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:40 pm

"Ashley: the quote from CMI doesn't invalidate Roger's account of what Truman does for a living now." I wasn't trying suggest that it did.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:19 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:A bit more about the man - seems he's an author too.
http://authonomy.com/writing-community/profile/4095cf98-5189-4557-8b07-bc6ca79d8d20/royalt/


He also get's a mention by Glenn Morton:

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com ... reationism

"[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Fact Free Fantasies from science deniers

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:20 pm

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Freedom- ... 7305239016
"Fossilized stumps of tropical trees show that Antarctica was once forested...
Before the Flood, more of the climate was habitable, probably due to a thicker atmosphere and higher pressure. Fossils reveal many species of plants and animals larger than they are today".
And which chapter of Genesis tells us that this happened within the previous 4,000 years - or ever?
Mr Hastings - who prefers YEC claptrap to 'scientism' - is flagging this (where the blogger censors me because I would not answer his question, irrelevant to the original blog in question, "where does reason come from?"):
http://www.crev.info/2013/11/tropical-t ... ntarctica/
How on earth YECs think this news (similar finds have been made in eg Svalbard) helps their case is beyond me. It forces more wriggling, speculation and twisting of the obvious meaning of evidence.
Coppedge appears to have little to say about this beyond what is quoted by Hastings - apart from an apparent swipe at those who believe in manmade global warming.
On the comment under the Coppedge article, deciduous trees presumably photosynthesise little in the winter even if there is some sunlight - as in the UK - because they have shed their leaves - and some of the tropical trees the remains of which have been discovered in Antarctica were deciduous it seems (though others may have been evergreen but presumably stopped growing and went dormant when there was no sunlight - though presumably it did not become unduly cold at such times).

EDIT: 'Atheism on the Slide's' Facebook page is also flagging this. If this finding, which certainly does not readily fit with the book of Genesis or 'biblical' timescales, puts atheism on 'the slide' then I would hate to see atheism 'flourishing'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Nov 20, 2013 5:43 pm

http://www.icr.org/article/7848
"Is the formation from Eocene, Miocene, Oligocene, or none of these?"

Where did that fourth option appear from Brian?

But, because there's some uncertainty about the real age of very old remains, we had better just GIVE UP the science - and insist dogmatically that NOTHING, including those bloody fossils, can possibly be older than 6,000 years. After all, there's so much evidence from various dating methods for this position.

That's the way to do it.

Whatever 'it' is.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Nov 20, 2013 11:40 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Nov 21, 2013 8:25 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote: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.



As Comedy Bob Sorensen is now encouraging followers to read Coppedge's musings, he may care to see what Coppedge censored (if he has not already done so and 'brushed it aside'):
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/11 ... rised.html
"... the discoveries that support Genesis just keep rolling in".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 2 guests

cron