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

Science-rejecting liar for Jesus

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:06 am

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ting-rocks
"The Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3 tells us of scoffers who will argue that the rates of natural processes have always been the same as today’s process rates because they deliberately reject God’s testimony of the Creation Week and the Flood, when He supernaturally intervened so that process rates were instant during the Creation Week and catastrophically faster during the Flood compared to the slow rates that man observes today. This probably included the speeding up of radioactive decay, at least during the Flood, which can be seen from the results obtained during the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) research project, the results of which have been published in two technical volumes and in the book Thousands . . . Not Billions".
2 Peter 3 teaches NO SUCH THING. Snelling's attempt to make it refer to geology is EISEGESIS.
http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2%20Peter%203
According to Peter's text the scoffers simply questioned the Second Coming (and Judgement) because events they experienced seemed no different to historical events - and in saying this they 'forgot', apparently deliberately, about 'Creation' and about Noah's Flood (and thus past Judgement). The verses are not obviously about geological processes, they are about God's JUDGEMENT past and future.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Nov 23, 2013 9:11 pm

This scientist sounds well indoctrinated. Well done CMI!
http://creation.com/brandon-vd-interview
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 27, 2013 1:23 am

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 27, 2013 8:07 pm

Interesting article on long-term soft tissue preservation. The text in black is the facts, the text in green (that's helpful) is the anti-scientific spin and religious propaganda:
http://crev.info/2013/11/dinosaur-soft- ... explained/

I submitted the following comment - but it will be censored as is the norm with this blogger.
""It can’t, and it didn’t."
Were you there? No you WEREN'T."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 28, 2013 4:12 pm

I have submitted a further comment:

"This aggressive and intolerant ideologue, who refuses any comments under his blogs and censors on his facebook page all comments disagreeing with him and bans those making them even if they are polite, likes your recent blog article on dinosaur soft tissues disagreeing with the scientists who actually have expertise in the field in question.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/11 ... ntasy.html

Whereas you pretend to allow comments but only if those disagreeing with you answer an irrelevant 'killer' question.

Bob Sorensen likes your arguments. Do you like his libellous ranting?

So who is really pushing fantasies about the distant past I wonder?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 28, 2013 5:24 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Dec 02, 2013 11:06 pm

I attempted to send the following to CMI but it would not send (like everything else today including my Nat West card it's b*****ed up).

"
http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet
Any radiocarbon found is likely from contamination and still does not 'prove' a 6,000 year old universe. Get real."

I see that in a post here on 3.2.13 Stephen Moreton mentioned "the possibility of neutron capture as a source of C-14".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Dec 03, 2013 1:11 am

A rare YEC blogger that I can respect (as he does not tend to treat those who disagree with him as 'evil' or 'trolls' etc):
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=11753
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Dec 03, 2013 1:22 am

I was going to flag to THIS rather sarcastic blogger that the other one shows (rarely for a YEC ideologue) a measure of respect. But, yet again, something seems to be b*****ed up and my password is being rejected and I seem unable to change it either.
http://crev.info/2013/11/dinosaur-soft- ... explained/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Dec 03, 2013 8:01 pm

As sent to blogger David Coppedge:




Since I am now being blocked from posting under your blogs by a technical glitch as well as by your censorship, I am resorting to email.

http://crev.info/2013/12/ison-died-a-cu ... met-death/
Contrary to your blog, ISON was a rather atypical comet. A sungrazer but not thought to be part of a past comet that had previously entered the inner solar system. In 2011 a previous sungrazer named Lovejoy passed even closer to the Sun's surface - though it broke up shortly after the encounter, unlike ISON it still produced a spectacle in southern hemisphere.

"We've reported many times about the short lifetimes of comets and how this poses problems for belief in billions of years". Then you are misinformed because the 'short' lifetimes of comets do NO such thing. (Yes, I have skimmed your that 2010 article you reference where it was stated "they used to be pristine remnants of the formation of the solar system".)

If Genesis 1 is 'real' history and 'real' science, and if the objects of the solar system did not all form from condensed matter orbiting the early sun but were separately (and instantly) created, WHY are there comets AT ALL? Like asteroids and meteorites, they are 'leftover' parts are they not. Or were they separately created but not mentioned in Genesis for some reason (perhaps because they cannot be seen except in the rare cases that they come very close to Earth or the Sun).

I note that you have been in dispute with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And that they apparently predicted in 2012 that ISON could be extremely bright this month assuming it survived perihelion. Whereas your blog implies that you 'knew' all along that this comet would break up and sputter to a fiery end around 28 Nov because that is 'customary'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Dec 03, 2013 8:34 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:I attempted to send the following to CMI but it would not send (like everything else today including my Nat West card it's b*****ed up).

"
http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet
Any radiocarbon found is likely from contamination and still does not 'prove' a 6,000 year old universe. Get real."

I see that in a post here on 3.2.13 Stephen Moreton mentioned "the possibility of neutron capture as a source of C-14".



As just sent to CMI, after reading the comments they HAVE published:

"
http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet
(replying to previous comments)

"In my mind these data argue for a very rapid burial, which was massive (probably resulting in mostly anoxic conditions-without oxygen) for such large organisms, and that it was a recent event. This is of course consistent with the eye witness account described by Noah in the Bible."

Can you provide the Bible reference, please, Dr Leslie?

Alternatively, if I am to be censored, please could CMI provide it for everyone?"


EDIT: the CMI website is STILL stuffed - or else I am being deliberately blocked.

Since CMI also block my emails, I am sending the link to this thread to Tas Walker's (separate) email address.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Dec 03, 2013 8:56 pm

PS
Someone has commented as follows about the Catchpoole article on the CMI Facebook page:
"Post some link to real scientists' papers and journals and it might pass muster. Sourcing everything from obviously biased places simply invalidates any potential for those of a more rational mind to trust the information. Starting with the conclusion then making the evidence fit is not science it is at best self delusion and at worst scientific fraud. Real science does not throw out data that does not 'fit'. There are some bad secular scientists out there and they get called out too, for the same reasons. The self governing and correcting nature of the method shows that all of this is not scientific, it is simply warping data to 'prove' a pet theory or religious notion. Shameful behaviour, especially from those who claim that lying is a 'sin'". (Not every single footnote is in fact to a YEC article though many of them are.)

Also currently visible there, referring to a separate past CMI article, is this comment:
"Claim: T. rex soft tissue indicates recent burial.
Reality: An exaggeration of well-preserved, but ancient, bones.
Key Points
1. The finds are entirely compatible with the accepted age for the dinosaur remains.
2. AiG has sensationalized and exaggerated the findings.
3. The rarity of finds like these and the inability to find DNA remnants in any ancient finds in fact supports the accepted ages of older fossils.
4. The finds have been dated to be old by indepedent dating methods.
Yes, as AnswersInGenesis points out here, there is a single known example of preserved organic dinosaur tissue. There are four main points to make here:
1. The finds are entirely compatible with the accepted age for the dinosaur remains.
The bones were. in fact, fossilized. The exceptional preservation of the bones is because they were not subject to permineralization, the process by which minerals fill the structure of bones. This is rare, but not unheard of, and is completely compatible with the scientific ages of the fossils. (Schweitzer et al. 1997b)
2. AiG has sensationalized and exaggerated the findings.
The bones are well-preserved. However, they found no hemoglobin or blood; only tentative degraded fragments. It was even suggested by the authors that the fragments could be geological contamination. The tissue that was found was not originally soft or pliable. (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b)
3. The rarity of finds like these and the inability to find DNA remnants in any ancient finds in fact supports the accepted ages of older fossils.
If Creationists are correct, and the entirety of the fossil record was recently buried, this kind of find should be relatively common. However, essentially all fossils dated to be older than a few hundred thousand years old have no shreds of non-bone tissue remains, strongly suggesting that they are, in fact, old. In fact, if creationists were correct in asserting that all fossils are of a young age, obtaining DNA from what are thought to be ancient fossils should be fairly common, especially with well-preserved finds such as this one; however, DNA has only been recovered from finds thought to be less than a few hundred thousand years old. (Stokstaf 2003)
4. The finds have been dated to be old by indepedent dating methods.
The non-radiometric dating technique known as Amino acid racemization has shown the finds to be the age expected by radiometric dating methods.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the primary paleontologist behind these finds, Mary Schweitzer, despite being a Christian, rejects the idea that the evidence supports the possibility of recent burial."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

ARROGANCE of CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:48 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:I attempted to send the following to CMI but it would not send (like everything else today including my Nat West card it's b*****ed up).

"
http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet
Any radiocarbon found is likely from contamination and still does not 'prove' a 6,000 year old universe. Get real."

I see that in a post here on 3.2.13 Stephen Moreton mentioned "the possibility of neutron capture as a source of C-14".



As just sent to CMI, after reading the comments they HAVE published:

"
http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet
(replying to previous comments)

"In my mind these data argue for a very rapid burial, which was massive (probably resulting in mostly anoxic conditions-without oxygen) for such large organisms, and that it was a recent event. This is of course consistent with the eye witness account described by Noah in the Bible."

Can you provide the Bible reference, please, Dr Leslie?

Alternatively, if I am to be censored, please could CMI provide it for everyone?"


EDIT: the CMI website is STILL stuffed - or else I am being deliberately blocked.

Since CMI also block my emails, I am sending the link to this thread to Tas Walker's (separate) email address.



My message (as sent to Tas Walker) has been CENSORED by CMI and my question about the supposed Bible reference for Noah presenting an eye-witness account that could include "very rapid burial, massive (probably resulting in mostly anoxic conditions-without oxygen) for large organisms" has NOT been answered by David Catchpoole. And look at his arrogant and dismissive response to the query from Paul G regarding Mary Schweitzer. Whilst the Bible DOES claim in places that there is 'evidence' (not specifically described) pointing to a God, it also requires FAITH not acceptance of supposed 'proof' or 'confirmation' of God's existence. And the Bible claim that unbelievers will be 'without excuse' if they doubt the Christian god is highly suspect. If true it shows that the Christian god is UNFAIR.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 Dec 05, 2013 12:33 am

Answers in Genesis are liars.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... aur-tissue
"The fossil record is not a record of the evolution of life but much of it is the record of the order of burial as the global Flood overwhelmed the habitats of the world and sorted creatures in the deposition process". LIAR.
"But finding ancient biomolecules that essentially match modern ones is not a demonstration of molecules-to-man evolution but only of the fact that all share a Common Designer." Schweitzer tested iron on ostrich blood vessels and, guess what, birds are descended from dinosaurs.
"Schweitzer, like other evolutionists, believes that molecules-to-man evolution must have occurred, not on the basis of scientific observations but on the basis of a worldview that rejects the eyewitness historical account of our Creator, a historical account that is completely consistent with the actual observations of biology".
LIAR.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
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 8 guests

cron