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 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:12 am

PS And dinosaur osteocytes can react in a similar manner to bird osteocytes.
http://www.nature.com/news/molecular-an ... ls-1.11637
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 Dec 06, 2013 8:07 pm

http://www.icr.org/article/7850/
"When available, secular researchers use radioisotope dating to pin certain magnetic or fossil layers to the geologic time scale, so both methods rely on the same isotope "ages." One problem with this approach is that the most often used argon-based isotope methods yield excessively old ages for samples known to be much younger.
In short, these supposedly separate dating methods both rest upon a third, disproven method! Was the Tibetan big cat fossil stash really millions of years old? Those who use these dating techniques ignore that the technology used to arrive at these dates has been falsified, and they ignore historical accounts of creation and the Flood."

Brian Thomas - lying anti-science bigot.

The more fundamentalist Christians seek to base all their thinking on the Bible ALONE, the more they misrepresent both reality and the way in which all those who disagree with them and accept science arrive at their rational conclusions about the past.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

FANTASY - the YEC 'pre-Flood world'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:47 pm

Where ANYTHING never observed today could have happened. IF you start with the BIBLE when trying to do SCIENCE, that is.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ing-pollen

"Evidence of flowering plants does not appear in the lowermost portions of the fossil record. This suggests that the habitats where flowering plants lived in the pre-Flood world did not cover the entire surface of the earth. For instance, we would not expect to find flowering plant fossils in the Cambrian layers because flowers don’t typically live on the bottom of the sea."
THAT is how YEC ideologues attempt SCIENCE. Pretend that Cambrian layers are all at the bottom of the sea.

"The fact that gymnosperms appear deeper in the fossil record than angiosperms suggests that the pre-Flood world’s habitats containing a preponderance of flowering plants were geographically separated from the areas dominated by gymnosperms and quite possibly were at higher elevations".
And there was me thinking that in colder regions (whether at higher latitude or higher altitude) conifers tend to dominate. Ah but things have been DIFFERENT since Noah's Flood. In ways required not by the Bible itself but by YEC dogma - that you MUST start with the BIBLE when attempting 'historical' science - even if the results look nonsensical because they cannot explain the physical observed evidence in a convincing manner.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:37 pm

Why is an English/music teacher making false and inaccurate claims about geology ?????????

http://creation.com/index-fossils
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
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 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:21 am

A young Earth creationist pretending that because he is a biblical fundamentalist as well as having studied and taught astronomy and obtained high level qualifications, he must know more about the universe than professional astronomers do:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... t-for-life
Is Earth as 'perfect' for life as it could be?
(Oops I forgot - it was totally 'right for life' at the end of Creation Week, which was just 6,000 years' ago. Wasn't it?)
Faulkner MAY be right that life is either exceedingly rare in an incomprehensibly vast universe, or even unique to this planet. But if God wanted us to be sure, he could have only created either just one planet or perhaps just one solar system. It seems he did not do that - thus we are left speculating and anybody who claims to know that we ARE or ARE NOT alone is fibbing.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Peculiar exchanges with YEC liars in denial

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:00 pm

I forwarded to the BCSE committee for info only a couple of email replies I tried to send to a couple of silly responses by CMI but which were undeliverable - but have just realised that although the respondent was someone I had not emailed before the bigots at CMI are blocking ALL my emails to CMI staff at suffix creation.info.

As the useless O2 website which I normally send emails from is - yet again - refusing to respond or doing so very slowly, I will have to briefly summarise the responses largely from memory (the reason I got a response at all was because I had to reply to Creation magazine at CMI because the 'comment on this article' option is REFUSING to take my comments at present).

Unusually for me - because I know YECs typically SEIZE UPON such, if you do not hit them with 'chapter and verse', and pretend you have 'no' argument - my responses were 'one liners'.

I replied to this saying "no it isn't".
http://www.creation.com/bible-historical-reliable
The person at CMI urged me to read some book entitled 'The book that changed your world' and also accused me of being, quote, "miss-informed".
My attempted email reply read as follows:
"I did not make any 'miss-informed' comments nor as far as I know any spelling mistakes.
I have frequently made more substantive responses to CMI (the main response address under articles that I use won't work at present thus I used an alternative one to do with Creation magazine).
Young Earth creationists peddle lies about science - that is what I object to".

And I replied to this saying ""from much supporting evidence" - only in your head".
http://www.creation.com/bacterium-from-the-cold
The email from CMI included the following: "a one-line response is no argument".
My attempted but undelivered response was "liar". Since there is NOT 'much supporting evidence' for what is described in Genesis re the Flood of Noah really occurring less than 5,000 years' ago.


However 'biblical' the behaviour of YEC ideologues, its general bigotry, narrow-mindedness, unpleasantness and disregard for FACTS helps create atheists and agnostics.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Talking of CMI...

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:35 am

http://www.creation.com/creation-in-schools
"Ultimately, our aim is unashamedly to expose the falsehoods of evolution ...".

Will they succeed during the next 150 years?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:54 pm

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?f ... kF3m1Ek5kk
"Some say that that there really isn't a standard for interpreting the Bible and that all interpretations are simply the creation of man. But if that's true then how can we know anything in the Bible for certain? Is there a universal way that the Bible should be read, and if so, what is it?"

Let me guess - is it the way in which young Earth creationists insist that the Bible and its theology beginning in Genesis must be used to refute all the many scientific explanations of the past of the universe, this planet and life that profoundly disagree that Genesis provides an accurate history of the past of the universe, this planet and life?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 31, 2013 3:37 pm

The ICR have been churning out end of year propaganda 'highlights' and now AiG are at it too. I've just skimmed through this rather long piece.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ls-of-2013
"Evolutionists claim humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor that learned to walk upright and then progressed through a series of archaic transitions toward human-ness. Instead, genetic discoveries are consistent with the biblical history of humans descended from Noah’s family dispersing from the Tower of Babel to repopulate the world". (There's a footnote but it's generally a waste of time as it does NOT back up this fantasy claim, surprise, surprise.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 Jan 03, 2014 11:25 pm

Further confirmation that YECs are anti-science (and OECs are confused):
http://creation.com/old-earth-no-answer

THIS is the article Bates dislikes but does not directly link to:
http://www.oldearth.org/authority.htm
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 Jan 03, 2014 11:38 pm

As sent to these Christians who CANNOT RESIST LYING:

http://creation.com/old-earth-no-answer
Hore is confused but Bates is narrow-minded, lies about science and shows in spades that he is ANTI-science and proud of it. He cannot resist using loaded terms like 'indoctrination'. "We have demonstrated time and again that the scientific methodology used to claim an ancient earth is flawed and cannot determine the ages of such things. Moreover, real science continues to show us how flawed old-earth interpretations are, and that the Bible’s timeframes are correct". LIAR. "It is staggering that old earthers, who acquiesce to science then disregard the very same science that now demonstrates these sorts of layers can be laid down rapidly due to catastrophic processes". LIAR.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 Jan 07, 2014 7:35 pm

Ah yes, those uniformitarian 'evolutionary' scientists believe that changes like these always took millions of years in the past ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25639777
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 Jan 10, 2014 3:56 am

Comment as submitted:


http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/01/ ... -of-earth/
"Evolutionists use the data they collect in this age to draw incorrect conclusions about the first two ages." You have NO material evidence to suggest their conclusions are incorrect. Do you?
"The evidence (rocks, trees, fossils, etc) all align with a young-earth view when interpreted through the above model versus uniformitarian assumptions about the past." Utter garbage I'm afraid.
I have already flagged my comments here (note the blatant censorship of scientific reality by the anti-science Answers in Genesis, who seem to think they can defeat the 'Science Guy' in a forthcoming debate about origins models) to you and other young Earth creationists in a recent email. Please see my posts here between 0.08 and 1.27 am GMT on 5.1.14:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=48233#p48233

Oh I forgot - YECs simply IGNORE or CENSOR facts when those facts come from any people who reject YEC dogma.

If you fail to attempt to refute the arguments in the BCSE community forum thread regarding tree rings, ice cores, and the like then others reading your blog post should I suggest simply dismiss your claims for the pseudo-science that they are, Tim.

I predict that on 4 February we will discover that Ken Ham does NOT have a viable SCIENTIFIC model, just doctrine and dogma that demand science REJECTION (because science refutes the opening chapters of Genesis if taken as literal, complete and accurate 'history').
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 Jan 10, 2014 6:58 pm

This article shows the tight unyielding mental straitjackets that 'biblical' Christians put on - and probably expect everybody else to put on as well:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... pplication

"... when you hear a truth claim, you can ASK about the person’s Authority on the topic, whether their Starting point is biblical or humanistic, and how they Know what they claim to know".
And if you decide that the Starting point is NOT biblical and that the claim might also somehow undermine faith in the Bible (especially science claims based on the dastardly practice of rigorously examining evidence instead of making up stories based on the first 11 chapters of Genesis) then you are encouraged to arrogantly insist - even if it costs you your life potentially - that it is all A LIE OF SATAN.

"however, even those who claim to be fair and balanced are not necessarily friends of the Bible". Given that the fairness and balance are ANATHEMA to the writers of the Bible, that is scarcely surprising. Thus creation science is not in the least balanced - it is part of a system of extreme beliefs.

'Biblical creationism and genuine science do NOT mix and the creationists must indeed dogmatically REJECT genuine science - whilst dishonestly claiming that the 'real' genuine science is their apologetics, sorry their 'creation science'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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 Jan 31, 2014 11:10 pm

http://creation.com/mount-paricutin
Who says scientists 'need' millions of years? ONLY young Earth creationists - who REQUIRE just 6,000 years regardless of evidence and claim in effect that if just 6,000 years of Earth history was 'ever' falsified then the Bible might as well be chucked in the bin.
Well we don't need millions of years, we simply have DISCOVERED them.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8781
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