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 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:52 am

The BCSE get a mention on the homepage here: http://www.earthexplained.com/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8921
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 Aug 18, 2012 11:08 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8921
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 Aug 19, 2012 9:02 am

In today's Sunday sequence, there was a brief report from Will Crawley on the Creation Museum, along with an interview with Dr. Georgia Purdom.

Crawley wasn't aggressive and didn't ask any particularly awkward questions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007cphf

Purdom basicly claimed you could do molecular genetics witout even touching on evolution,
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
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 Aug 19, 2012 9:08 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Why are CMI so aggressive?
http://creation.com/science-difficult-believe-bible


Yer, they sound like the scientologists. (Because they are like them.)
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 Brian Jordan » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:11 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:The BCSE get a mention on the homepage here: http://www.earthexplained.com/
A good site Ashley. Thanks.
"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 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:54 am

Peter Henderson wrote:In today's Sunday sequence, there was a brief report from Will Crawley on the Creation Museum, along with an interview with Dr. Georgia Purdom.

Crawley wasn't aggressive and didn't ask any particularly awkward questions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007cphf

Purdom basicly claimed you could do molecular genetics witout even touching on evolution,



Just seen the blog and the three comments underneath it. Richard Forrest used to post on the former BBC Religion message boards.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8921
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:24 am

I notice someones touting the 'observational' versus 'historical' science-thing.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:44 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8921
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 Aug 23, 2012 1:27 am

Crawley hasn't become a YEC (his comment on 22 August).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8921
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 02, 2012 12:14 am

Message as sent to Creation Ministries International:


"http://creation.com/element-origins-big-bang

Humphreys response
"I presume you realize that to astronomers and astrophysicists, a “heavy” element is any element heavier than beryllium or lithium, because the alleged Big Bang is not supposed to have been able to produce anything heavier than that."

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... avyel.html
There is a somewhat DIFFERENT definition of 'heavy element' here - anything heavier than helium (or hydrogen). Cosmic ray spallation after the Big Bang is thought to be responsible for the abundance in the universe of some light elements such as lithium, beryllium, and boron.

"[Astrophysicists] have been largely silent about discoveries of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen spectral lines from very high-redshift objects, presumably coming from the era when first-generation stars were very young, not having produced any supernovas yet".
According to Wikipedia, heavier nuclei (than hydrogen or helium) are created from hydrogen and helium by stellar nucleosynthesis. Some of these elements, particularly those lighter than iron, are thought to be delivered to the interstellar medium in the last stages of evolution of dying low mass stars, in the non-explosive ejection of the outer envelope gases of planetary nebulae before these stars continue to form white dwarfs.
This refers to situations NOT involving supernovas. Oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are all LIGHTER than iron.
Wikipedia also explains that nuclear reactions within exploding stars are responsible for the abundant elements between magnesium and nickel. Supernova nucleosynthesis is also thought to be responsible for the creation of elements heavier than iron and nickel, in the last few seconds of the explosion of a supernova.

Thus oxygen, nitrogen and carbon do not depend on supernovas occurring, and occurring 'recently' or 'near' to Earth.

So why should "discoveries of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen spectral lines from very high-redshift objects, presumably coming from the era when first-generation stars were very young" be a surprise or a problem? Am I missing something?

"Instantaneous creation of oxygen is not in any way natural. So God produced at least one heavy element supernaturally." Yet the Bible fails to mention oxygen, or even 'air' in Genesis - only water.

Oxygen was formed by stellar nucleosynthesis. It then combined with hydrogen to form H2O. But the Bible suggests, unscientifically, that there was water from the 'beginning'.

"Next notice that God transformed some of the water to many heavy elements within three ordinary-length days, after which the dry land of earth’s continents existed (Genesis 1:9)." The verse says NO SUCH THING. The writer did not know what 'elements' (the scientific term referring to the Periodic Table) were!


Dr Sarfati's first 'answer' is pathetic."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8921
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 Sep 02, 2012 6:41 pm

What's all this talk of "elements"? Surely there are just four: air, fire, earth and water. So air can't be a component of water. :twisted:
"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 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:10 am

Just read some Tas Walker anti-scientific propaganda.

My message to CMI:

"
http://creation.com/noahs-flood-africa

Re the break up of supercontinents, new oceans, igneous rocks, and continental drift, funny how 'fundamentalist' Bible-believing Christians only really started trying to theorise about such things when they heard about them from SCIENTISTS (not from theologians).

"The dates, as we mentioned, are subjective and made to agree with their long-age framework of thinking." LIAR FOR JESUS.

"When we disregard the actual numbers quoted for the `dates', this description and the events that follow fit nicely with what the Bible says". A handy description of HOW YECs lie for Jesus. Disregard any facts that get in the way of a nice, neat story.

Unless the writer of Genesis was directly mediating God's word (without using the first person), he was ASSUMING the the whole of Africa was covered by floodwaters.

"That is consistent with the continent rising and emerging from beneath the floodwaters, just as the Bible records." The book of Genesis (which you are quoting in this article) says NO such thing. It says the waters receded, not that any land rose (southern Africa is not especially mountainous either if you are employing Psalm 104 in your 'argument').

"we should first clarify some of the evolutionary assumptions in this statement...". Your article clarifies nothing.

"Note too that the fossils in the Karoo do not provide a record of life over millions of years but record the order in which plants and animals were buried during the Flood...".

Richard Dawkins ridiculed this argument in 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. Jonathan Sarfati did not challenge the comments when he wrote 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth'. In 2010 'Stickler' asked what Sarfati thought and he falsely called the argument a 'straw man'. But it is what YECs like Malcolm Bowden, Ken Ham, Elizabeth Mitchell and YOU believe! I assume Sarfati realises that it is bunkum because eg the flood you believe in would have left a largely random fossil record.

YEC science is like a leech deriving much of its sustenance from real science. It makes no predictions, just hi-jacks real scientific conclusions (and real scientific caution when the Bible is not dogmatic about something) for its own agenda.

'Uniformitarian glasses' tell scientists that SOME eg sandstone layers were WIND deposited and not deposited by widespread catastrophic flooding."
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8921
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marcsurtees » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:10 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Just read some Tas Walker anti-scientific propaganda.

My message to CMI:

"http://creation.com/noahs-flood-africa

Re the break up of supercontinents, new oceans, igneous rocks, and continental drift, funny how 'fundamentalist' Bible-believing Christians only really started trying to theorise about such things when they heard about them from SCIENTISTS (not from theologians).

Not really because they are scientific questions not theological ones and therefore part of creation science.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

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

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:21 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Just read some Tas Walker anti-scientific propaganda.

My message to CMI:

"http://creation.com/noahs-flood-africa

Re the break up of supercontinents, new oceans, igneous rocks, and continental drift, funny how 'fundamentalist' Bible-believing Christians only really started trying to theorise about such things when they heard about them from SCIENTISTS (not from theologians).

Not really because they are scientific questions not theological ones and therefore part of creation science.
Thus speaks the Ministry of Truth. I think you mean "creationist anti-science" Marc.
"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 Peter Henderson » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:54 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Just read some Tas Walker anti-scientific propaganda.

My message to CMI:

"http://creation.com/noahs-flood-africa

Re the break up of supercontinents, new oceans, igneous rocks, and continental drift, funny how 'fundamentalist' Bible-believing Christians only really started trying to theorise about such things when they heard about them from SCIENTISTS (not from theologians).

Not really because they are scientific questions not theological ones and therefore part of creation science.



Well, as lete as 1997 Ken Ham claimed plate tectonics (continental drift) was only a theory with no supporting evidence.

That was before John Baumgardner thought up his nonsense.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron