Jason Petersen young Earth creationist

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: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:13 pm

(!) In excess of 200 Kuiper belt objects have so far been discovered.

(2) The size is irrelevant since, if we're finding objects this big I think it's fairly safe to assume there are much smaller undetectable objects.

(3) Planetary sized bodies such as Sedna and Buffy have been observed in the region of the the Oort cloud.

(4) Oort clouds have been detected around other stars.

There, the pesky problem (as Peterson puts it) has been solved.

I'm surprised YECs are still using this one.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby mathunt » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:36 pm

I really wish there was a like for that post Peter...
mathunt
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:04 am

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:41 am

http://answersforhope.com/critical-thin ... g-devices/

I sent the following comment and my post is currently awaiting deletion:
"Possible Objection: It’s about evidence, not presuppositions.
This is a cliche that is often repeated in debates. This kind of objection is attempting to get the other person to accept the atheist’s standard and debate them within the worldview of an atheist."

Most people in the world who think science is important, including many Christians, have the so-called 'presupposition' that material, measurable, evidence is paramount when investigating natural processes both present and past. And that all new evidence should be interpreted in the light of the provisional consensus conclusions that were formulated after previous evidence was examined and interpreted, among other things in order to see whether anything currently assumed has now been falsified.

This is not an 'atheist standard' as you absurdly call it, it is an honest search for truth and also simple common sense. (Which is why young Earth creationist apologists reject it - because much of the Bible goes against common sense.)

And if the available material evidence all truly pointed to Genesis being literally true, fundamentalist Christians would not need to make such a big deal out of 'worldview', 'presuppositions', and (as the Bible indeed says) God sending 'strong delusions' (the context of this verse is NOT scientific evidence)."


PS I note that my somewhat critical comment STILL awaits 'moderation'. Ah yes - critical thinking but NO critical comments allowed, just praise and false claims about the 'opposition' from Sorensen.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:06 am

Comment as just sent to Petersen:

http://answersforhope.com/creation-astr ... l-article/
I do not find this article helpful or sufficiently clear, as it often fails to define technical terms eg gravitational constant, or else to explain properly eg in the case of lunar scarps their relevance whatsoever to whatever argument is being put forward by the writer. Two charts are presented purporting to show past and present lunar recession rates (according to young Earth creationists), but the articles fails adequately to explain either (merely claiming that in the 'past' the recession rate was 'greater'). "This would have increased the angular momentum causing the Moon to recede at a greater speed." The opposite of what YECs claim - ie the recession has gradually grown faster, not slower, over millions of years. Does the writer not understand that her sentence shows those she is consulting for 'science' to be confused or lying for Jesus?
"There have been increasing number of changes spotted on the lunar surface known as the ‘transient lunar phenomena’ (TLP) which shows of internal Moon activity. These TLPs are said to cover the lunar surface for only a few hours before disappearing. This discourages most of the reporting and some are not reported from fear of being ridiculed. However, these sightings go back to 1000 years ago, to the invention of the telescope and till today. This tells us that the Moon is young, tectonically active, is forming scarps and contradicts the evolutionary timescale and gives novelty to Biblical timescales". The last sentence claims the Moon is 'young' and 'contradicts the evolutionary timescale' - but since the writer fails to tell us why and how they reached such a conclusion I consider these totally empty, vacuous, and unsupported assertions.
And asserting that 'secular' scientists might be 'clueless' does not cut it and one would expect better from someone seeking a masters degree. There are a number of examples of poor grammar and punctuation - or poor proof-reading - too (not for the first time on your blogsite).
"By looking at the law of physics and observed incidents such as the moon’s recession, roche limit, scarps and it’s magnetic field, it is easily concluded that the Moon is young and not billions of years." I'm not being funny, but nothing in this rather garbled article leads me to such a conclusion - even if a literal reading of the Bible might 'demand' it.
There are references but most of these are not footnoted within the text.
If you believe in critical thinking, I trust you will convey my comments to Ms Faraday - even if you choose to hide them here.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Attacked (online) by Jason Petersen

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:48 pm

http://answersforhope.com/feedback-resp ... recession/

He is responding to my comments which he censored from his earlier post, and which can be read in the PRECEDING post in this thread. His new 'Feedback' post quotes part of my comments only.

The fact that an article is 'technical' (according to somebody ELSE) does not mean that terms like gravitational constant should not be defined.

"It appears that you thought the entire article was about the recession of the moon." If Jason thinks I thought that, then he has totally got the wrong end of the stick since there was nothing whatsoever in my (hidden) comments which would give such an impression.

He has also completely got the wrong end of the stick regarding what I wrote about lunar recession. In her article Ruby wrote: "As we can see, figure 1 illustrates how the recession rate would have looked like in the past. Since the Moon was closer to the Earth in the past, it would have caused larger tidal bulges and a greater tugging force from the Moon as illustrated in point 1, line A. This would have increased the angular momentum causing the Moon to recede at a greater speed". She was arguing that the lunar recession rate was greater in the past. In my recent comments to Jason I wrote: ""This would have increased the angular momentum causing the Moon to recede at a greater speed." The opposite of what YECs claim - ie the recession has gradually grown faster, not slower, over millions of years". Ruby's sentence unintentionally gave the game away - it would in fact seem that as the Moon gains angular momentum over time (and Earth loses it) its recession rate from Earth INCREASES. Yet (some) YECs rather strangely claim that lunar recession was FASTER in the past. I was assuming that she had read a creationist claim that the Moon receded faster in the PAST than now, because it had more angular momentum in the PAST.

Jason seems (genuinely?) to be thinking that I was claiming that YECs say that the recession rate has grown faster over time. No - that is what REALITY appears to show. Jason's words in the new blog post: "Creationist literature does not suggest that the moon’s recession sped up over time ...". NO, and I never intended to suggest this. My words after 'ie' were describing what really seems to be happening.

I did NOT misunderstand Ruby. But Jason assumes I did - because he has misunderstood ME (maybe I could have expressed myself slightly more clearly, who knows).

His suggestion that I do not read enough 'Creationist' literature smacks of sheer desperation.

"The rest of the text that he wrote were rude remarks towards Ruby". These were my words: "And asserting that 'secular' scientists might be 'clueless' does not cut it and one would expect better from someone seeking a masters degree. There are a number of examples of poor grammar and punctuation - or poor proof-reading - too (not for the first time on your blogsite).
"By looking at the law of physics and observed incidents such as the moon’s recession, roche limit, scarps and it’s magnetic field, it is easily concluded that the Moon is young and not billions of years." I'm not being funny, but nothing in this rather garbled article leads me to such a conclusion - even if a literal reading of the Bible might 'demand' it.
There are references but most of these are not footnoted within the text.
If you believe in critical thinking, I trust you will convey my comments to Ms Faraday - even if you choose to hide them here".

I must insist that what Jason is labelling as 'rude' here might be regarded by the author as not rude at all, merely critical but also constructive and potentially helpful to the author should she be planning other similar articles.

I also note that Petersen's Feedback gets my surname wrong and also contains typos such as "he was not every fond" and "one of the frequent atheist" (I have never told him I am an atheist - for the simple reason that I do not claim to know or assume that a God must not exist). All very ironic since he accuses ME of 'bad grammar'.

Of course if Petersen REALLY believed in 'critical thinking' he would have allowed my original comment and dealt with it there and then (or invited Ruby Faraday to do so). Instead he deletes the comment - and then writes a new blog post specifically attacking me a few days later. (Having already banned me from commenting under any of his blog posts for some unspecified reason.)

Another example of how Young Earth Creationists censor, vilify, and do not respect their opponents - whether or not they are Christians. As a Christian blogger wrote this week (of Ken Ham and on the question of interpretations of the Bible rather than interpretations of scientific evidence): "you will have gone too far over to "the other side" if you even contemplate the idea that those with whom you disagree might have some potentially good reasons to view the Bible from a perspective different from yours ...".

It is unclear whether Petersen has shown my comments in FULL to Ms Faraday - as I suggested.

I am attempting to contact Ruby Faraday direct, after spotting these new comments on her blog. From comments at her blog, she sounds like she may be a reasonable person even if I found her article unhelpful to the reader - and she may possibly wish to think twice about hanging out with the likes of Petersen and Sorensen who treat any who challenge their pronouncements like dirt.
http://iperennial.wordpress.com/2013/07 ... rtunities/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist censor

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:12 pm

Ruby Faraday has so far failed to moderate my comment under her recent blog post.

Meanwhile, I see that blogger Peter L (I clicked on his name to see who he is) has asked a very pertinent question here about what the YECs claim about moon recession:
http://answersforhope.com/creation-astr ... /#comments

Jason's response? He says Ruby is 'busy' - fair enough, many people are. However, in his second paragraph Petersen (who has of course CENSORED my response to him about his blog about ME) appears to contradict himself. He writes: "Due to the conservation of angular momentum the Earth is passing its angular momentum to the moon" and "This means that the greater the angular momentum, the greater the recession rate". In other words, the recession of the moon - the moon is gaining angular momentum - is speeding up over time. The exact OPPOSITE of what the science-rejecting YECs insist upon (some of them may in fact appeal to uniformitarianism and a constant recession speed over time). Petersen suggests that the YEC conclusion is valid because gravitational forces are 'non-linear'.

And a blatant half-truth from Jason: "the scenario you have offered in response to Ruby’s article is far from empirical". How is the scenario of Phobos and Mars not empirical? And scientists believe our moon was formed by a collision between the early Earth and a proto-planet ie once the moon was very close to Earth.

I am contacting Peter L via his Eye on the ICR website, drawing his attention both to Jason's reply to him and to my response to Jason of 5 July which can ONLY be read at THIS website since cowardly Jason has censored it under his blog post of 5 July. As well as to this post. (It is of course a possibility that a further reply to Jason from Peter has been censored so as to allow him to 'win' the argument - though Peter appears busy as he has not blogged for some days.)
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ruby Faraday

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:16 pm

In fact I have just received email notification, timed at 15.03 pm UK time, that Ruby has responded saying "Hi Ashley,
Thank you for your feedback. I am currently away at the moment. Will look through the thread once am back to work".

My recent comment IS now visible here:
http://iperennial.wordpress.com/2013/07 ... rtunities/

Though Ruby has yet to study the comments in detail.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: my message to Eye on the ICR

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:24 pm

Peter

Please be aware of:

Jason Petersen's comments to you here:
http://answersforhope.com/creation-astr ... /#comments
My (censored) comments to back to him on his recent blog post about me, as reproduced here at 4.48 pm BST on 5 July:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&p=46449#p46449
My further comments at the BCSE link, timed at 3.12 pm BST on 7 July.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby mathunt » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:14 pm

To Petersen's mind, rude can just be as mild as disagreeing.
mathunt
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:04 am

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:16 pm

There is now a further comment here by Peter L.
http://answersforhope.com/creation-astr ... /#comments
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist censor

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:06 pm

Please also see my comments, timed at 11.00 pm BST on 7.7.13, at the Sorensen thread.

Petersen's sidekick Sorensen has just weighed in. As Petersen will CENSOR my reply to Sorensen from his blog page, I've also posted it HERE.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

The Sorensen-Petersen YEC lie machine

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:04 pm

Email as just sent:





I think so.

I also think that his sidekick Jason Petersen is rattled - because he writes blogs criticising me and then censors ALL my attempted replies at the 'Speak Your Mind' comment box. This is what Sorensen ('Soldier315') calls taking me "to task". I call it dishonest censorship.

Judge for yourselves!

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/07 ... nions.html
No need to read of all this but please click on the underlined link "took a vociferous critic to task on his site".
(As you might guess, Bob does not allow any comments on his blog pronouncements!)

This is the Petersen post Bob links to (I am the 'mocker' he mentions - I dared to criticise an article about the moon that Petersen linked to in a previous blog post; on Facebook Petersen has acknowledged that there were numerous critics of the article but I was the only one who tried to address Ruby Faraday's arguments):
http://answersforhope.com/feedback-resp ... /#comments

I have ADDRESSED Jason's blog post of 5 July; my very detailed response which he has CENSORED and IGNORED can be read here (it's timed at 4.48 pm BST on 5 July):
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=180

In turn my further attempted response to what Bob wrote (calling himself 'Uncle Pilty') can be read at THIS BCSE link - timed at 11.00 pm BST on 7 July:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=390

There remains considerable uncertainty about the scientific accuracy of the Ruby Faraday article (which cites opinions of Answers in Genesis about the moon's rate of recession from Earth in the past). Also see here (Petersen has now made a second response to Peter L/Eye on ICR but whilst discussing some of the science Petersen also apparently censors part of Peter's comments and in addition declares the discussion to be over; so much for 'critical thinking' - and Peter L is studying science whereas Petersen has NOT studied the subject to my knowledge):
http://answersforhope.com/creation-astr ... /#comments

If you read my two responses linked to above and which Petersen has hidden (no doubt something Cowboy Bob would approve of) you will see that Sorensen and Petersen are liars beyond cure.

I DID read the original Ruby Faraday article and I did NOT misunderstand it. My criticisms of it have not been dealt with adequately by Petersen. Ruby at least has not censored my responses under her own blog drawing attention to my criticisms (which were mainly about how her article failed to define terminology).

If they had any integrity Sorensen and Petersen would admit all this on their blogs. Instead my responses to Petersen are read - and then deliberately censored so as to create a completely false impression to any other people who read their blogs.

Many Christians do not behave like them. But I have found that there is a correlation between how much you oppose science in order to defend Bible infallibility especially on a 'young' Earth, and how much you twist science and lie about and censor or ban those who criticise your peculiar claims.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist bigot

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:40 am

Comment as submitted:


http://answersforhope.com/history-textb ... -together/

"One of my friends studies at FSU and she showed me her Geology book. One of the first chapters? The Big Bang. One of the following chapters? Biological evolution. Really? Is this crap going to start showing up in mathematics next?"

From this side of the pond your anti-science bias looks hysterical. Using the words 'crap' and 'garbage' just makes you look like the bigot that you are. You also imply - wrongly since your first link does not support this notion - that geology is being classified as part of history rather than part of science.

"Some instructors are taught to stress that the Earth is billions of years old.". If the Earth is billions of years old as the evidence shows then yes it should be taught within science in schools.

Evolution is part of pre-history rather than history.

Speaking my mind.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:24 am

Message sent to Ruby Faraday after Cowboy Bob Sorensen libelled me here:
http://iperennial.wordpress.com/2013/07 ... rtunities/


"Ruby

Bob has LIED about me and Jason Petersen has censored me:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=405

Jason Lisle ALSO rudely censored me:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3237&start=75"

Sorensen, Petersen and Lisle are liars without cure.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Petersen young Earth creationist liar

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Comment as submitted:


Jason
http://answersforhope.com/feedback-god- ... odynamics/
This 'atheist' was not off-topic. He mentioned that you made a sweeping claim in the previous blog which is scarcely the 'observational science' that people like Ken Ham insist upon - as having any conceivable validity. You censored my comment and you have not acknowledged it here either.
(I have only skimmed the new post.)
Ashley
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8417
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