My post at 3.55 am on 13 April:
“But the burden of proof is on you.” Bullying for God? Your so-called science is unfalsifiable in your eyes I believe.
[Fallacy of irrelevant thesis.]
“Creationists have demonstrated many times how all the supposed evidence fits within a biblical framework.” Not by science they haven’t. Only by make-believe.
[This is merely a question-begging epithet. Again, Ashley makes a claim but offers no supporting evidence.]
“Why would they publish papers if they didn’t think the science confirmed Genesis?” If they really think that they are deluded.
[Ashley’s wording here is somewhat ambiguous, but I believe he means that “creationists are deluded if they think science confirms Genesis.” If this is what Ashley means then he really hasn’t studied the topic. Genetics, geology, astronomy, and so on all confirm Genesis. Just as one example, we find c-14 in virtually everything that has carbon in it, no matter how deep in the geologic column. But c-14 cannot last even 1 million years. So it is compelling evidence for a ‘young’ earth, as described in Genesis.]
“i’m getting tired of repeating myself”. Me too because you are (collectively) anti-science and pay no attention and just keep repeating slogans …
[Slogans like “but that’s not science”, “real science says…”, or “you’re anti-science”? It’s hard to defend such statements when evolutionist cannot even make sense of the existence of science considering it is based on creation principles.]
(or in Robert’s case ask idiot questions (see here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3195&start=15
[“idiot questions”? In other words, questions that Ashley cannot answer because they have no answer from an evolutionary perspective. Even very simple questions like “why is it wrong to lie?” simply cannot be answered in any meaningful way from an evolutionary standpoint.]
You are clearly indoctrinated against science. You have to be because it is no friend to young Earth creationists. That’s just the way things are.
[The ironic thing is, science would not be possible if Ashley’s worldview were true. So if anything, it is Ashley who is against science. We creationists love science. I even obtained a Ph.D. in science because I enjoy it so much. Science confirms creation, and is no friend to old-earthers and evolutionists. That’s just the way things are.]
“because there is no justification for why they should be invariant or unchanging in that worldview”. That is just assertion and dogma.
[Then what is the justification for these things in Ashley’s worldview? He can’t say. Ashley believes in the invariant, unchanging nature of these laws, but has no logical reason to believe that on his own worldview. He believes in evolution for no rational reason. Ironically, Ashley has demonstrated conclusively that his believe in evolution is just “assertion and dogma.”]
“your worldview must be the correct one or you will come to the wrong conclusions about the past.” GARBAGE.
[Wow! What a well-thought-out rebuttal! Sarcasm aside, evolutionists cannot deal with difficult ideas. They tend to be very shallow thinkers, and simply spout rhetoric like “garbage” when they cannot answer the tough questions.]
[Editor’s note: Ashley had made an unwarranted character attack on Micah (an abusive ad hominem fallacy) which was repeated here. This was cut because such unethical and unscholarly behavior is not permitted on this site. I do allow guests to comment on my blog, but they must behave themselves and not act like a 2-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.]
“Creationist don’t deny uniformity in nature. They deny uniformitarianism. The first address the natural laws(the ones we’ve been discussing so far), the latter addresses conditions and processes. Laws do not change, conditions and processes do.” Lisle gobbledygook.
[Hardly. Micah has made a crucial distinction that would be recognized as such by any rational individual. There is a difference between conditions and laws of nature. For example, the conditions in the core of the sun are very different than on the surface of the ocean. But the same laws of physics apply equally well in both locations. Ashley doesn’t seem to recognize this obvious difference.]
He is saying that scientific constants for want of a better term can vary (vastly) over time, yet we know that the constants in question do NOT vary.
[Here Ashley reveals his ignorance of physics. In fact, scientists have proved that decay rates can be changed by a factor of a billion or more under certain circumstances, such as bound state beta decay. Moreover, we have compelling evidence that this has in fact been the case in the past. Ashley would have known this if he bothered to study what it is he argues against.]
You are just quibbling about whether he was referring to laws/processes/constants or something else.
[There is a crucial difference between laws of nature, processes of nature, and constants of nature. Ashley apparently doesn’t know the difference. But the difference is crucial to science.]
The point is that
Lisle engages in highly far-fetched special pleading to force evidence to confirm to his understanding of Genesis. That is NOT science. It is fantasy.
[Just the opposite. It is the evolutionists that must appeal to far-fetched special pleading (undetectable Oort clouds, undetectable contamination, etc.) to force the evidence to confirm to their belief in evolution. Why does Ashley not see this?]
“The Oort cloud is a perfect example of and Ad hoc explanation proposed by evolutionists. Rubbish. Do all comets approach the Sun from close to the ecliptic (the orbital plane of Earth, which is similar to that for the other seven planets) which might be the case of they all came from the Kuiper Belt/Scattered Disk? No, they certainly do not.
[Ashley presents another bifurcation fallacy: either (long period) comets come from a Kuiper Belt or an Oort cloud. And they don’t come from the Kuiper Belt… So… But he doesn’t even consider the possibility that long period comets orbit just as they have been, and that the reason we cannot detect any evidence of an Oort cloud is because it isn’t there. Why is that possibility rejected out-of-hand? Answer: because it doesn’t fit Ashley’s beliefs in evolution.]
But YECs normally hate details like this and love uttering slogans and attacking real scientists. For Jesus presumably. It won’t wash. If I am wrong God is a big liar in his creation.
[Ironically, Ashley hasn’t presented any detailed argument that actually supports evolution. He just keeps stating the evolutionary slogans over and over: “That’s not science! Science says…, Rubbish, real scientists say…, etc.” Ironically, Ashley has been ignoring the details of what makes science possible, and has been attacking real scientists (creation scientists like me) for many posts now. And finally, if evolution were true, then God would be a liar for telling us in His Word that He created in six-days.]
“The RATE group has provided very detailed analysis of how radioactive decay rates are not constant so no, your claim is false.” The RATE group’s research is FRAUDULENT. Trust me. Or read what non-YECs say about it.
[And what evidence does Ashley present to back up his claim? The same evidence that he always provides: absolutely nothing. I like the “Trust me” part. Considering all the false claims and logical fallacies that Ashley has posted on this very site, I think we have some very good reasons not to take his word for it. He ends this section with another faulty appeal to authority.]
“If it was merely an assumption it would have been easily refuted by you.” No. It is an assumption not a fact because you cannot prove it to be true. You just assert it to be true, dogmatically.
[Irony. Does Ashley really not see the irony in his statement?]
“God has revealed himself in His Word.” That’s what the Muslims say too.
[The Christian worldview as revealed in Scripture makes senses of the preconditions of intelligibility. It makes science and knowledge possible. The Muslim worldview as revealed in the Koran does not. Now, there are Muslims who believe in the methods of science. But they cannot account for such methods. So Muslims are in the same intellectually embarrassing position as Ashley.]
“But in an evolutionary worldview, why would it be wrong to lie?” Yawn. I was – sorry to say this – speaking the truth.
[Unsurprisingly, Ashley was not able to answer this simple question. This just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt evolutionism really is.]
“Show how some evidence does not fit with the Bible.” The existence of supernovae.
[That would be very good evidence if the Bible stated, “stars do not explode.” But the Bible doesn’t say that. So we are left to wonder why Ashley thought this didn’t fit with Scripture.]
“No one is impartial.” YECs are probably the least impartial people on the planet when it comes to science.
[That’s a tu quoque fallacy. And it’s not true. Scientists are able to make great strides in research once the shackles of naturalism/uniformitarianism are removed. Our own research here at ICR demonstrates this.]
(Well that last comment is a blatant lie.)
JASON'S COMMENTS HERE ARE SOME OF HIS MOST UNPLEASANT
- "I do allow guests to comment on my blog, but they must behave themselves and not act like a 2-year-old throwing a temper tantrum." YECs are more interested in demonising their critics than in discussing science;
- "Here Ashley reveals his ignorance of physics. In fact, scientists have proved that decay rates can be changed by a factor of a billion or more under certain circumstances, such as bound state beta decay. Moreover, we have compelling evidence that this has in fact been the case in the past. Ashley would have known this if he bothered to study what it is he argues against." I am not as clever as you, Jason, but I HAVE studied science and I HAVE studied YEC claims - for years. See my review of Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' at Amazon.com. YECs have NO evidence whatsoever that radioactive decay rates could or did change ie accelerate vastly in the particular way they REQUIRE around 4,300 years or so ago WITHOUT rendering the Earth UNINHABITABLE. None;
- "attacking real scientists (creation scientists like me)...". The only people who think Jason is a 'real scientist' are other 'creation scientists' - those who reject SWATHES of science;
- "So we are left to wonder why Ashley thought this didn’t fit with Scripture". I thought you were a clever astronomer/cosmologist, Jason. Stars do NOT go supernova after just 6,000 years of existence.