"Obviously wrong."

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

"Obviously wrong."

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:35 pm

It is very clear to me that if certain fundamentalist Christians add - to the book of Genesis and to the Biblical timescales since 'creation' in the genealogies - some major scientific discoveries about Earth's history, then the result is awful nonsense. Bad 'science' and false 'history' which is "obviously wrong" - to quote Bill Nye who a year ago fared better than Ken Ham in a high profile debate at Kentucky's 'Creation Museum':
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/b ... /46812.htm

What discoveries am I referring to? The great height of the highest mountains on Earth, the reality of (not obviously biblical) biological speciation, the vastness of Earth's biodiversity today and the fossil record with its record of vast numbers of extinct creatures including massive and not so massive dinosaurs, and the strong evidence such as valleys carved out by ice which points to 'ice age' glaciations in Earth's past when glaciers and icesheets were much larger and more widespread than now.

Thus young Earth creationism 'informs' us that literally the whole planet was covered by hundreds or thousands of feet of water for almost a year during the Bronze Age - even the very highest mountains on the planet (they falsely claim that eg the Himalaya were much lower at the time) with only eight humans surviving this catastrophe. They claim that there was a 'rapid' glaciation - a 'one-off' ice age - during the Bronze Age after that apocalyptic flood described in Genesis. They claim that dinosaurs and human beings both 'must' have lived on the planet at the same time, including during the Bronze Age, despite there being no geological evidence for this and Genesis never referring to the creation of vast giant land creatures. They insist that Noah's Ark somehow contained representative 'kinds' or maybe genera of every land animal species that then somehow recolonised Earth during the Bronze Age and since - to produce the vast biodiversity seen today, not to mention the vast number of creatures that unfortunately then went unbiblically extinct.

Is Ken Ham concerned that what he and his organisation churn out for Christians 'bothered' by science is "obviously wrong" and is pseudo-science? Not in the slightest:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... g-nothing/

I look forward to seeing what outlandish claims Ham might make in his video due on 2 February! Is he helping or hindering Christianity I wonder. It is also interesting that if you 'stand up for the Bible' in a scientific era (trying to mesh observable reality with 'infallible' words written over 2,000 years ago) any God who wrote the Bible seems to force such a Christian to make repeated untruthful statements whilst also attacking science and scientists relentlessly.

I also plan to listen to a 'creationism special' on Radio 4's 'BBC Inside Science' on 5 February.

PS
I sent the above text as a limited circulation email. However, I fear Bill Nye is not infallible. I must check this out:
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13235
http://www.drwile.com/undeniable_review.pdf
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: "Obviously wrong."

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:50 pm

Further attempted comment under the Wile blog post of 29 January - critiquing his pdf critiquing the Nye book:

"You appear to make some valid if perhaps sometimes pedantic points about Nye maybe not having done sufficient homework or having expressed himself insufficiently precisely (I've not read his book). However (I comment in the order of where the statements concerned appear):

"Well, using the same logic, I could say, “There are several dinosaur bones that are 22 to 39 thousand years old"". None have been dated that young (too old for YECs like Ham anyway).
"This is quite reasonable, especially given the rapidity with which microevolution can occur." There's nothing in the Bible about microevolution or speciation. Also, did Nye refer (as he should have) at the debate to all the land animals that have gone extinct (post-flood according to YECs)?
"Specifically, they want to believe that radioactive half-lives can never change, when in fact, we know that they can." No we don't - in the case of the actual isotopes used to date rocks and so forth (and other, small or temporary, changes were witnessed in laboratories not in nature).
"He takes great pains to indicate that all breeds of dogs have descended from a common ancestor, and that common ancestor was some sort of wolf. All creationists agree with that, because the mechanisms by which such microevolution occurs are well understood". I've seen no convincing evidence that Ken Ham does agree with that (you may have).
The YEC 'definition' of 'microevolution' bears no obvious relation to reality (including the reality of gene duplication leading to additional genetic 'information'): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
Fossils of land-based creatures that are now extinct cannot all be dismissed as having 'died in the flood' since the flood was not remotely an extinction event based on Genesis.
"Once again, the fossil record is mostly made up of animals caught in the Flood." Apart from the fact that the pattern of where fossils are found (at which depths) disproves that, the claim could only be made for land animals that are still extant today (or perhaps sea creatures whether extinct or extant or maybe just a handful of the individuals from extinct species such as dinosaurs).
"He writes, “If the world and all its species of animals and plants were created at once by some
supernatural force or event, we might expect nothing but the fossils of familiar, living species as we dig down in Earth’s crust. Or if there was a before-and-after transition, as is described in The Bible, we might expect a great many fossils of now-extinct species in lower layers or strata of rocky formations, then a sudden break (corresponding to the end of Eden, or perhaps Noah’s flood), followed by only modern species in more recent strata.” This, once again, shows he has not bothered to inform himself on the issues. No creationist would expect this." Why not? The former scenario is more or less the impression you would get from reading the Bible alone (and ignoring scientific realities; the Bible knows nothing of extinctions and all the land animals around pre-flood are supposed to have recolonised the earth post-flood). And Nye was not denying that a 'worldwide flood' would leave behind some fossils - was he?
Just because some fossils form quickly does not preclude them from being very old.
"Indeed, our modern understanding of genetics has made neo-Darwinism harder and harder to believe." Many Christians, such as Francis Collins, profoundly disagree. You appear not to have informed yourself sufficiently about what 'evolutionists' really have concluded from the available evidence.
"Ham demonstrated this is false in the debate, but Nye refused to accept the evidence." Nye was correct to dismiss or ignore Ham's list of so-called past YEC 'predictions' at the debate - my post here dated 9 February 2014:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=48583&hilit=predictions#p48583
"Nye can’t accept that, however, because he believes in evolution with religious fervor. Thus, he simply isn’t willing to admit that there is a legitimate debate." What scientific theory of young Earth creationism exists alongside evolutionary theory (which theists can and do accept)?
"Second, the entire thrust of barminology [sic] is to determine which organisms are related
by microevolution and which are not. That allows us to determine the originally-created kinds. Thus,
the microevolution that occurred after the Flood never “somehow turned macro.” It was microevolution the entire time." That is not science, it is pseudo-scientific garbage and fantasy - and scarcely biblical either.
You dismiss sexual selection in peacocks, but a very recent BBC documentary highlighted sexual selection as the likely cause of extravagant features (not for flight) found on the males of some species of birds of paradise.
You clearly have little time for Nye and have put time into exposing any sloppiness or poor homework on his part (as I have with this response). You appear to doubt his claim that he is not going after anybody's religion (only their pseudo-science)."


PS at 0.23 am on 2 Feb. I hope Wile is not going to censor and ignore my last post (whilst allowing somebody else to praise him!). But the signs are NOT good as it has disappeared from view.

PPS at 0.43 am. A chasing post of mine has also now disappeared without explanation. Unless Dr Wile allows and deals with my lengthy post above (or explains why he cannot) THEN HE IS YET ANOTHER YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST FRAUD AND DECEIVER, FULL STOP.

1.12 am: I flagged this thread on Wile's Facebook page. But my post has rapidly disappeared. YES WILE IS YET ANOTHER DISHONEST AND HYPOCRITICAL FRAUD WHO WISHES TO MISLEAD HIS FOLLOWERS JUST AS MUCH AS HE DESPERATELY CLAIMED THAT BILL NYE TRIED TO DO IN HIS NEW BOOK. YOU CANNOT PROPERLY DEBATE BIGOTS. HE HAS ALSO SHUT ME OUT OF HIS FACEBOOK PAGE FOR ONE SINGLE POST! WHAT EVIL PEOPLE BECOME YECS ...
(Photo taken of a new post under his blog which flagged Ephesians 6:11 among other things* - before he stamps upon it. YECs and other religious fundamentalists can censor critics from their blog pages but they also want to censor awkward facts - we of course owe it to the future not to allow them to do so unless and until any such facts are refuted by real science and merely not by religious dogma or apologetics.)
* "Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil."


BTW I'm also being censored again by that YEC fraud Tony Breeden (of Creation Sunday fame) again here:
https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2015 ... efgen-org/
I attempted to post the following comment recently:
"If 'science' informed by biblical revelation is the real truth, why does it not work and why has it so far failed to come up with coherent scientific theories - such that the only people who believe in it are religious fundamentalists, the ignorant, and those already convinced by other young Earth creationist ideologues and apologists?
Maybe your book answers my question? Does eg what is observed in distant galaxies also get explained 'according to' the Bible in your book? Or just what has been observed in real time on Earth or in a lab?
There is only one way to do science. By starting with evidence and not with inflexible dogma. Otherwise you are doing religion or philosophy."
He is desperately trying to inform me, via email, that I am 'trolling'. I have demonstrated to him that I was not trolling, even by the widened definition of that term that he is pushing my way ...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Jay Wile censorship

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:02 am

Further comment submitted to Wile:
"I also checked this out and it looks like you were nitpicking and trying to falsely discredit Nye yet again. (No doubt you really censored me because I exposed similar nitpicking by you yesterday - and not because of any fictional contravening of house rules or because my post was lengthy.)
"For someone who relies so much on radioactive dating, Nye doesn’t seem to understand radiation. He writes, “Nuclear fission of natural radioactive elements like uranium and thorium keeps the insides of planets molten.” Nuclear fission and natural radioactivity are completely different things."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
See opening five paras.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nu ... on_reactor
I also suspect that Nye may have meant to type "naturally radioactive elements" rather than "natural radioactive elements" thus he was not wrongly conflating nuclear fission with natural radioactivity. I'm no expert and have not read his book, but Nye may have been referring either to the "spontaneous radioactive decay" mentioned in the first Wiki link or maybe to the past natural nuclear fission reactor found in Gabon."


PS The new Ken Ham interview video dated 2 Feb contains nothing new - it's the same old self-justification and repeated false accusations against his debate opponent.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham: "obviously wrong."

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:06 am

Ken Ham - entrenched religious liar who could never admit that he could possibly be wrong.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ros ... n-science/
"In public forums, the Creationists should be challenged to defend their total model of earth history, difficulties and all, and to give their supporting “evidence” on an item-by-item basis."

Hmm - the topic of the Ham-Nye debate on 4.2.14 was 'Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?' Thus Bill Nye and many people watching - even fellow creationists - might have had a reasonable expectation that Ken Ham would attempt to set out in his opening presentation the details of the model he believes in and set out his detailed evidence and interpretations of evidence supporting why the model is scientifically viable as well as presenting a more comprehensive explanation of origins than that provided by mainstream science.

But this is exactly what Ken Ham did NOT do at the debate a year ago. (I have detailed written notes and the video is still available online.) Whereas Bill Nye - who spoke second after Ham mysteriously chose to speak first - presented abundant evidence AGAINST the version of Christian 'creation' that Ham espouses. Instead of then trying to deal with some of these Ham made feeble excuses about not having enough time. The reality is that his organisation's 'answers' only make sense to uninformed or biased young Earth creationists and he could not bring himself to give them at a debate watched live by millions as he knew that Bill Nye and many listeners would highlight that they are based on pseudo-science, science rejection and theological rhetoric.

But Ham has responded to the piece in Scientific American, which quoted the words I quote above!
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

The response is full of lies and desperate misdirection:
"the article was filled with the usual misinformation and ridiculous claims";
"Hunter completely misrepresents the nature of the debate because it’s evolutionists like her who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the difference between observational and historical science". Methodologically there is absolutely NO difference. Besides when it comes to distant stars we observe them in the PAST;
"It’s because they have already defined evolutionary geology (millions of years) as fact!" People like Ken Ham have never ever been able to prove that deep time is not real and a 6,000 year old universe is 'fact'. Ever;
"Creationists do not attack science". That is a disgusting cynical lie. Ham has made a career out of attacking - and attempting to redefine much more narrowly - science.
"It seems like no matter how many times we address this claim, secularists just keep on saying it." It's true. Honest Christians say the much the same:
http://biologos.org/blog/ham-on-nye-our-take
"But several times we here at the office groaned in frustration, like when Ken Ham made false scientific arguments or Bill Nye turned to science to answer questions of meaning and purpose."
"But creationists do not attack science." Repeating lies does not make them true;
"We love science!" You love indoctrinating the masses AGAINST science, Mr Ham, lying hypocrite that you are;
"They force their dogma upon people ...". You may not like it but that does not make it 'dogma'. You have to refute it - something you cannot do which is why you are upset by this article;
"Naturalism is a religion—it’s the religion of atheism". Liar;
"Evolutionists are constantly demanding evidence to back up our position and yet, whenever we present any evidence, they reject it because it goes against their naturalistic assumptions ...". You need to present a viable scientific model not just isolated snippets of 'evidence'. Remember?
"This is not a battle over the evidence." Yes it IS. And the fossil record points to deep time changes and NOT to a one-year 'recent worldwide flood';
"So as much as Hunter demands that creationists publish in secular, peer-reviewed journals, she will likely just reject these articles when they are presented to her because of her evolutionary and naturalistic bias." You do not need me to explain why Mr Ham is talking absolutely balls about Dana Hunter and peer reviewed journals (but I will if you ask me to; clue Hunter is a science blogger not a scientist as such);
"Hunter also wrote, “I’ve been doing quite a lot of reading about the failures of young earth creationist attempts at doing geology.” Ah yes - that would be 'flood geology'. Which Ham carefully AVOIDS mentioning because it has been a dismal failure.
"Creationists need to respond to demands such as the ones made by this author by doing what I did during my debate with Bill Nye “The Science Guy” last year—teach people the truth about science, that there are two kinds of science, observational and historical.". Yes we know WHY Ham wants to creationists to mislead people like this (even though it meant he avoided presenting ANY scientific model of 'creation' origins at the debate that he correspondingly and inevitably lost). Much easier for people with NO viable alternative scientific model to bleat that we should simply believe the Bible over the universe's and life's origins. Instead of doing what the 'evolutionists' ie real scientists should (continue to) require of them, as highlighted by Scientific American. Without doing which - successfully - young earth creationism will NEVER EVER be 'scientific'.

What a fraud.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Jay Wile refusal to address questions properly

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:51 pm

Message as sent to Wile via his website:

"
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13235#more-13235

"You need to learn what creationists predict, because no creationist predicts all fossils through all geologic rock layers. In fact, creationists expect order in the fossil record, because of several processes that occurred during the worldwide Flood. Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would falsify the creationist model of geology as well." (Your response dated 4 March to an informed sceptic under your recent blog attacking the new Bill Nye book.)

Well I never - creationists don't propose something that has already been shown to be incorrect (and where what is actually seen is strong evidence for deep time). Instead they claim - against the facts and against reason - that a year long flood inundation 'must' account for the order found in the fossil record through different geological layers in different geographical locations. (Even though fleeing animals would be found at higher altitude with so-called ecological burial - not in higher layers than 'slower' animals at the same location.)

Of course what YECs 'claim' is way beyond anything actually found in the Bible - which never mentions fossils.

How about you address my previous (silently censored) post re your Nye claims? Oh - I expect you are too busy.

How many other people are you censoring from commenting under your blogs?"


PS at 22.40 pm GMT on 9 March. NO acknowledgement whatsoever. Pl assume the same for evermore if I do not mention otherwise here.

PPS at 0.20 am GMT on 14 March; there's now this too re Dr Wile (this Christian blogger is not a very big fan):
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.co.u ... 5-jay.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron