An attempt to deal with a creationist

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:46 pm

If you are interested, the latest evasions and smokescreens of the Heininger (from the last 24 hours) can now be read at Amazon.com.

After a MONTH of asking him, he's now admitted that - no - he hasn't actually read my review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth'.

That does not get him off the (largely self-inflicted) hook that he's been on.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:31 pm

Blatant LYING - as well as his fraudulent behaviour - from John Heininger over the past 24 hours. Claims I am making 'wild assertions'. Obviously having the truth about his unacceptable dishonest behaviour at Amazon.com exposed 'hurts' a bit (though like a John Mackay boomerang he keeps coming back for more):

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... 97K34OFWB1
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:17 pm

Kim Beazley's behaviour at Amazon.com has improved a bit.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:29 am

Actually I TAKE BACK what I just said about Beazley. He's reverted to his previous lying ways.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... GQF2AROMDD
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1B9MJVFGP ... hisHelpful
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:44 am

Think I've worked out why YECs LIE about science (never mind the lying about and misrepresenting of their opponents) and even justify their behaviour to themselves and to the world:

Reason 1:
"We are defending the Bible."

Reason 2:
"You cannot empirically prove our science wrong."

Reason 3:
"Only a saved Christian has the moral authority to decide what is a lie and what is the truth."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:33 pm

Forgot to mention that the evasive Heininger resurfaced briefly on Monday at Amazon.com (under 'Monk''s review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth). He informed us:

"Genesis 7:19 outlines that a flood covered all of mountains, and Gen. 7:20 states that "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.", so that means that water was 15 'cubits' above the tallest mountain. Mt Everest is 29,028 feet in height."

There is a flaw in your many uniformitarian "assumptions", and therefore your mathematics. You assume Mt Everest and other mountains was always that height. Which causes us all to wonder how fish and marine life climed up the mountians. Your second failed "assumption" is that you know nothing about the ingress of icy astroids throught the solar system at the time of the flood, which not only impacted earth but other planets on the way through."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:36 am

YEC charlatan returns to the scene of his 'crime'.
http://www.amazon.com/review/RHBBAKCND3 ... 4Q6RVYXB9Q
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

A fresh need to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:09 am

YECs cannot change their spots so I have had to re-awaken this thread.

I've had THIS email exchange with Heininger (he was replying to my email about the Bob Sorensen 'LineofFire' blog post - see my recent posts at the Sarfati thread). Details follow in the next post.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

A fresh need to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:39 am

John to me:
"Ashley, I always like to check out your links, which I appreciate. Lots of the usual huffing and puffing based on subjective assertions and assumptions, but never anything of scientific substance that even remotely negates the YEC perspective. As the guy says on
http://www.greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot
he is no scientist. So, yet again its seems to be Sarfati and Sorensen 1, Ashley 0. None-the-less, its a better blog site than bcseweb, which is not worth wasting time on, even thought I have signed up. Thanks anyway".

Me to John:
"You do write some drivel, John. My emails flagging the two Line of Fire threads was not intending to scientifically 'negate' the YEC perspective, something I've done plenty of times before. I was pointing out the wildly exaggerated claims of YEC Bob Sorensen.
Ashley".

John to me:
"Says Ashley, re Sorensen and Sarfati, "My emails flagging the two Line of Fire threads was not intending to scientifically 'negate' the YEC perspective, something I've done plenty of times before. I was pointing out the wildly exaggerated claims of YEC Bob Sorensen." Ashley, you live in your own surreal world of "metaphysical"
naturalism and godless materialism, far removed from reality. In all the unsolicited junk you have sent I have never seen any solid verifiable science that was not based on generalizations, subjective interpretations, and other "opinion" based criteria. So, how could you have scientifically "negated" the YEC perspective "plenty of times" when you don't have any real empirical science.. It is YOU who exaggerates the data beyond its limits, and make claims about the unobserved past you cannot scientifically sustain.
So, YET AGAIN I attach a list of Deep-Time dating assumptions for you to SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFY using experimentation and observation, without appealing to subjective inferences and assumptions. Get back to me when you have "real verifiable empirical science" to substantiate all these deep-time assumptions. Or if you ever come across a dating machine that can actually "directly measure age", without needing assumptions. Don't waste my time with anything less.
(copy sent to Bob)".
[The inaccessible attachment is entitled THEDATINGGAMEASSUMPTIONS.doc.]

Me to John:
"John
Since you have signed up for the BCSE community forum, I am going to post your attack below there (without comment) - so people can see your tactics.
You are anti-science.
I could not open your attachment. A google search only found this:
http://biblicalgeology.net/2006/The-dating-game.html
Please re-attach it in a usable form or tell me WHERE else I can go read it.
Ashley"

I do not routinely publish email exchanges but this occasion of doing so is justified. John has the right and the means of reply. Let him DEMONSTRATE that there is 'no'
scientific or other negation of the 'YEC perspective' - by myself or anyone else - on the BCSE community forum. A tall order - as there are a large number of posts which he must rebut. But it is HE who is making the claim, so HE has to try and DEFEND it. Just blathering about 'unverifiable assumptions' etc will NOT do. That is NOT how science is practised. It's like saying "I cannot see gravity so it is not science just make-believe".

Put Up or Shut Up, please John.

I said that I would not comment on John's latest response ITSELF. I have tried to avoid doing so - and those comments I do make refer to the exchanges overall rather than specifically his latest response.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

A fresh need to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:32 am

Heininger just now (he attempted to review Sarfati's 2010 book, and also Dawkins' 2009 book that Sarfati sought to refute, at Amazon.com - so cannot plead ignorance of the issues):

""The claim that evolution cannot increase genetic information presents its own problems. It means God must have endowed the original created kinds with tremendous genetic variation and potential, so that those on the Ark could then produce tens of thousands of new species in less than 4,500 years. However, if the created animals changed at the same rate in the 1,500 years between the Fall and the Flood, the genetic variation would have been sorted into many lineages (species within a kind). This is problematic because if only two animals representing a kind were on the Ark then whichever two were selected would already have some degree of genetic isolation and would thus have less genetic potential than the original created kinds. Therefore something must have stopped natural selection operating in the same way before the Flood, or each of the original created kinds was a genetic super-animal. Any such hypothesis (as is so often the case with these kinds of issues) is of course unfalsifiable." [Quoted by me from the Washington Irving blogsite.]
The assumption based quote from the new Washington Irving blog site is itself unfalsifiable. As his comments are purely hypothetical. No one was there to see what actually happened, or how fast speciation occurs. In fact horticulturists have produced over 30,000 different varieties of orchids in a very short space of time. And there was sufficient genetic information present to achieve this. Even the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has acknowledged that no one really understands speciation, or how fast it can actually occur, So, yet again you have your feet planted firmly in mid air. Sorry, about that!"

My reply:
"LIAR.
OBFUSCATOR.
TYPICAL ANTI-SCIENCE YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST IN FACT.
The fact that you try to label factual statements as 'purely hypothetical' suggests that you are either a disgusting desperate liar or an idiot pretending to be clever.
If you wish to prolong this, please do so HERE:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2743&start=30
I've also looked at the attachment sent with your other email. It is just generalisations and waffle.
Science does NOT make your 'assumptions' 1-3. If a God did something 'natural' science would study it.
And I suggest that the international scientific community, from Einstein onwards, understands time much better than the author of your pdf.
Assumption 13 is a complete strawman argument. Science does NOT ignore rapid geological processes. Assumptions 14-17 and 20-22 are all reasonable and scientific, based on what has already been discovered. The onus is on YECs to demonstrate otherwise.
There is NO evidence that particular radioactive isotopes that are used to calculate the ages of rocks and meteorites could have or actually have EVER extremely greatly increased their rate of decay during the history of Earth. A huge flood or massive volcanism (the latter has occurred regionally in the distant past) could not do such a thing.
If you hate assumptions I should point out that it is impossible to take science forward without them.
Deep time and evolution are falsifiable however - and creationists are STILL trying.
Ashley".



Heininger also re-attached THIS:
C:\Users\ashley\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\KMJJBWIH\THE+DATING+GAME+ASSUMPTIONS.pdf
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron