Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

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

Ken Ham on his Facebook page today

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:01 pm

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
"Bill Nye The Science Guy has heard the gospel clearly at the Ark Encounter -- pray the Lord will open his heart to the truth -- he is without excuse."

Even if Bill Nye becomes a Christian, his science arguments will remain valid and the sciencey apologetics put forward by Answers in Genesis will remain bogus and false.

(And of course Nye has NOT only heard the gospel from Ham but also his outfit's pseudo-science.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Oldest stromatolites yet found? (And AiG.)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:56 pm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 19355.html

There is controversy over this paper - not over the age of the rocks but over whether these really are stromatolites. A BBC News website article says: "So much has happened to the rocks over geological history, it is hard to know what is original and what is an overprint by later processes".

But the newly exposed (due to snow melt on a warming planet) rocks have been radiometrically dated; the mineral zircon concentrates uranium to much higher levels than those in the magma from which it crystallises. Zircon crystals can be radiometrically dated using the decay of both uranium 235 to lead 207 and uranium 238 to lead 206 - allowing for two independent 'daughter atom to parent atom' ratios. It's said that zircons are handy because whilst they can incorporate uranium atoms, the structure contains very little lead other than that produced by uranium decay. It is also extremely stable with a 'tight' molecular structure, into and from which atoms rarely move.

But 'Answers in Genesis' are already on this case ... Their science denial regarding zircons was already apparent in 2014 (probably by coincidence they flagged this today on their facebook page):
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... cebook-aig
"They arrived at this date using assumptions and interpretations of zircon crystals found in Australian sandstone. When examined, however, their conclusions are merely the top floor of an elaborate house of cards."

Now AiG's Nathaniel Jeanson (a biologist not a geologist) has sounded off - as reported by AiG's Georgia Purdom on her facebook where she sounds excited about his response quoted here (WND is a right wing and Christian fundamentalist site):
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/harvard-phd- ... sil-claim/
"But Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, a Harvard PhD and now a research biologist with Answers in Genesis, which runs both the highly popular Creation Museum as well as the brand new Ark Encounter, had questions.
He has his graduate degree in cell and developmental biology from Harvard and pointed out that rocks and living cells aren’t on the same time clock in nature.
“We’ve got biology we’re assigning a date to – and we’re using geology to do it,” he told WND.
He explained biological creatures mark time genetically.
“That clock ticks at the genetic level. Every time it reproduces, the DNA is copied, and in the copy process there are mistakes. They add up over time.”
The biological clock all points toward an origination point “with the last few thousand years,” he pointed out.
But the geological clock is what is used by scientists to reach the conclusion that rocks are billions of years old.
"The only way to get billions of years of time is assuming constant rates of geological change,” he added. But applying that constant to genetic material produces the opposite answer, a closer origination point, he said.
Could it be a global flood may have changed those rates, he suggested.
It’s a logical dilemma, he said.
And what does allowing for differing rates of change produce? A collapse of the billions of years paradigm, he said.
He noted the expanse of time is the “great question.”
Such time frames really are “incomprehensible” for people, he said."

The classic AiG reactionary (reacting to new claimed discoveries they detest) science denial and pseudo-science. But there's really nothing to see there. Just confusion - which he wants as he has got nothing else to offer. The fact that he is no geologist shows: "The only way to get billions of years of time is assuming constant rates of geological change." Which contains a grain of truth but as phrased is TOTAL nonsense (for instance various, unpredictable eruptions of particular volcanoes produce geological change but there is no constant rate of change over large time periods). I think he really means unchanging radioactive decay rates? (But YECs are obsessed by uniformitarianism in all its forms; you have to declare it a 'lie' in order to do biblical 'creation science'.)

For good measure, AiG have also published this today; those accused of brainwashing children or of encouraging this in Christian creationist parents are denying doing so:
https://answersingenesis.org/apologetic ... -children/
"The Bible gives an account of the catastrophic global Flood of Noah’s day. Thus, another interpretation is that most of these rock layers were laid down rapidly, as the result of a massive catastrophe. From the massive amount of sediment, the rock layers we see today would easily have formed. Furthermore, the billions of creatures we see in the fossil record would have been trapped in this sediment, accounting for the fossils we see in the rocks." That is not feasible and is pseudo-science following an agenda.
"Most of the fossils are just preserved animals and plants that once lived and were buried in the Flood the same year; only the evolutionary imagination sees them caught in the act of evolving." Pseudo-science with an agenda - and context-free science denial.
"It should be obvious that those who actively promote evolution as fact are the ones who wish to brainwash our youth." That's because evolution (the scientific theory not the post-flood stuff AiG claim has occurred) and deep time are supported by reams of material evidence. Whereas young earth creationist claims are not. It's education Dr Mitchell.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

The lying of Nathaniel Jeanson

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:15 pm

As quoted in that WND article mentioned above. Having re-read it, because the Ken Ham the Oracle has now spoken, I noticed lying that I failed to pick up earlier - see below:

"The biological clock all points toward an origination point “with the last few thousand years,” he pointed out. [LIAR]
But the geological clock is what is used by scientists to reach the conclusion that rocks are billions of years old.
“The only way to get billions of years of time is assuming constant rates of geological change,” he added. But applying that constant to genetic material produces the opposite answer, a closer origination point, he said. [LIAR; Jeanson himself does NOT any 'constant' to arrive at his 'closer origination point'*]
Could it be a global flood may have changed those rates, he suggested.
It’s a logical dilemma, he said.
And what does allowing for differing rates of change produce? A collapse of the billions of years paradigm, he said." [LIAR]


*
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... diversity/
"Abstract
More than 150 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, the origin of species remains an unsolved puzzle [NO IT DOES NOT UNLESS YOU ARE A YEC]. Uncovering the source of eukaryotic species’ genotypic and phenotypic diversity would be of tremendous aid in understanding the larger species’ origin picture. In this study, we demonstrate that the comparison of mitochondrial DNA clocks to nuclear DNA clocks necessitates the existence of created nuclear DNA heterozygosity within the ‘kinds’ of the Creation week. We also show that created heterozygosity [WHICH IS MERELY A HYPOTHESIS], together with the operation of natural processes that are observable today [GARBAGE - YECS INVOKE POST-FLOOD A SET OF RAPID GENETIC PROCESSES OF CHANGE OVER GENERATIONS THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT OBSERVABLE TODAY], is sufficient to account for species’ phenotypic and genotypic diversity. Our Created Heterozygosity and Natural Processes (CHNP) model significantly advances the young-creation explanation for the origin of species, and it makes testable predictions by which it can be further confirmed or rejected in the future."
Like all YEC apologists, Jeanson REJECTS uniformitarianism, both with respect to geology and constant radioactive decay rates allowing us to approximately date old rocks but also (though he consistently fails to admit this) with respect to biological clocks - with his pre-flood slow 'kind' changes following 'creation week', a fictional 'recent' worldwide flood killing all but eight humans and almost all land-based life, extremely rapid post-flood multiplication and diversification of ark 'kinds' into innumerable species (a sort of evolutionary process though he won't use such a word), and then all that mysteriously ceasing to return us to the slow biological changes within life over many generations that is observed today.


cont'd
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

The denials and big false claims of Answers in Genesis

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:34 pm

Someone named Stefan Frello posted this on Ham's Facebook page during Sunday in response to that WND article:
"If Dr. Jeanson has a case, he should write a comment to Nature, pointing out the flaws in the paper of Nutman et al.
One of Dr. Jeanson's arguments (elsewhere - but in concert with what he says here) is that there are too few mutations in the mitochondrial genome.
The problem should be that measuremets [sic] show appr. 1 mutation pr. generation in the mitochondrial genome, and only hundreds to a few thousand differencies [sic] between e.g. different species of Drosophila, Where evolution should predict millions.
But the majority of surviving mutations (those that are not under strong negative selection) takes either place in the so-called D-loop, or are neutral (not changing protein sequence). That means that only a small minority of the mitochondrial genome is free to mutate, resulting in fast saturation, resulting in vast underestimation of the actual number of mutations.
Should Dr. Jeanson show the courage to post a comment to Nature. he will probably be confronted with this counter-argument (among others)."

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
Elsewhere on his facebook page, Ham has today posted this comment:
"Recently, WorldNetDaily interviewed Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson about a prominent fossil claim with a time stamp of billions of years. Dr. Jeanson pointed out the challenges to this timescale based on genetics. One of our opponents, Stefan Frello, posted an objection to these conclusions on my Facebook page. Read my post below with Dr. Jeanson's response".
Ham then flagged this new blog post:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -of-years/ 'Turning the Tables on Billions of Years'

Ham begins with this:
"Recently, WorldNetDaily interviewed Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson about a prominent fossil claim with a time stamp of billions of years. Dr. Jeanson pointed out the challenges to this timescale based on genetics (e.g., see “A Spectacular Confirmation of Darwin’s Argument—for Genesis” for further discussion and technical references)".
(I believe the 9 July Jeanson article is the one Frello was mainly criticising in that facebook comment - along with this ICR article (which I recall critiquing - see below*):
https://www.icr.org/article/8017/
*
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3482&p=49018&hilit=d+%3D+2%2Ar%2At#p49018)

Ham then publishes the Frello comment followed by a Jeanson response. Jeanson claims - without evidence - that Frello is 'ignorant' of YEC literature. He then brings up that ICR article that I have just re-discovered my own response to on this forum (something Jeanson is either ignorant of or chooses to ignore because I am a 'nobody'). Jeanson insists: "The specific flaw he claims to have found is one I already entertained and challenged over two years ago in a lay-level web article (“New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years”; see Objection #6), which summarizes a technical paper that I published nearly three years ago (“Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes from ~2700 Metazoan Species”)."

Yet Jeanson's own argument against 'Objection 6' in that ICR article - which he does not repeat now - was pretty weak: "This evolutionary rescuing device could potentially solve the numerical discrepancy problem, but it is entirely ad hoc and, therefore, unscientific. Scientific explanations must make testable predictions, and if natural selection explains why the evolutionary predictions are so far off from reality, then it must also predict levels of genetic diversity in species for which diversity is currently unknown. Until evolutionists actually make these predictions, this line of reasoning does not pass muster."

But here is the punchline: "I won’t be sending my comments to Nature. Why? Because the editors at Nature are ignorant of creationist claims and are, therefore, unqualified to evaluate them—just like Frello." Quelle Surprise. As if Jeanson could not INFORM Nature of his claims and persuade them of their scientific validity - assuming they possess such of course.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The denials and big false claims of Answers in Genesis

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:32 pm

"Recently, WorldNetDaily interviewed Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson about a prominent fossil claim with a time stamp of billions of years. "

Deary me. The creationists are using Worldnet Daily as a platform for promoting their bogus science.

Does anyone ever get the feeling that creationists really are so stupid that they are blissfully and totally unaware that they are stupid?

Worldnet Daily is pitched at those with an intellect well below that of the average 14 year old. It's the ultimate exercise in the arrogance of ignorance.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

The antics of Ken Ham and his Ark Encounter

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:42 pm

Is Ham preaching the Bible? Not really. He's twisting the Bible in order to attack science and 'confirm' the Bible.

See here:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham (my comments inserted in square brackets)
"Llamas, alpacas and camels all belong to the same created kind; only two of this kind were needed on the Ark [the Bible says NO SUCH THING and Ham is indulging in eisegesis; see Genesis 6: 19-20*]. Secularists committed to the evolutionist religion can't see the obvious--animals exist in separate kinds [Ham has NO science to confirm that; he ignores all the evidence for relatedness that extends in some cases ACROSS so-called 'kind boundaries'], with great variation within in each kind. They blindly believe changes in animals is evolution--it's just a reflection of genetic variability in distinct kinds. The biblical kind for land animals is mostly at the "family" level in man's classification system. This is explained in exhibits at the Ark Encounter."

Anyway, why does Ham talk like this? Because there is a disconnect between observed biological reality (as well as theory) and Genesis literalism.

Underneath the Ham spiel someone has commented "The trolling is strong on this page....there must be something very threatening about the Ark Encounter to a lot of people." Yes - lies about science and wilful pseudo-science are a threat to knowledge and understanding - and may also turn people away from Christianity/religion if they assume all Christians/religious people are YECs. I guess the person complaining also saw THIS response: "First: Homology between Llama and Camel (same 'Kind') is about 86 %.
Homology between Chimp and Human (Different 'Kinds') is about 91 %.
Second: There are about 2200 differences between Llama and Camel. Detailed analysis show that an absolute minimum of about 3 of 4 original mutations is lost in a few generations (the real number is probably much higher) due to what is called purifying selection (which creationists love to refer to). Therefore a minimum of 8800 mutations must have occoured since the common ancestor of Llama and Camel.
With an absoluite maximum of 1 mutation pr. generation (probably somewhat lower) and a maximum of 1 generation pr. year (probably somewhat lower, at least on average) how on earth can you squeeze in 8800 mutations, in just 4600 generations?" (This may or may not be 100% accurate/clearly explained but nobody else on the page has yet addressed his detailed content.)



* "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ark Encounter science denial

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:06 pm

And WHY does the Ark Encounter's temperature graph only extend as far as about 1950? Probably because Ken Ham and co deny FACTS (even when the reputation of Genesis isn't at stake) including the fact of around 0.5 C of world warming since around then. Nothing whatsoever to do with so-called 'worldview'.

More on the displays here (at the time of posting two brief comments I submitted await moderation):
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016/09 ... flections/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Mountkeen » Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:18 am

A Tweet from "Ark Encounter" - Ken Ham's failing theme park in Kentucky:

https://twitter.com/ArkEncounter/status/772962669682954240?lang=en-gb

"Did you know there are over 200 myths from all over the world about a major Flood?"

An admission that the global flood is a myth? Or perhaps one of his less bright marketing people letting the cat out of the bag?

Then Kenny boy himself manages to shoot himself in the foot with this one:

https://twitter.com/aigkenham/status/773473885035589632?lang=en-gb

"If one stands back and looks at evolution carefully, one realizes its an absurd story-it goes against science-it's a fairy tale--a religion"..........so ignoring for the moment that Kenny completely fails to understand evolution......he appears to be equating religion with fairy tales.

PRAISE BE!!!!
Mountkeen
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:11 pm
Location: West of England

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:30 pm

Mountkeen wrote:A Tweet from "Ark Encounter" - Ken Ham's failing theme park in Kentucky:

https://twitter.com/ArkEncounter/status/772962669682954240?lang=en-gb

"Did you know there are over 200 myths from all over the world about a major Flood?"

An admission that the global flood is a myth? Or perhaps one of his less bright marketing people letting the cat out of the bag?

Then Kenny boy himself manages to shoot himself in the foot with this one:

https://twitter.com/aigkenham/status/773473885035589632?lang=en-gb

"If one stands back and looks at evolution carefully, one realizes its an absurd story-it goes against science-it's a fairy tale--a religion"..........so ignoring for the moment that Kenny completely fails to understand evolution......he appears to be equating religion with fairy tales.

PRAISE BE!!!!



You don't have to have a low IQ to be a young earth creationist, or to find Ken Ham plausible (or to use twitter) but it certainly helps.

One of those 'myths' is this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36966274 It really happened. And one of the more honest YECs Tas Walker of CMI (more honest than Ham at any rate*) freely admitted recently on the CMI website that this could NOT have been Noah's Flood.

* This is what the kneejerk liar for Genesis Ken Ham sought to claim concerning that Chinese flood, though apparently he has not repeated his claim on AiG's website or his twitter page:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/08/scientist ... years-ago/
"But Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis told One News Now** the new find is just the latest in a number of stories about a great flood event.
“Whether it’s the American Indians or the Fijians, Hawaiians, the Eskimos, Australian Aborigines … back to the Babylonians, there are flood legends in cultures all over the world,” Ham said.
In fact, the Chinese legend is quite similar to the others.
“And this particular flood legend from China – when you read it – it talks about it was basically a global flood, the way it was described. And there was a man in particular associated with that flood,” Ham explained."


**
http://www.onenewsnow.com/ (looks like a right-wing, conservative, biased and lying Christian/'Christian' news outlet)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/ ... ical-flood (as I was saying just now - Ham is an 'authority' and he says that if you cannot accept 'creation science' that's because you have a SPIRITUAL problem)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 13, 2016 2:13 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:And WHY does the Ark Encounter's temperature graph only extend as far as about 1950? Probably because Ken Ham and co deny FACTS (even when the reputation of Genesis isn't at stake) including the fact of around 0.5 C of world warming since around then. Nothing whatsoever to do with so-called 'worldview'.

More on the displays here (at the time of posting two brief comments I submitted await moderation):
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016/09 ... flections/



And Duff - not a creationist - has decided to silently censor my comments without even telling me why. So it's not only creationist Christians who sometimes behave poorly.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his AiG colleagues

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:45 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of- ... dinosaurs/ 'Did Life Evolve Faster Before or After the Extinction of the Dinosaurs?'

In the immediate aftermath of the K-T/K-P extinction, was not evolution slower because there was less life on the planet?

Note that the topic AiG are referring to is eutherian mammals ONLY - since they are flagging THIS page (thus the title of Lacey's article is SIMPLISTIC and MISLEADING):
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 221710.htm 'Our ancestors evolved faster after dinosaur extinction.'
This conclusion reached in this paper reported at ScienceDaily - looking at 10 MILLION years post K-T - is not inconsistent with my reaction above (if that was correct).
And a similar conclusion was reached here:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 3/20153026

I think the YEC 'worldview' alternative timeline (just 4,500 years since a 'worldwide flood' to fill the planet with life) would prefer to claim that rapid speciation/rapid post-flood evolution slowed down after the dinosaurs somehow (in their timeline) ALL went extinct. After all they claim there was - a few thousand years back - much faster speciation than is ever observed in real time today. Also the last dinosaur species must have died very 'recently' ie in historical times according to YEC 'timelines' since those dinosaurs (hundreds of species) had first to (re-)colonise the planet post-flood. (And the YEC timeline is wrongly considering what happened to those eutherian mammals, after the K-T ie 'post-flood' by their reckoning, with the dinosaurs 'NOT yet extinct'.)

But what conclusion(s) do they actually reach? (Comments below are chronological through the article.)

"A larger starting population [after a 'worldwide flood'?!] and shorter generational times may have helped these animals form more species more rapidly immediately after the Flood." Less predation/competition for food would eventually help with speciation and evolutionary change (but first AiG have to 'remove' those dinosaurs from their imagined scenario).

"But as successful as these mammals were immediately after the Flood, a large percentage of them disappear from the fossil record fairly quickly, meaning that they went extinct not long after the Flood." Something YECs cannot explain (despite references to a 'recent' ice age or implied claims that dinosaurs were still around for many centuries, and so forth). And it's also totally UNBIBLICAL. Sub-heading 'How Can This Be Explained in a Biblical Worldview?' Very inadequately if this article is anything to go by.

"Science Daily posted a news item on another recent study by researchers at the University of North Carolina, which stated that evolution occurred up to 4,000 times faster on early earth microorganisms from around 4 to 3 billion years ago."
And this paper explains why - much hotter temperatures than now, causing more mutations than now:
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/29/8194

And MORE running around the houses. Because Lacey and AiG have an agenda of trying to rubbish evolution (even if the planet is very old which they will not accept). "We have stated many times before that mutations are not (as evolutionists claim) the driving force of molecules-to-man evolution. So finding that intense heat increases the rate of C-T mutations does nothing to speed up the pace of evolution." What arrogance. And circular reasoning. "The problem for evolutionists is that the only beneficial mutations ever observed do not add new information to the genome that can cause one kind of animal to evolve into a completely different kind of animal; they merely reshuffle or sometimes delete genetic information." As expressed in that sentence, the alleged 'problem' is fictitious. YECs totally deny gene duplication for instance.

And here is the punchline:
"So to answer the questions posed by these two new studies—did evolution happen at a faster pace from 4 to 3 billion years ago, and again after the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago—the answer is no. God created the earth and the universe a little more than 6,000 years ago, and by Day 6 He had made bacteria, dinosaurs, and mankind (and every animal, plant, and fungi). He placed massive variety in the genome of every creature, and He made them perfect and fully formed and functional."

Thus, because of their totally fictitious timeline, YECs are forced once again to REJECT a scientific conclusion published in a peer-reviewed science paper. They give NO valid reason (that addresses K-T 65 million years ago and then 10 million years after that, instead of muddying the waters with '4-3 billion years ago', and addresses eutherian mammals only). (Lacey suggests the K-T boundary was the time of 'Noah's Flood'; but there are NO dinosaur fossils ABOVE the K-T boundary.)

Of course this conclusion (referring to POST-flood in general and when they falsely claim dinosaurs were 'not yet extinct') completely RUBBISHES claims in all those recent AiG Nathaniel Jeanson articles. Such as this one:
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... diversity/
From the abstract: "We also show that created heterozygosity, together with the operation of natural processes that are observable today, is sufficient to account for species’ phenotypic and genotypic diversity." All this had to commence straight after a 'worldwide flood' 4,500 years ago, in order to manage to rapidly re-fill the Earth with all the extant life, and fossils, found across the planet in recent centuries; yet Lacey is now claiming that speciation (he calls it 'evolution' and claims this process is fiction) was 'not' more rapid after the dinosaurs went extinct - which of course is at the 'flood' K-T boundary and NOT later.

In fact Lacey admits as much (but without referring to all those Jeanson articles published after 11 June 2016):
"Creationists also do not disagree with linear, (and in some species-rich kinds, rapid) post-Flood speciation; in fact Creationist models of animal dispersal, geographic isolation, and adaptation predict that from the time these genetically-diverse animals departed the Ark, they would have speciated and adapted rapidly into new environments." Note the phrase "from the time ... departed the ark" (they allege this is 'post K-T' since the K-T is 'during' the flood). So - if the 10 million years after the K-T are immediately 'post-flood' - how come evolution/speciation of eutherian mammals was 'not' faster then than pre K-T? It makes no scientific sense. (Neither does Jeanson's conflicting claim.)

There are no real answers here. Just lots of denials and special pleading.

From the conclusion:
"We are labeled as being naïve and accused of accepting “rapid evolution” by postulating the many new species that formed in the first few hundred years of the post-Flood period. But this rapid migration and subsequent geographic isolation, which can give rise to rapid speciation, explains how land-bound life has expanded to its current high level of diversity, even after the genetic bottleneck caused by the Flood." He also whinges about articles like this one:
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/12 ... ahs-flood/

In other words, AiG are rejecting science (science many Christians accept) and creating their own facts. They are not facts. And Lacey's article - unlike those of Jeanson during 2016 - is unscientifically ruling out (more rapid than hitherto) post-'flood' and 'post K-T' evolution/speciation. He even uses the word 'life' in his title. Yet Lacey still says, correctly, that AiG postulate "the many new species that formed in the first few hundred years of the post-Flood period". Except for eutherian mammals (and DESPITE some real evidence for such) apparently?

I call that having your cake and eating it.

It would not be necessary if YEC was real science, I suggest.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby ProfessorTertius » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:28 am

Ashley, as your examples illustrate so well: "creation science" attempts at making sense never do. If they were ACTUAL scientists, one would see scientific rigor. Instead they just play absurd speculation games. That's why in a half century of YECism since Morris & Whitcomb, they've made no progress----except to incorporate hyper-evolution post-flood in order to limit the number of ark baramins (as if that would solve ark capacity problems.)
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his science deniers

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:31 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... tmosphere/
I did skim read all of this, but I think the key sentences are "Thus there are abundant global-scale geological evidences that the earth’s atmosphere has always contained abundant oxygen" and then "Genesis 1 tells us that when God made the earth on Day One it was covered in water. He didn’t make the atmosphere until Day Two when he separated the waters and put the expanse between them. While the expanse (Hebrew rāqîa‘) includes outer space, the “face” of it (as seen by later human observers looking up from the earth’s surface) was where God placed the birds to fly on Day Five. So His creation of the expanse on Day Two included the atmosphere" and then "We would not be surprised if the earliest crustal rocks did not show any evidence of being formed under an atmosphere containing oxygen. And so it is that the earliest rocks, the so-called Hadean and lowermost Archean rocks of what is the crystalline (granitic and metamorphic) basement (or foundational) rocks of the continents, do show conclusive evidence of not being formed under an atmosphere containing oxygen, likely being from God’s initial creation of the earth on Day One". (But that lack of atmospheric oxygen, or any atmosphere at all above Earth, was only on day one of 'creation week', apparently.)

Of course Genesis 1 never ever mentions the creation of Earth's atmosphere on day two of 'creation week' or at some other point in that timeframe ...

In fact Snelling indulges in pure EISEGESIS. This is what Genesis actually states (NIV): "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." The vault must be Earth's atmosphere! It stands to reason!

Actually Snelling is FORCED (by his dogma that Genesis is infallible history and also scientifically accurate), to claim (as quoted above and despite what rāqîa apparently means in full) that according to the Bible God must have created Earth's atmosphere on 'day two'.

This is because he writes that "overlying those rocks [the 'earliest crustal rocks' mentioned in his preceding sentence, which I quote above] are thick sequences of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the so-called middle-upper Archean and Paleoproterozoic, which contain the fossilized structures called stromatolites built by cyanobacteria. These rocks would seem to represent the sediments and volcanics produced catastrophically on Day Three when the dry land was uplifted, and they clearly display abundant evidence of having formed under an atmosphere containing oxygen levels similar to today’s atmosphere."

Thus Snelling near the end of his article: "In six literal days He spoke everything into existence supernaturally so that it was all perfectly formed and functioning as a mature earth and universe. So when He instantly created the atmosphere on Day Two, it had all the oxygen He intended it to contain for the animals to breathe three to four days (not billions of years) later."

I know of NO evidence that the very early Earth had 'no' atmosphere even if for only one 'day' ...

'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen enjoyed the article though ...
http://radaractive.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... evels.html
"Secularists are surprised, but creationary scientists can show that the results fit their models."
Pity their models are not remotely scientific.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ark Encounter critiqued by Geological Society of America

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:18 pm

Sounds interesting:
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2016AM/webpr ... 39758.html
Perhaps this presentation in particular:
"THE ARK ENCOUNTER: A NEW OBSTACLE TO SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING FOR THE RELIGIOUS PUBLIC IN NORTHERN KENTUCKY (Invited Presentation)
RATAJESKI, Kent, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Kentucky, Slone Research Building, Lexington, KY 40515, DUFF, R. Joel, Department of Biology, University of Akron, Auburn Science and Engineering Complex, 235 Carroll St., Akron, OH 44325-3908 and PHELPS, Daniel J., Kentucky Paleontological Society, 2004 Sawyer Ct., Lexington, KY 40514, kent.ratajeski@uky.edu
The Ark Encounter, a $101 million Christian-themed park in Williamstown, Kentucky opened to 6000 visitors on July 7, 2016. The attraction features a 155-meter long wooden reconstruction of Noah’s Ark based partly on a literal interpretation of the flood narrative found in Genesis 6-9 and partly on pure speculation. Throughout its many exhibits, the attraction promotes young-earth creationist ideas touching on various aspects of stratigraphy, paleontology, structural geology, climatology, biology, genetics, anthropology, mythology, and theology, several of which will be discussed and examined in this talk. Alternate interpretations of the biblical text which account for its historical and cultural context as a document written in the ancient Middle East are noticeably absent, and additional biblical and scientific data which are inconsistent with a universal flood model are largely ignored. The prospect of combating pseudoscientific misinformation on this scale, entrenched as it is within communities of deeply-held religious belief, is daunting. We believe that presentations of the scientific evidence alone, while important and necessary, are unlikely to affect such a change, especially if the evidence is presented in a way that is perceived as openly hostile to persons of faith."

And as also flagged at the Geochristian (Kevin Nelstead) Facebook page:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geRFKxUDdlo&spfreload=5 (I'll have a listen)
Apparently the geologist Kent Ratajeski stated during his presentation: "Why do I care? Not only have young-Earth creationist ideas set back science education, but they also present needless barriers to people considering religious truth claims. Furthermore, young people raised in religious communities may encounter a needless crisis of faith later in life when they head off to college and learn that this stuff isn't true."

But should Ken Ham see the above, I expect he will have a suitable soundbite to make in response. Such as: "Those who reject God as the Creator and believe the religion of molecules-to-man evolution are willingly ignorant of the truth.
“For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.”(2 Peter 3:5–6)".
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
Or maybe this: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, … so that they are without excuse Romans 1:20 @CreationMuseum".
Or this: "Those who reject God as creator and believe the religion of molecules to man evolution are willing ignorant of the truth."
https://twitter.com/aigkenham?ref_src=t ... r%5Eauthor

Ken 'I love science' Ham typically fights against science with religion.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and the Ark Encounter

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:24 am

This very recent blog post reminds me that I FORGOT about listening to the 20 minute YouTube video mentioned in my preceding post. I have now done so. Some interesting geological and climate-related questions are raised (also a question about strangely missing post-flood transitional forms WITHIN the various 'kinds' that must have lived if AiG's claimed 'creation science' is valid). The presentation is by Dr Kent Ratajeski.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/10 ... s-obs.html (contains comments by Dan Phelps, President of the Kentucky Paleontological Society)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8114
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 3 guests

cron