A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

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: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:32 pm

In the feedback at the end (attacking a non-YEC Christian Dr Laurence O whose objection to CMI 'science' was flagged here: http://creation.com/biblical-earth-age-objection) they claim that an initially water covered Earth (as per Genesis), rather than a hot molten blob of an early planet, also makes radiometric dating of rocks worthless (how?).

Were meteorites which land on Earth - found on land - and which have been precisely dated once present on a water-covered Earth described in Genesis 1?

If you start with the Bible and then try to do real science (rejecting ALL non Bible-supporting evidence or claims) you consistently get nonsense results that fail to explain real evidence. As CMI show Christians week after week after week. 'This must be wrong because it makes a right mess of biblical theology.'
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:49 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:In the feedback at the end (attacking a non-YEC Christian Dr Laurence O whose objection to CMI 'science' was flagged here: http://creation.com/biblical-earth-age-objection) they claim that an initially water covered Earth (as per Genesis), rather than a hot molten blob of an early planet, also makes radiometric dating of rocks worthless (how?).

Were meteorites which land on Earth - found on land - and which have been precisely dated once present on a water-covered Earth described in Genesis 1?

If you start with the Bible and then try to do real science (rejecting ALL non Bible-supporting evidence or claims) you consistently get nonsense results that fail to explain real evidence. As CMI show Christians week after week after week. 'This must be wrong because it makes a right mess of biblical theology.'



What Batten wrote in the initial response to Dr O was:
"“These estimates (based on techniques such as the rate of cooling of an initially molten earth and the layering of rock strata) varied between 75,000 years and 96 million years.” [Quoted words of Dr O.]
I wonder if you can see any assumptions (“preconceived notions”) that have to be made here to do this ‘dating’ and how they would affect the result? Note what the Bible says, that the earth was initially covered in water; it was not a molten blob (Genesis 1:2, 2 Peter 3:5). Does anyone know that the earth started as a molten blob? If it was covered in water to start with, then this ‘dating’ is worthless."
What about all the igneous rocks formed LONG AFTER the Earth was still molten/still covered in water? (ALL igneous rocks were by definition once molten.)

Of course Batten writes the stuff he writes because, as he says in his final comment after Dr O came back, "Lawrence [spelt incorrectly], you might choose to disbelieve the clear testimony of the Bible, but please don't pretend that you are honouring God in doing so. Jesus authenticated the Old Testament, including the framework for understanding the OT that we present on creation.com. Furthermore, Jesus said that He only said things that the Father told him to say (John 12:49,50). So, if you deny what Jesus said, you are also denying what God said.
This is a dangerous position to be in and you need to repent of it (as I had to)".

Evidence-based science is SINFUL if this science does not invariably produce conclusions which 'honour' God. Says Dr Batten - who is doing hardline apologetics and NOT science.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:17 pm

How can a position you come to after religious repentance be 'science'?!

It's faith - as Hebrews 11 verse 1 (New International Version) correctly explains: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do NOT see".

Science is ONLY faith in that it sometimes interprets the evidence as showing past or very distant processes that are difficult to observe directly or replicate.

Might be something worth asking Batten about when he comes to the UK.

Creation Science is I would suggest really Creation Faith.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:44 am

New CMI articles normally appear at midnight but this one has only just appeared. Was he rushing or just being cautious? He's still made at least one sloppy mistake (as well as typos like 'cites' instead of 'sites').
http://creation.com/galapagos-origin

I've just submitted the following comment:
"
http://creation.com/galapagos-origin
It was NOT a BBC series.
http://sky1.sky.com/galapagos-3d-with-d ... -3d-series
Will you censor this correction?"

My other comments - sent SEPARATELY:
"
http://creation.com/galapagos-origin
However, radioactive dating is not reliable." Drivel. It (along with history and pre-history) reliably disproves a planet that is only 6,000 years old (in a universe mathematically demonstrated to be 13 billion years old).
"Notice Attenborough’s addition of millions of years to the above scenario: “A very long time ago”, “About 3 million years ago”, “Many million years ago”, all without any evidence or justification, except that as an atheist and an evolutionist he needs the time for his view." And Grigg is lying through his teeth now.
"However, Surtsey Island says: “Not needed!”." YEC propaganda is getting sillier and sillier. Surtsey is less than 5 miles off the Icelandic coast. The Galapagos are 500 MILES away from the South American continent.

Grigg again: "The first cormorants to arrive, that could fly, would have been vulnerable to being blown out to sea in gales, and thus not able to pass on their genes to birds remaining on the islands." So WHY did this claimed scenario occur in the Galapagos but NOT affect cormorants elsewhere in the world? WHY did it occur in possibly the only place in the world where cormorants do not have predators (and very rapidly too if you are a YEC)? Might the Attenborough explanation be correct after all (I did not see the programmes)? He apparently stated: "Its ancestors when they first arrived had wings like any other cormorant, but with no land predators that might threaten the birds sitting in such a vulnerable place [i.e. in their nesting sites], it had no need to fly. Over generations, its wings became smaller and smaller. Now they are mere stumps with a few tattered feathers."

Grigg also says this, referring to Galapagos cormorants: "we would say that this meant a lack of selection pressure [there being no predators] that would eliminate flightless mutants".
Well, well, Grigg is AGREEING with Richard Dawkins there!
And possibly disagreeing with Jonathan Sarfati as well.
On pages 56 and 57 of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' (2010) Sarfati stated that fellow YEC John Sanford had 'proved' in his 2005 book 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome' that a presumably longstanding Dawkins' claim - as made by him on page 352 of 'The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution' in 2009 - that "natural selection promptly penalises the bad mutations" is wrong. Sarfati sought to argue that the smallest BAD mutations (regarded by Dawkins as 'neutral') are 'unaffected by selection' ie 'not' penalised. This sought to challenge pages 331 and 332 of the Dawkins book where he explained that: most "genetic change at the molecular level is neutral" and that "a neutral mutation is one that, although easily measurable by molecular genetic techniques, is not subject to natural selection, either positive or negative".
But being a 'flightless mutant' (rather than flying less well than your peers) does not sound like a 'small' mutation to me ... But if it was not penalised - and it plainly WASN'T - the mutation must have conferred some advantage in the particular geographical setting where it occurred!"

All rather sloppy and unconvincing, Mr Grigg."

And surely Grigg does not think possible predation is the only means of natural selection in operation for this species in this location (once all the flying cormorants had been blown out to sea and drowned)?

As Dawkins made clear, natural selection penalises BAD mutations (NOT good ones).

See also my post at 12.24 am on 11 March here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3198&p=44378&hilit=penalises#p44378

Regardless of what Grigg might wish to deny regarding the Galapagos, millions of years ARE needed for the formation of Hawaii.
This is the best CMI can do with that small problem:
http://creation.com/hawaii-hot-spot
Millions of years is a damn sight more scientific than 'catastrophic plate tectonics' ever will be.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Grigg agrees with Dawkins and contradicts Sarfati!

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:38 pm

This further rather tedious 'x is not evolution' article about some recent Attenborough programmes on Sky has a pop at the end at Michael Roberts.
http://creation.com/galapagos-adaptation


I sent the following comments:
"
http://creation.com/galapagos-adaptation
"Above ground, such a mutation would very quickly be ‘selected against’, as any spider inheriting it would be less likely to find prey and evade predators".

Yet your colleague Jonathan Sarfati claimed on pages 56 and 57 of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' (2010) that fellow YEC John Sanford had 'proved' in his 2005 book 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome' that a presumably longstanding Dawkins' claim, as made by him on page 352 of 'The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution' in 2009, that "natural selection promptly penalises the bad mutations" is wrong. (Sarfati sought to argue that the smallest bad mutations - regarded by Dawkins as 'neutral' not 'bad' - are 'unaffected by selection' ie 'not' penalised.)

Your comments contradict Sarfati. You even quote the SAME bit of Dawkins text and AGREE with it!".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Sarfati contradicted by fellow CMI YEC

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:48 pm

THIS is what Grigg wrote before quoting a chunk from pages 351-353 of Dawkins' book:

"Atheists are fond of using blind troglobionts (cave-dwelling organisms) as evidence for evolution. But they can do that only with the straw man that creationists believe that God directly created blind creatures.10 As shown above, this is not what we believe. In fact, as shown above, creationists would have no problem with arch-atheist Richard Dawkins' explanation: [ ]"

Priceless.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sarfati contradicted by fellow CMI YEC

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:13 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:THIS is what Grigg wrote before quoting a chunk from pages 351-353 of Dawkins' book:

"Atheists are fond of using blind troglobionts (cave-dwelling organisms) as evidence for evolution. But they can do that only with the straw man that creationists believe that God directly created blind creatures.10 As shown above, this is not what we believe. In fact, as shown above, creationists would have no problem with arch-atheist Richard Dawkins' explanation: [ ]"

Priceless.


One could interrpret that as "variation within a created kind"
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4341
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Sarfati contradicted by fellow CMI YEC

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:26 am

Peter Henderson wrote:One could interrpret that as "variation within a created kind"
Microevolution, even. Which is to say, evolution. Q.E.non-D.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4179
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Sarfati contradicted by fellow CMI YEC

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:17 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:THIS is what Grigg wrote before quoting a chunk from pages 351-353 of Dawkins' book:

"Atheists are fond of using blind troglobionts (cave-dwelling organisms) as evidence for evolution. But they can do that only with the straw man that creationists believe that God directly created blind creatures.10 As shown above, this is not what we believe. In fact, as shown above, creationists would have no problem with arch-atheist Richard Dawkins' explanation: [ ]"

Priceless.


One could interrpret that as "variation within a created kind"


Grigg did insist earlier in this section of his article: "However, speciation is an important part of the creation model. Speciation and adaptation are not evolution in the bacteria-to-barristers sense". YECs are forced always to interpret any evidence for so-called macro-evolution beyond 'kinds' as 'things are always getting worse' or 'it's 'devolution' not evolution' ie an originally 'very good' or perfect creation was ruined by sin and the fall and is now cursed ie the mutations not selected against are still 'information-losing' and mean that flight and sight etc are lost not gained - and the current creation will eventually be replaced by a 'new' one.

But he 'forgot' to explain why that must be so when agreeing with and extensively quoting Dawkins. He hopes his readers will just accept that what is claimed by scientists as evolution in progress is ALWAYS information-loss or devolution (as it might be in the case of the cave salamanders losing their sight and their eyes becoming vestigial). But YECs never admit that mutations can also ADD genetic information.

I find Grigg's articles generally rather weak and poorly researched.

(The distraction technique here is that Dawkins has been on record as misunderstanding, in a logical sort of way, what YECs claim to believe about blind creatures living in caves - and assuming God must, if you are a YEC, have created some cave creatures blind ie possessing eyes of a sort but functionless but 'dummy eyes'. This viewpoint was quoted in the link given at footnote 10, where Christopher Hitchens was quoted as saying with respect to blind cave salamanders - which have eyes of a kind so YECs must believe that recently created salamander 'kinds' had eyes from Creation Week - that their "eyes were denoted only by little concavities or indentations". And Dawkins did use the phrase that God may have given created creatures 'dummy eyes' on page 351 in 'The Greatest Show on Earth' in 2009; echoing a letter of his to Hitchens - stating that cave salamanders have 'vestiges of eyes' and adding "why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?" - which is also quoted in the link at footnote 10.)

I'm planning a further analysis of this - how sometimes agreeing with specific Dawkins comments suits YECs but other times it clearly does NOT.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby Michael » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:53 pm

I got quoted in the Galapogas article!!
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:08 pm

Plenty of historical revisionism here (it was known via science very much earlier than 1913 that Earth was very much older than just 6,000 years).
http://www.101arguments.com/2013/04/the ... d-age.html
Also, whether deliberately or not, plenty of use of Ken Ham's 'lines to take' - it could almost have been written by him.

"It is impossible for me to do justice to this topic in a short article – the confusion, virtual brainwashing, indoctrination, and peer pressure on it is massive. So I encourage you to do your own research on it."
I HAVE DONE, BRENDAN, I HAVE. Which is how I know that you seem not to know what you are talking about when it comes to geology and astronomy.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:30 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Plenty of historical revisionism here (it was known via science very much earlier than 1913 that Earth was very much older than just 6,000 years).
http://www.101arguments.com/2013/04/the ... d-age.html
Also, whether deliberately or not, plenty of use of Ken Ham's 'lines to take' - it could almost have been written by him.

"It is impossible for me to do justice to this topic in a short article – the confusion, virtual brainwashing, indoctrination, and peer pressure on it is massive. So I encourage you to do your own research on it."
I HAVE DONE, BRENDAN, I HAVE. Which is how I know that you seem not to know what you are talking about when it comes to geology and astronomy.


What a load of bollocks Ashley.

He clearly hasn't a clue about the history of science.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4341
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:47 pm

http://www.101arguments.com/p/contributors.html
"Brendan Larsen is a keen surfer. He has a theology degree and is passionate about creation evangelism and contextualising the gospel."

http://www.creationconversations.com/pr ... haelLarsen
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

David Catchpoole used to be a scientist ...

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:36 am

... But then became an anti-science bigot for Jesus.

My message to the zealots at CMI:

"
http://creation.com/twice-as-wrong-and-more

Crude, clumsy and unconvincing propaganda, David C. You hate science.

Would you care to explain why God allowed the huge anomalocaridid shrimps to go 'recently' extinct, when other shrimps are alive and well.

Of course you wouldn't which is why somebody will censor this comment and probably not even forward it to you.

Are you never ashamed of spouting the nonsense (for Jesus) which you once rightly detested (when you were already a converted Christian)?

People like you are a disgrace."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 6,000 year old, and Biblical, Earth and universe?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:43 am

https://www.facebook.com/events/593173124026658/

'When was the ice age in Biblical history?'

Never.

Next question?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron