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 Peter Henderson » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:31 am

Some comments from Greg Neyman on CMI's article today on supposed academic fraud:

http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/cmi/ar ... _fraud.htm
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
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 Mar 26, 2014 12:28 am

Email as sent to assorted YECs (and the bible.and.science.forum):


YECs: haters of science and knowledge; lovers of fact-free dogma and propaganda for Jesus.

Sorry, minor typos were below [first email, reproduced in quotes]. NOW corrected. And the pathetic O2 email often breaks links - the first one is Sorensen's blog post at Piltdown Superman dated 25 March and entitled 'Evolution and Misrepresentation'.

And I see that those evil folk at The Question Evolution Project facebook page - the poisonous bigoted censorious minnows who give Christianity a VERY bad name on the internet - have been ranting about some wicked evolutionist(s) that they have censored and banned beforehand so that they CANNOT defend themselves:
"Instead of getting offended, how about reading the article and seeing why the outburst? I have another name for these kinds of evolutionists: LIARS. And it has nothing to do with having a "different worldview" than mine. When you did that, it was an appeal to motive fallacy as well as a circumstantial ad hominem." [how do you know the person did not read the article?]
" Now the innocent victim act, and ignoring the fact that you were committing fallacies in your scolding effort." [what fallacies were those?]
"So, you approve of evolutionists being dishonest, Poindexter?" [did the person say he did? I think that is EXTREMELY unlikely. Not even Catchpoole used the word 'dishonesty' anyway.]
"Good riddance to trolls." [You can just feel the lurve ...]

How would a person treated like DIRT by The Question Evolution Project EVER take Christianity seriously?

Oh I forgot the target audience is cowards and anti-science bigots like ... who seems to think Christians should behave like they don't believe any god of truth exists.

"
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/03 ... ation.html
http://creation.com/telling-tales-how-e ... heir-story
What do we get from these links?
- Evolutionists allegedly 'misrepresent' creationists;
- Evolutionists make assertions (in peer reviewed science journals in
the public domain) which are 'unsupported by' or 'contrary to' the
evidence;
- Evolutionists take evidence that 'refutes their paradigm' and
present it as support for their belief system;
- People who listen to evolutionists are 'gullible';
- The truth is 'on the side of creationists' (says a creationist but
only fellow creationists - and of the right kind - agree);
- Creationists do not need to resort to 'creative deceptions' and
'wild stories' (do they somehow need to churn out propaganda against
'evolutionists' though?);
- Evolutionists tell 'tales' and indulge in 'creative, but myopic,
'spin''.
All this - never mind the available evidence - is enough to make a
person of average intelligence suspect that their must be something
TO what evolutionists say (whether or not a God caused evolution) ...
""Charles Darwin thought that the eye, which he called an ‘organ of
extreme perfection’, was a serious challenge to evolutionary theory—but
he was mistaken. Theory predicts that eyes can evolve with great speed,
and now there is support for this prediction from the fossil record.
Well-preserved fossils found in Early Cambrian shales from South
Australia show that some of the earliest arthropods known had eyes very
like those of some insects alive today, …”
Clever indeed—turning the problem of an evolutionary origin of the
eye, the problem of ‘sudden appearance’ of complex fully-functional
eyes way down in the ‘fossil record’, and the problem of evolutionary
stasis (things staying the same) over supposedly millions of years,
into seeming support for the notion that sophisticated life forms could
easily and quickly bring themselves into existence."
This ONLY appears to make sense, and appears to support biblical
creation, because Dr Catchpoole DENIES the fact of deep time and
ASSUMES that Darwin could not have been wrong - despite discoveries
since his lifetime - about sophisticated eyes challenging
evolutionary theory.
"arthropods' fully-functional eyes have always been that way". The
ONLY person saying that is Dr Catchpoole. But he cannot support his
statement with evidence - only with Bible verses (possibly).
"But the researchers glossed over the evolutionary problems their
fossil discovery raised...". WHAT problems are those Dr Catchpoole?
Do tell.
"Beware of spin". Don't worry, Dr Catchpoole, I already AM.
Science must be refuted by better science. Not propaganda. Otherwise
nobody - except zealots - will believe you.
Oh, I forgot. The target audience for these articles IS science-
detesting religious zealots.
But I read them too, because they attack science and scientists.
Young Earth creationists - proving that however much they may wish to
avoid doing such, it is impossible to defend biblical creation
without attacking and lying about scientists and ignoring masses of
scientific evidence.
If I am talking nonsense about your article Dr Catchpoole, please
feel free to refute me.
However I am pleased to Mr Sorensen appears to have stopped lying
about me on his blogs and facebook page."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

A FALSE claim by ICR YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:03 pm

This appears to be either utter incompetence or deliberate lying as part of their policy of general science denial and unnecessary (unless you are a fundamentalist) 'muddying of the waters'.

http://www.icr.org/article/8032/
"This concept of "deep time" is firmly based on the uniformitarian view of nature, i.e., that decay rates for radioisotopes have always been as they appear today. But recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated this assumption to be incorrect under certain conditions."

ONE of the two articles footnoted here - though I had to search for it - is this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1614
And here is a very readable summary of the issues:
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... form-89594

The calculated half-life of the radioactive isotope Samarium 146 has been revised.

ON WHAT PLANET DOES THIS EQUATE TO A VARIATION IN THE DECAY RATE OF THIS ISOTOPE OVER GEOLOGICAL TIME?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:25 pm

Look what Charles Darwin has done now. From BEYOND THE GRAVE:
http://creation.com/
"In what can only be described as an obscene byproduct of evolutionary thinking ..."

http://creation.com/hospitals-heated-by ... ted-babies
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 » Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:58 pm

http://johnhartnett.org/2014/04/11/why- ... o-believe/
'Why is a 6,000 year old universe so hard to believe?'
Because scientists have shown it to be fiction.

This article is a perfect example of how young earth creationism is ANTI-SCIENCE. And - when the people espousing it are scientifically knowledgeable - wilful self-delusion and lying in order to mislead fellow Christians.

"The mind is already set on a particular worldview and it is not the biblical worldview." No - the biblical worldview put forward by YEC ideologues like Hartnett, when it comes to physical reality, involves blatant SCIENCE DENIAL. Replaced by FANTASY dressed up as 'science'. And plenty of arm-twisting ie saying that if you listen to and trust scientists regarding the vast age of the universe (many scientists are theists of one kind or another) this simply proves that you are being conned by 'scientism' - because "mankind does not want to believe in a universe with a Creator".

Such arrogance. Such denial of reality.


EDIT ON 14.4.14: Bob Sorensen 'likes' the Hartnett anti-science preaching:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/04 ... ntism.html
He accuses people who don't, and who reject some unspecified contrary 'evidence' against deep time that Bob has imagined must exist, of doing this "from their own pride, arrogance, and blind faith". But totally fails to back up his accusations with ANY supporting facts...

PS Bob is also an APRIL FOOL. As my forthcoming post in the Sorensen thread will explain...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:18 pm

PS
Talking of ranting propaganda (note the tone and some of the language; this IS, anonymous, propaganda):
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... -bang.html

I do not claim to understand all the issues (they are to do with finding evidence for inflation as I understand it), but there has been some talk about a possible Nobel Prize.

Should that occur, I will be tempted to ask 'Truth in Science' how come the scientists won a Nobel Prize if the objections of TiS have any shred of validity.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 17, 2014 9:47 pm

A SPECTACULAR example of a YEC Bible basher LYING. I refer to 'Reason' number 4:
http://johnhartnett.org/2013/12/17/8-re ... omment-325

Some very interesting comments underneath! Which of course Hartnett is having none of because of his worldview.

I have submitted the following (but it awaits 'moderation'):
"It’s bordering on foolish that the first five of your ‘reasons’ are to do with astronomy and geology NOT biology.
Please note that both unbelievers AND believers alike consider young Earth creationist apologists to be Liars for Jesus."


PS The comment has been approved and he has replied.

I've submitted another comment but I'm not sure whether it will remain visible (as it currently is):
"Hartnett IS lying, just as alleged above. Radiocarbon dating is reliable (see that Wikipedia link) but cannot date materials older than around 62,000 years as the amounts still detectable would be so minute. "You only say it gives a null result because of your belief in long ages and the putative geologic history of the Earth". What nonsense you write. A null result occurs - because the material in question is too old to be accurately dated using the radiocarbon method. That is the fact of the matter. Nothing to do with religious or other 'beliefs'.

"I am not lying for Jesus, the dates I give are from radiometric dating labs, I did not make it up." You ARE lying because the critic above did not SAY that. He said: "Saying carbon 14 dating of rocks gives absolute ages of 56,000 is Lying for Jesus". Though McClancy slightly misquoted your (not clearly expressed) viewpoint that "all rocks dated with Carbon-14 give ‘absolute ages’ less than 56,000 yrs".

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=49093&sid=5e6cff95603896cf8f16966c3885797f#p49093"


PPS A third attempted comment just now:
"A person who hates me or one of his associates at 'The Question Evolution Project' (please click on the first link):
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/04 ... other.html

Has written of my first comment (which Mr Hartnett did politely responded to):
"Why would anyone in his right mind allow such a worthless and vituperative comment?"
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

Mr Hartnett - whilst you may dislike my comments, you may wish to be aware that YEC Bob Sorensen is questioning whether you are in your 'right mind'.

I politely suggest that Mr Sorensen is both a fool and a hypocrite pretending to be a Christian. I base this on my dealings with him across the internet during the past couple of years. As detailed at the BCSE community forum (which is open to all unlike TQEP).

As for Sorensen's blog post above. "Will this kind of bigoted, hateful thinking lead to violence at some point?" First - what on Earth have my recent highlighted BCSE comments got to do with animal rights? Second - the answer to Bob's loaded question is NO. Comments like mine will I trust simply lead sensible and educated people, including some Christians, to think TWICE about trusting young earth creationist ideologues like Sorensen. Who also sometimes make false accusations about their critics behind their backs. Who - in Sorensen's case - suggest that their critics are 'atheopaths' or 'atheofascists' or 'insane' - instead of dealing with their arguments."

(This comment awaits moderation - possibly due to it containing more than one link.)

(I emailed Sorensen regarding his blog NONSENSE earlier. Should he carry on badmouthing me behind my back, my message will also be posted here for all to read. Mr Sorensen wishes to CENSOR every opinion that does not agree with his. But he cannot make this happen!)


FURTHER EDIT: I have now found yet MORE false and malicious badmouthing apparently by Sorensen at TQEP against myself and against this community forum. Thus a wide-circulation email is being sent. It also contains my earlier email to Sorensen (the gist of which is already contained above so I will omit it here as this post is already lengthy).

The message reads:
"Bob Sorensen - April fool and Easter hypocrite

If people do not agree with HIM about science matters they are 'atheofascists' who are encouraging 'violence'. Apparently.
The man is OUT OF CONTROL.

See here if you don't believe me:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman (especially the threads of 17 April about the John Hartnett blog and the Bill Nye-Ken ham debate).
Please see the latter part of my post here timed at 22.47 hours on 17 April:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=735

My earlier email to Sorensen (before I looked at 'The Question Evolution Project) read: "[TEXT WAS INSERTED]"

Bottom line - he is desperate to SHUT ME UP by falsely badmouthing me. He will not succeed.

I am not trying to shut him up but simply stop him lying and falsely attacking people. Revelation 21:8.

Is he behaving like an honest Christian?

I would point out again that he has been trying very hard for years to portray me as dishonest - for the crime of disagreeing with his propaganda blogs.

A H-R"


UPDATE at 0.24 hours BST on 18 April:
The dishonest fool Sorensen has now hastily REMOVED his angry comment - quoted above - implying that fellow YEC John Hartnett is not in his "right mind" because he ALLOWED my first comment under his blog. Mr Hartnett - if you are reading this - I did NOT make up Bob's comment I can assure you!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:23 am

I tried another (fourth) comment to Hartnett in reply to some irrelevant garbage from Sorensen - but it has disappeared into thin air.

Thus Hartnett is creating the FALSE impression - by allowing Sorensen's attack but deleting my comments* - that my comments should be dismissed because I have a record of calling people like Sorensen 'liars'.

EVERY SINGLE YEC I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED ONLINE HAS BEEN A LIAR WHO HATES PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THE FINDINGS OF SCIENCE.

This was the attempted comment - which I trust Sorensen and Hartnett WILL read HERE:
"You are a PROVEN liar Mr Sorensen. I would say the same if you suddenly became a theistic evolutionist. Since you have falsely accused me of lying, being an 'atheofascist' and encouraging 'violence', committing logical fallacies, indulging in 'misrepresentation' etc etc. Every single one of your nasty and malicious claims about me has been refuted HERE:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/
I also see that Hartnett has REMOVED my comment that he has now responded to (which also quoted Bob's HASTILY REMOVED comment at TQEP Facebook page questioning whether Hartnett was in his 'right mind' for failing to censor me from the outset). The comment in question can however be read HERE - where censorship is NOT the FIRST resort. Because we have nothing to HIDE unlike YEC ideologues do:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=735
Sorensen is a bully and a hypocrite in Christian clothing - who wishes that ALL people disagreeing with him could be censored from the internet. You can at least have some kind of discussion with SOME YECs such as Mr Hartnett. Not with Bob. He's too angry and too thick. He's still not corrected his blog post of 14 April LOL.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/04 ... ntism.html
I do not claim to be a geology expert but claims of radiocarbon found 'in' diamonds and so forth have been refuted by honest Christians who also understand geology as well as in places such as Rational Wiki:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_eviden ... e_universe
See here (comments by Jon Baker as well as myself): http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/08/ ... nt-page-2/"

Looks like Hartnett is trying to prove to the obnoxious bigot Sorensen that he IS in his 'right mind' after all.

The 'wrong mind' being to allow any dissenting fact-based viewpoints under creationist propaganda blogs.

The people 'confused' by facts are the religious anti-science frauds like Sorensen and Hartnett. May Christians see through these lying, deluded, charlatans and zealots. They close ranks when threatened with being exposed for what they are and exposed as presenting a misleading picture of what science 'knows'.


* Hartnett has falsely ie without informing other readers EDITED my second comment. And censored the third.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 21, 2014 8:04 pm

http://johnhartnett.org/2013/12/17/8-re ... omment-393

Given that Hartnett has supposedly refuted someone else's comments about the radiocarbon 'in' diamonds issue, over the weekend I RE-POSTED my (previously censored comment - see above) that COVERED this issue and also supplied relevant links (but minus my complaint about Sorensen in case it was that he wished to hide). I said to Hartnett that if he did not allow my comment the second time and try to refute it, this would show me that he does not WANT answers.

He has duly censored me again.

THESE PEOPLE ARE LYING FRAUDS. UPPER CASE DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY REFLECT THE EMPHASIS WITH WHICH I MAKE THIS STATEMENT.

They are also disgusting people who 'forgive' obnoxious behaviour by fellow YECs whilst condemning reasonable behaviour by their opponents. Sorensen questioned whether Hartnett was in his 'right mind' for allowing my first comment. (He then hastily deleted that when I highlighted it.) Yet coward Hartnett turns a blind eye to Bob's hypocritical behaviour and allows his accusation against me to stand - whilst CENSORING my response that clarifies the position following Sorensen's clumsy attempt to MUDDY THE WATERS.

And the lowlife Gordons and Morris have been whinging on my facebook page after I blocked a tirade of offensive comments there by Wilson. One of them is hypocritically calling me a 'hypocrite'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:25 pm

Further confirmation that young earth creationist ideologues are essentially anti-science and wish that all Christians were the same as them:

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/ ... /53590/p1/
"As Christians it should be the Bible and not what scientists say that is most important when considering our origins. Science cannot become a substitute for faith."
The article has been flagged here: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... ment-73623
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 May 01, 2014 9:56 pm

http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/05/ ... eationism/

I have left the following comment:

"How do the findings in ANY of these links support traditional young earth creationist claims?

Hafnium is not used for radiometric dating. What on earth have the second and third link got to do with alleged variation over time in decay rates of radioactive isotopes? NOTHING. Trust me. And I cannot open the Forbes link so you need to EXPLAIN its alleged relevance.

And I see you are repeating yet again - with a new twist that is aiming to confuse people - your previous lie about a 'bushy' tree of life being like a 'creationist orchard' of SEPARATE trees. Except you have now started pretending that young earth creationists have been predicting not an orchard but a 'creation bush' with 'many starting kinds' - whatever that means. YECs have insisted previously on numerous trees of 'kinds', NOT one single very dense bush or shrub of life - which of course REAL science currently points to. "Secular proponents of common decent are scrambling lately to make sense of much conflicting data that seems to confirm the creation bush." I suggest that the person scrambling through the undergrowth, and getting caught, is YOU.

I DISTINCTLY remember refuting the previous argument TWICE - though you appear to have since censored my comments (this goes onto the BCSE community forum as well).
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2012/09/ ... -teaching/
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=42160&hilit=orchard#p42160 (my comment of 27.10.12)

And Darwin having been 'wrong'about something does NOT equate to young earth creationists being 'right' about ANY science relating to past events and processes. If Darwin was alive today he would doubtless revise some of his past conclusions - like any genuine scientist when faced with new evidence.

'Genetic entropy' (which I suspect your links do NOT propose) is a hypothetical process invented by young earth creationists like John Sanford. People with an anti-science agenda. "The accusation that creationists hate and/or do not understand science simply isn’t true." I beg to differ.

Your kind of wilful ignorance is what Bill Nye battles against in the US. Over here we are free of it.

You also need to spell check your articles I suggest."


PS In the event that it mysteriously vanishes without trace, I have just made the following further comment (one of several I've made incidentally):
"Why has my reply to Sorensen been censored please? He IS trying to poison the discussion, Tim.
viewforum.php?f=18"

Gilleand is allowing a scientific discussion.

And LIAR Sorensen is fulminating and making false and absurd allegations. Again.


PPS Liar Sorensen is still very bitter against me - even when I am not talking to or about him. It's because I expose his hypocritical behaviour on the internet.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

David Catchpoole gets heckled

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 05, 2014 11:37 pm

Comment as sent to CMI:

http://creation.com/behind-the-evolution-facade
Young Earth creationism is not scientific. Evolution is. You are science deniers and religious ideologues. Catchpoole is one of the worst such offenders spreading falsehoods and convenient half-truths and that I suspect is why he was interrupted and challenged (though some atheists have not always done their homework). He of course wishes to shrug this all off as 'persecution' and proof that those who disagree with them do so because they have a 'spiritual' problem (even though many active Christians accept the scientific evidence for evolution). Catchpoole of course cites CMI non peer reviewed articles to back up his claims - how is that for the circular reasoning creationists claim to detest?
The Abstract of that Kondrashov article states: "Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."
Catchpoole apparently told his audience about a past CMI article he wrote (at http://creation.com/time-no-friend-of-evolution) which mentioned the paper by Kondrashov from 1995. However, he did NOT refer to this comment from the Abstract (nor provide a live [typo corrected] link) but simply informed readers of the CMI website: "However, their puzzlement arises because they believe that humans have been on earth for at least 100,000 years (some would say a million years)" - something I doubt that Kondrashov was ever disputing ie he did not suggest the only solution was a 6,000 year old Earth.
If CMI had nothing to hide you would refute my comments about your articles instead of censoring them. Unlike some, and sitting in front of a computer makes this easier, I do try to do my homework before criticising CMI website articles. I know they pounce on errors - whilst hoping their critics will fail to spot their own misleading claims or false dichotomies.
The 'facade' is Young Earth Creationism. A desperate attempt to base all 'true' science on the Bible alone - where evidence is forced into a YEC paradigm (or simply disregarded).
Of course some atheists prefer the 'meaning for life' that YEC dogma or indeed honest Bible preaching offers. Thus Catchpoole himself went from unbeliever to Christian to YEC to YEC ideologue over a period of years. It can happen. Even if YEC dogma is not genuine science because it does not follow the scientific method.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue May 06, 2014 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 » Tue May 06, 2014 12:26 am

EDITED SLIGHTLY AFTER I SENT THE LINK TO CMI - NOW FINAL.

PS I hope my comments got to CMI OK - I had to use a link to send an email to a UK address, as the links under new articles no longer work for me, and thus I had to split my comment into four separate parts to comply with number of character restrictions.

Here's ANOTHER CMI article which DOES look at synergistic epistasis.
http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis

I quote:
"However, mutations need to be more than beneficial and information-increasing to produce new coordinated structures and systems, as microbes-to-man evolution requires. Mutations don’t act alone; the effect of a mutation on an organism’s phenotype depends on other genes, and mutations in those genes, in the genome. This is called epistasis; it is an important consideration for evolution because how mutations interact will determine if they could possibly build new structures in a stepwise manner.
For microbes-to-man evolution to occur, mutations need to be not just (specified) information-increasing and beneficial, they also need to work together. This also has to be the main dominant trend in adaptive evolution so that the mutations can together produce new biological structures and systems. This phenomenon is called synergistic epistasis (SE), where the combined effect of mutations is greater together than the sum of their individual effects. This is obviously a good situation for beneficial mutations, but very bad for harmful mutations. In harmful mutations, SE can result in synthetic lethality, where the combined effects of several harmful mutations are compounded by each other’s presence, resulting in such a bad effect that it kills the organism. So evolution needs SE to be common only in beneficial mutations; it works against evolution when it occurs in harmful mutations.
Antagonistic epistasis (AE) is the opposite of SE. It occurs when mutations have a negative influence on each other, such that their combined effect is less than the sum of the effect of the individual mutations. For harmful mutations, this is a good thing because it mutes the effect of individual mutations and stalls error catastrophe. This is obviously no help for evolution in the long run, since they are still harmful mutations. However, AE presents problems for evolution if it occurs in beneficial mutations. The benefits of individual mutations are muted by other beneficial mutations, resulting in a decreasing rate of fitness increase with every beneficial mutation added."

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this. Doyle appears to rule out evolutionary theory because synergistic epistasis would affect deleterious as well as beneficial mutations (but it might not do so - ie a 'good' mutation being cancelled out by a 'bad' one - in every single case, and I'm not certain whether such epistasis is vital in order for an occasional beneficial mutation to benefit the genome).

For what it's worth, this is the Wikipedia page on epistasis (only skimmed due to its length). I note that the two terms used by CMI do not prominently appear in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis

And the Kondrashov article which mentions one of the terms is 20 years old. He referred to synergistic epistasis but - if the more recent CMI article above is using the correct terminology - perhaps Kondrashov really meant antagonistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations? Whatever he meant, the 2012 Catchpoole article failed to consider this possibility. Even though his colleague Doyle (in 2011) wrote that antagonistic epistasis occurs in cases where mutations "have a negative influence on each other".

Thus one CMI scientist (Doyle) makes a point that antagonistic epistasis is "no help for evolution in the long run" (because it involves 'negative influence' when beneficial as well as when deleterious mutations occur). Whereas the other (Catchpoole) appears to be (silently) dismissing whichever form of epistasis Kondrashov was considering when discussing deleterious mutations - because he thinks we WOULD be dead by now from deleterious mutations IF humanity had really existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Even though Doyle admitted when discussing antagonistic epistasis "for harmful mutations, this is a good thing".

I am sending the link to this thread to CMI.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Lies to cover up previous lies at CMI (abetted by Liar Bob)?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 06, 2014 6:06 pm

There are now comments under the Catchpoole article. Some of them are decidedly INTERESTING (though my points as flagged here have not been acknowledged). The comments shed some light on the bunker mindset of the science rejecting YEC ideologue. Apparently YECs censor and refuse to answer questions merely because 'atheists don't want answers'. (Yes this piece of bile has come from that Egotistical Self-Righteous Hypocritical Liar and False Accuser 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen.) Well THIS anti-creationist wants GOOD answers not 'biblical' junk.

And I note that Liar Catchpoole proclaims "Note that Dr John Sanford has addressed the attempted 'synergistic epistasis' dodge in this article: http://creation.com/genetic-entropy"

I do NOT understand how 'synergistic epistasis' must be a 'dodge' (to avoid a 'young Earth') when the earlier CMI article by Doyle that Liar Catchpoole does not mention states of antagonistic epistasis (which I suspect is what Kondrashov really meant) that "for harmful mutations, this is a good thing". How is a 'good thing' also a 'dodge' to 'explain away' how much genetic decay 'must' have occurred over hundreds of thousands of years (ie we are not 'dead' because epistasis may have reduced the effect of harmful mutations over time and NOT because humanity is just 6,000 years old)?

Having skimmed the Sanford article that Catchpoole links to, I note that it says (correctly I think) "to the extent synergistic epistasis happens, it obviously will accelerate degeneration!"

So is Catchpoole dismissing synergistic epistasis as a 'dodge' because it accelerates degeneration (by multiplying the effect of deleterious mutations). Even though Kondrashov seemingly either used the wrong terminology or was using the expression 'synergistic epistasis' in some different sense to how CMI are using it? Note that Catchpoole does NOT explain how synergistic epistasis (which he does not even define) is a 'dodge' - he just says please read the Sanford article.

Back to the Hypocrite Sorensen. He is a PROVEN Liar. On this community forum he has been proven to be an Unrepentant Compulsive Serial Liar. He also falsely claims that if an attack on YEC-ism or on HIM is 'emotional' it must also be 'irrational'. NO, Bob. Perhaps people become emotional because of your irrational and unchristian serial lying and false personal accusations and how you act evasively or outright demonise rational arguments that you personally dislike? Just a Thought.

And what LOGICAL FALLACY is that which you are hypocritically committing Liar Bob by equating emotion with 'irrationality'? What about the emotion that you regularly display when people challenge your strident opinions? Is YOUR emotion 'rational'?

I want a REAL answer to my questions Liar Cowboy Bob, from those CMI experts. However I am CERTAIN that I will not get one. (I never have done so far.)

So will they REFUSE to give me a good answer because they have decided that they HAVE a good answer but I don't WANT the answer whatever it might be?

On what planet does that comply with 1 Peter 3:15?

Anybody would think that Cowboy Bob ONLY believes in Bible verses that he LIKES and not in ones that he HATES.


EDIT at 21:42 hours. I have emailed CMI (Tas Walker since all my emails to the CMI suffix get blocked) seeking clarification from Catchpoole of HOW epistasis was a 'dodge' in the particular case discussed in his new article, as he is claiming in response to one of the comments underneath.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue May 06, 2014 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
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 » Tue May 06, 2014 8:01 pm

I note that Sorensen is also a Conspiracy Theorist (or pretending to be):
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/05 ... hales.html
(At the time of writing a query to Sorensen about this article by a Ben Henderson can be read HERE:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
From the comments it would appear that 'Real Science Radio' may have MISREPRESENTED palaeontologist Phil Gingerich.
Henderson quotes an email he says he has received from Gingerich today:
"Dear Mr. Henderson -- Attached are two publications describing Rodhocetus and a followup publication [Henderson quotes these sources] describing an even more complete skeleton of contemporary Maiacetus. I hope these answer your questions about the fossil skeletons.
I have been criticized for speculating that Rodhocetus may have had a fluked tail when I didn't have the whole tail, but this was clearly identified as speculation or expectation and not known fact. Subsequent discovery of Maiacetus shows definitively that Maiacetus lacked a tail fluke and contemporary whales like Rodhocetus at this early stage probably lacked a tail fluke too.
Best wishes – Philip".)

And it appears that anybody who dares to DISAGREE with Mr Sorensen has a 'faulty moral compass':
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests