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 » Thu May 08, 2014 10:02 pm

Sorensen is LYING about that dispute about whales on the TQEP facebook page. See the opening paragraph here:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/05 ... ology.html

He is claiming that Henderson was an 'atheopath' and "was making ridiculous allegations even though the evidence was right of front of them". He then makes ridiculous comments about preferring "to attack the people presenting the information". Henderson attacked nobody. Sorensen is a liar and a reprobate (yes I AM ATTACKING HIM because he is making false accusations regarding Henderson in order to play a 'victim card').

The discussion here - I have taken onscreen photos in case Sorensen was tempted to delete something - shows NO SUCH THINGS.
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

I am sending a facebook message to Ben Henderson.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 May 12, 2014 4:58 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 20, 2014 7:48 pm

NONE of this tosh explains why there should be a 6,000 year old Earth in a plainly extremely old universe.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/05 ... s-and.html
http://creation.com/geologists-not-biased

Bob Sorensen claims to think that people should become 'better informed' about science. I think he is an offensive bigot who is lying his head off.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jun 03, 2014 4:42 pm

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/06 ... -want.html
"However their explanations fall far short of giving adequate explanations."
Garbage.
http://www.icr.org/article/8164/
Funny how Morris does not address the question of how the massive Antarctic canyon could conceivably have been covered in truly vast amounts of snow and ice (in the world's driest continent) in just 1,500 years. Something which 'uniformitarian geologists' CAN explain - by recognising the real amount of time that was needed.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:15 am

https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
"Have you seen the trailer for Evolution's Achilles' Heels? We know that many critics have been watching since the ratio of 'dislikes' to 'likes' is currently 3 to 1! Great that we're having an impact even on our opponents, but if you support our documentary, how about giving us a 'like' on YouTube so we can reach even more?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JETykU7YnE4
"Comments are disabled for this video."

Not here they aren't.

It's propaganda.

57 Likes. 1,094 Dislikes.

Which CMI take as confirmation that they are right.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jun 20, 2014 10:27 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

'Biblical' flooding

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:18 am

http://creation.com/disaster-biblical-proportions
Rationalists who believe in science say a literally worldwide flood less than 10,000 years ago is both fictional and impossible bar 'supernatural intervention'. Whatever the Bible appears to teach. Rationalists who believe in science but who are also Christians and accept the Bible as from God say that the event in Genesis must have been either a local or regional inundation or that the story is mythical/allegorical but points to God's past judgment against sin.
Fundamentalist ideologues say that a literally worldwide and recent flood 'must' have happened because the Bible says that it did.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jun 28, 2014 10:34 am

I mention under this blog post disgusting lies previously told by CMI on their website in a desperate attempt to prove Biologos wrong about scientific discoveries that these more moderate Christians accept:
http://www.godofevolution.com/another-m ... qus_thread
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jul 04, 2014 1:24 am

In case it fails to moderation 'test' my first comment at this blog reads as follows:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... omment-685

"Supernaturalism is not science. The supernatural probably does not exist in today’s natural world or indeed the natural world in the past. Science must be naturalistic (if God exists he should not hide behind supernaturalism if he wants to be believed in).

You have just told me by email (in a separate conversation):
“Do you believe creationists are trying to indoctrinate children at the Creation Museum? If you do, you are lying (from my vantage point). You have to read Mr. Ham’s comments from his worldview standing. If evolution is false, and it is being pushed on the culture through public schools, museums, and other fundings – then yes, that is indoctrination. In his worldview there is not a single lie told. And I agree. I have never seen any evidence for human evolution that cannot be explained through the lens of scripture. There is not one interpretation for every piece of evidence, but there is one truth. But no way scientifically to know that truth. Therefore it always comes down to belief. From my worldview you are wrong. From your worldview I am wrong. Neither way can be proven. Therefore it is not a lie unless you can prove the opposite is correct. You cannot.”

Thus you superimpose Christian/Bible ‘worldview’ upon scientific evidence. And accuse those who simply examine evidence of ‘bias’.

My email reply was:
“Although I have never been there (I have watched videos of Ken Ham addressing kids) I most certainly do believe the Creation Museum indoctrinates – whether or not you wish to label me as a ‘liar’ (I’ve added a rider re indoctrination’ after checking Wikipedia – see viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=49362#p49362).

“I have never seen any evidence for human evolution that cannot be explained through the lens of scripture”. I suspect that you mean explained away ie dismissed along the lines of “no this is simply how God chose to do things and molecules to Man evolution is a wicked lie even if you also believe in the Christian god”. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise with an suitable example.

My ‘proof’ that Ken Ham is a liar in his latest pathetic blog is that even fellow many YECs admit that there is evidence upon which evolutionary theory is built or based. You are saying as much yourself. If there was not, and everybody could see that people like Dawkins or Collins simply make stuff up fraudulently and falsify material evidence, why did Sarfati need to write a detailed book ‘refuting’ Dawkins on evolution? He could have just listed the Dawkins claimed evidence and shown that it does not exist and is totally made-up.

See also:
http://www.godofevolution.com/another-m ... qus_thread

(I promise not to post any further email exchanges here.)

On your examples above, they are not really examples of mainstream confirmation bias (see Wikipedia on confirmation bias) or of being ‘selective’ when first drawing up interpretations regarding the past. They are more examples of apparent anomalies which YECs think of necessity falsify ‘long ages’ or whatever it is they are objecting to as ‘unbiblical’. Note that when YECs tell us what they think is true it is also easy to find anomalies or indeed fallacies:
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.co.u ... mment-form

“Did you know that genetics only finds evidence of degeneration?”. No. I do know that almost nobody agrees with Mr Sanford on this matter. I believe I have also previously refuted some untruths you posted on this matter in one of your blogs.

As for carbon-14 ‘in’ diamonds: http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/08/ ... nt-page-2/ (see comments by Christian geologist Jon Baker)

And if comets point to a ‘young’ solar system, supernovae point to an old universe! A very old universe. (I believe that your claim that the Kuiper Belt – or do you mean the Scattered Disk – has not been observed is the regurgitation of a favourite young Earth creationist anti-science lie.)

Scientists are NOT always averse to trying to overturn consensus interpretations. I am thinking about the retraction of a paper on ‘creating’ stem cells and the questioning of claims made in February this year about detecting gravitational waves.

But YECs are enemies of science because science does not help their cause.

Yes, the UK has outlawed young Earth creationism – and all other forms of pseudo-science – from science classes in public sector schools. We want an educated future workforce.

I am sorry to be so lengthy in my comments – I will try not to do it again (though your piece was fairly long and there was a lot to object to in it)."


EDIT: Liar Gilleand (I have called him that under his blog) has now failed the above comment and written: "This is because your first comment was simply a reply to a personal email exchange we were having and not related to this topic at hand".

EDIT ON 5 JULY (early hours BST):

Since Gilleand is a lying fraud, I post here a post (most of the post in question anyway) that he MAY be tempted to silently censor without justification or explanation - in order to try and cover his dishonest tracks:
"You also once lied to me that you do not censor posts.
You have chosen to hide my post where I said that if you addressed points in my other hidden post, perhaps I should declare your reply ‘off-topic’ (among other things).
I hope you do not believe me to be stupid.
That would itself be stupid.
Revelation 21:8. “All liars… “."

AND I have just tried to post this:
"Just remembered - the post in question also quoted Prof Tertius/Allen Joseph referring to you (not as in his other posts above as far as I can see):
"His "logic" and science is atrocious. One can tell he has no understanding in what he copies and pastes because he said a proof of a young earth is "Carbon still remaining in diamonds!" LOL!
So he doesn't understand isotopes."
I suggested you either do not know what diamonds are or you meant to type 'carbon-14' but simply typed 'carbon'.
Are you censoring the comment because it is embarrassing for you? (Odd since Helena has now said much the same thing.)
But there's no accounting for some people I encounter online."

PS The FRAUD has silently HIDDEN the above post which quotes Rev 21:8 AND another post where I ANSWERED his question about CDs.

The man is a fraud. And a young earth creationist as well.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jul 06, 2014 7:06 pm

Further post to the liar for Jesus (he will probably censor)
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... omment-750:

"Your entire response can be summed up to “nope”." Total rubbish.
"You offered no actual response." Oh yes, I DID.
"You just verified my position". Delusional garbage.
Your interpretation is wrong because it is not supported by any evidence, whether scientific or historical.
A draining flood of several months duration could NOT create the Grand Canyon - except by magic.
And a fossil record proves that animals have died. Who would have thought it?

You, sir, are a liar. You don't like my substance because it shows you to be wrong, so you desperately pretend there is 'no' substance. It won't wash. Either that or you lack comprehension and other intellectual skills (and I'm no brainbox just average intelligence).

YECs are away with the fairies and lying for a lying God if there is a god. My problem is that I detest lying.

PS This is posted at the BCSE community forum too.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=750"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jul 06, 2014 7:28 pm

Mr Gilleand has also shamefully hidden, for the time being at least, THIS post by Allen Miller/Allen Joseph/Professor Tertius:

"Tim wrote:
>"3. Gene duplication is simply duplicating a strand. So for example: say the strand is XYZ, duplicate it and now you have XYZXYZ. Where is the new information? If it were XYZXYA I would agree. Duplication makes no new information."
>

Tim, once again you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. But before I explain this further, think about this: If it was so obviously wrong, if it was that trivially simple, do you NOT think the world's PhD scientists would have noticed? Doesn't it make you pause? Seriously. If XYZXYZ does not add information to XYZ, does it strike you as even slightly odd that someone like you with no training in this field of science "caught the error" while biology professors all over the world at the leading universities did not? Think about it! I see this phenomenon often among denialists online. (Of course, some people react with disgust and say, "Incredible! These Young Earth Creationists who know nothing about the science have egos so inflated that they truly believe that they can "proofread" the work of the world's greatest scientists and pick apart huge errors on the part of the scientists. Hubris is the word often chosen. I really want to know, Tim. Don't you think that out of the THOUSANDS of PhDs in the relevant academic disciples, they all failed to say to their colleagues, "Oops! Did you notice that XYZXYZ doesn't increase information in the genome at all? How did we miss that! We should have shown our journal articles to some untrained, non-scientist man on the street so that they could find our errors for us. Obviously, uneducated, science-illiterates could do a better job of catching our errors than the elite peer-review editorial board of NATURE and other prestigious academic journals!")

I'm retired from the academy and I was NOT a specialist in this particular scientific field. By I can explain a little of this but not nearly as well as a professional who teaches these basics every day. But I can make a few points to explain why it IS an increase in information:

Let's go ahead and use Tim's example: XYZ will represent some gene. (Just keep in mind that XYZ is being used like a programming variable, a name for a genetic sequence, like GTACCCTAAGGAATCG. So, if XYZ gets duplicated, it would be GTACCCTAAGGAATCGGTACCCTAAGGAATCG.

Now, what difference does it make that gene duplication has taken place? Among other things, we now have twice as many nucleotides vulnerable to mutations of various types, such as single nucleotide substitution or even a framing error. This could be shown as XYZ becoming XYZXYZ and then in the next 100 generations, there might be TWICE the probability of a mutation in the string. And that is exactly what can happen: XYZXYZ becomes XYZXYJ! Yet the new string still has XYZ at the beginning, so it may still produce the necessary enzyme (for example) just as it did originally. But now XYJ may produce an additional enzyme which allows the organism to digest a new food source (for example.) So in this case, one evolutionary process (gene duplication) provides step #1 on the ways to step #2, a point mutation/substitution which has ADDED a new function [and information] to the genome!

This brings to mind a fairly common gender-related mutation in humans. As you know, females normally have XX sex-chromosome pairs in their cells while males have XY. But sometimes errors occur and a male is born with XYY, a gene duplication. Has information been added? Yes. And even though it is "simply" a matter of an extra Y getting "duplicated". Human XYY males have fascinated scientists as they've tried to understand exactly how XYY males are different from XY males. I haven't kept current on this subfield but I remember in the 1960's much was written about whether XYY males were genetically predisposed to be incarcerated because of propensities towards violence. Some called them "super-males". But additional study found that many XYY males showed no clear behavioral differences but found greatly elevated IQ scores. You can learn more about XYY Syndrome on Google but it should be clear to you that this is an example of gene duplication and this genetic change has implications for the organism (a human male in this case.)

By the way, XYY Syndrome is an example of just one type of trisomy. It is believed to be caused by an abnormal sperm which is "loaded" with an extra Y, so that the resulting embryo has the extra set of genes (i.e., all the genes on that extra Y-chromosome.)

I should also mention that polyploidy is very common in plants. That is, instead of being diploid like humans, many plants can have tetraploid (four sets of chromosomes) and even hexaploid (six sets)! This is gene duplication on a grand scale and it has had profound implications for feeding Homo sapiens down through the centuries. Wheat originally had just two sets of chromosomes, much like humans. But humans discovered "mutated" variants of wheat which had superior qualities, and those strains of wheat because known as durum or macaroni wheat. Of course, until relatively recently, people didn't know that tetraploidy was responsible for the advantages. But eventually new polyploidy mutations were discovered by ancient peoples and those hexaploid varieties of wheat became known as the "bread wheat" which produces the food one finds in every grocery store.

So are you still so sure that gene duplication doesn't add information to a genome and allow the development of new species? Without new information, there wouldn't be so many different varieties of wheat. (They are different species because they CANNOT easily interbreed to produce fertile offspring.)

If you still think gene duplication can't add new information to a genome, consider a computer program. Would you claim that duplicating some coding statement in a program would not add information to it? Consider a specific example:

Z:= Z * 2 ;

Notice that the code takes the contents of variable Z and doubles it.

Now let's duplicate that statement so that it appears twice in succession in the program:

Z:= Z * 2 ;
Z:= Z * 2 ;

Does this program segment compile to produce the same software as before with identical functions? No! The original code DOUBLED the value stored in Z. The new code segment QUADRUPLES the value in Z.

Does the new program behave differently from the original. Yes. Has new information been added? Yes.

You wrongly assumed that redundant code would necessarily add nothing to the genetic code. In actual fact, it depends upon the particular string of code. Just as in a computer program, some code statements can be doubled without changing the program's behavior while other statements have a huge impact if they are repeated. Example:

J:= 0 ;
J:= 0 ;

Now the duplicated statement has no significant impact on the program when it executes---except that it requires more memory and it take a few CPU cycles longer to run. (And by the way, in a competitive environment, those differences might be contrary to optimal survival!)

So, Tim, do you still think gene duplication does not increase information in the genome? Duplicating XYZ to XYZXYZ might produce all sorts of changes: perhaps doubling the production of an enzyme, adding an extra pair of bilateral structures, speeding digestion, or perhaps initiating some useful redundancy. (No doubt an expert could provide much better examples of the potential implications of that NEW INFORMATION.) Of course, just as with any other mutation, there is no reason to assume that the new information is always beneficial or even neutral. There are many types of trisomy in humans, for example, which produce major birth defects. Yet, those negative results don't deny the reality of new information, extra information, being involved!

Let's be clear: gene duplication can set the stage for more mutations in future generations and produce new species just like polyploidy has done in wheat species.

So, Tim, do you know retract your claim that gene duplication is not an evolutionary process which produces new information?

P.S. I hope you are aware that evolution is more than mutations and natural selection. You should also investigate genetic draft and genetic drift. I have lost track of how many in total are the evolutionary processes which science has discovered. But I'm inclined to think that as research continues, science will discover new ones that have eluded us. Meanwhile, anti-evolution "creation scientists" often pretend that Mutations + Natural Selection + Time =Evolution is the whole story. It isn't and no competent scientist today would say it is the whole story."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jul 06, 2014 11:19 pm

Further attempted post on the fraud Gilleand's blog page:

"You censored my comment where I proved that you were talking dishonest nonsense. How predictable!
It can be read here. Clearly you had no rational response so you reached for the 'zap' button instead.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&start=750

Any god is evil. How do I know? Because of people like you.

Non-YECs SINCERELY believe YECs to be hypocritical liars. But you are so certain of yourself that that does not even trouble you (and fellow YECs including those who ban ALL dissenting comments in order to make themselves look good)."


PS Another response:
"“Validity will always be based on your worldview”. No. Your opinions are not valid science because they are “agreeing with God” when everything points to you being wrong as you have admitted (ie evidence rationally interpreted refutes your position but you cling in regardless and tell everybody else they ‘must’ be wrong).

That is not my ‘worldview’. It is a FACT.

You are peddling religion here. Fundamentalist religion. Including doctrinaire attacks against the scientific consensus regarding origins and history.

Your worldview involves aggressively denying disliked facts on the grounds that they are contrary to ‘God’s word’.

(If you are right, God a is a liar. Otherwise God’s viewpoint would be supported by facts – which it seldom is.)"


PPS
I have also asked the blogger:
"Allen wrote in his comments “gene duplication can set the stage for more mutations in future generations and produce new species just like polyploidy has done in wheat species”.
Are you calling him a ‘liar’? YES or NO?"
That was some hours ago.
Still waiting.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Never tell a YEC what they don't need to know!

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:27 pm

As sent to CMI:

http://creation.com/salters-trilobite-e ... al-history (Tas Walker protesting too much about a fossil whilst missing the real point)
https://www.museumwales.ac.uk/rhagor/article/2024/

From the BBC website at the time:
"On the dramatic rocky edge of St David's Head in South Wales, Hermione Cockburn explores the very limits of life on the planet to reveal the astonishing fossil of a large sea creature - one which lived 300 million years before the dinosaurs. This discovery helped establish that Britain and America were once part of the same super-continent, and that the Earth is old enough for Darwin's theory of evolution - once held to be on the margins of science - to become central to our understanding of who we are."

Something Tas Walker fails to address adequately in his reply. It has taken much more than 4,500 years for Britain and America to move so far apart from each other.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 Jul 16, 2014 4:53 pm

https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
Where they have flagged this (not read and it's unclear whether any of those commenting have read it either):
http://creation.com/dark-beginning

First comment: "Yes, absolutely... NOTHING exploded and created EVERYTHING! If you don't believe this statement, then you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory. If you believe the universe started with something as small as a single atom (of either matter or antimatter or whatever you want to believe), then you can't say you believe in the Big Bang Theory, because then you have to ask yourself, what CAUSED that single atom to exist? NOTHING can exist without something CAUSING it to exist... except for the Uncaused Cause... which is the eternal, infinite, everlasting God. There HAS to be an Uncaused Cause which started everything and God is the ONLY thing that can be an Uncaused Cause." (She's only arguing against a 'godless' Big Bang here.)

Second comment: "Only if you believe the nonsense that 2+2=5."

I have had at least one YEC argue to me seriously that God could have created a universe where the laws of mathematics did not fully apply or could be broken in some way (or perhaps they were saying that that would be the case in a 'godless universe' I can't quite remember) ...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC blogger Tim Gilleand

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:38 pm

Email as just sent:

"I thought of starting a new thread at the BCSE community forum. However, I cannot provide photographic evidence there (I will add the text of this message to an existing thread).
Basically Mr Gilleand has been censoring myself and the bible.and.science.forum/Allen Miller/Prof Tertius at his recent blog posts - in a haphazard and unpredictable manner. He claimed that the other person's posts were too long (some were). The other person was then put on pre-moderation (and so was I despite not making excessively long posts - and Gilleand claimed that he could not pre-moderate only one person at a time).
The attached photo shows comments under his last but one blog at
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... m-science/
You should note that at the time I made my attempted comment (only visible to me because it 'awaits moderation') "If you stop censoring my posts I will answer your question" Tim's comment at 7.37 pm on 23 July was visible but my comment at 9.06 pm on 19 July still was NOT. That is the censorship I was complaining about.
Incidentally both the bible.and.science.forum and then myself ANSWERED Tim's post at 7.37 pm on 23 July - but because of the likelihood of at least temporary censorship we did so by email instead. Tim has failed to respond to either answer. My answer can be read at the foot of this message [not included here for reasons of brevity].
In fact just now - after taking the screen photo - I attempted the following post at the previous blog, based on my email comments shown below:
"A worldwide flood as implied in Genesis (implied to be worldwide I mean) could NOT explain the distinctive patterns pf the fossil record within the geological record. Such an event would have produced a much more random pattern - despite YEC protestations (rightly mocked by Dawkins in 'The Greatest Show on Earth').
Thus 'slow or rapid processes' is somewhat beside the point.
Also the massive accelerated radioactive decay required by YECs to 'disprove' dates calculated from radiometric dating (supposedly somehow 'caused' by claimed events such as Noah's Flood) would almost certainly have made earth radioactively uninhabitable - even for those on a floating ark above miles of water at the start of the period in question."
We shall see whether Tim publishes the comment and what response if any he offers.
But why am I sending another wide circulation email?
Because of THIS:
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... ity-oh-my/
You will see that Gilleand is accusing the other person/forum (rather than myself though I no longer identify as a practising Christian) of 'un-Christian like behaviour'. Apparently for Gilleand posting detailed comments packed with facts or thorough debunkings of YEC dogma is being 'un-Christian'. The YEC 'victim' mentality, and general mudslinging, are in evidence once again. When facts are posted onto his blogs he either denies the facts or hides the post in question - as my photo clearly shows (if anyone wishes, I can supply further photos - already taken - of another, longer, post of mine which Tim hid as 'awaiting moderation', timed at 12.38 am on 4 July).
I have not attempted to make any comment at the new blog. For reasons that you will doubtless comprehend.
I will not attempt to comment here on the rest of the content of the new blog. Other than to say that from memory the displayed post from the bible.and.science.forum is NOT the one that answered Tim's challenge at 7.37 pm on 23 July."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
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 9 guests

cron