Who is ignoring who? And who ignores reality?

[a_haworthroberts]

Wide circulation email as just sent:

YECS TYPICALLY IGNORE REALITY THEY CANNOT COPE WITH WHEREAS THEIR OPPONENTS TYPICALLY DO NOT.

https://creation.com/comet-oxygen
MY recent attempted comment on this article - I was certainly NOT 'ignoring' it as suggested by the Bob Sorensen henchman Curtis Long might be the case - has been censored and ignored (another YEC, David Bump who does not behave like Sorensen and co or CMI or AiG) did make several comments via email which I responded to and which I would be happy to forward to those who missed them) by Creation Ministries International whereas a supportive query to Jonathan Sarfati HAS been published. And look at the comment by Long at the CMI Facebook page after he saw this Sarfati article - Long is referring to ME and my comments at the second link below:
https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
"I read someone claiming that interstellar asteroid Oumuamua drstroys all of young earth creation science, but ignores so many things like this that wreck deep time philosophies."
Despite its misleading title, Sarfati's article on that comet discovery did NOT 'wreck' deep time, Curtis. And would CMI care to post an article explaining asteroid Oumuamua in a 6,000 year old universe? (Their YEC colleagues/competitors have admitted that Oumuamua must be interstellar. Sorensen tried to shrug it off as 'no big deal'.)
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3837

This is the comment I submitted on that CMI article (and which they have censored and ignored): "
https://creation.com/comet-oxygen
'Oxygen in comet atmosphere undermines billions of years.'
How exactly would a 6,000 year old solar system explain this unusual molecular oxygen within one comet? (Unusual since according to Wikipedia: "Molecular oxygen has never before been detected in cometary comas"; the Abstract of the paper at your footnote 2 also confirms this.) Presumably the explanation is that God decided to put it there?
"How this enigmatic discovery of primordial oxygen in a comet is further evidence that we can’t rule out primordial oxygen on Earth either." It's just one comet that we know of (which was never part of Earth - neither by known science nor according to Genesis)."

Maybe Curtis Long would care to respond to it?

And indeed to my BCSE thread about Oumuamua (likewise his colleague Alexander Gordons who regularly has a go at me on the BCSE forum, most recently accusing me there of 'lying' about how YECs at AiG do indeed refer to neanderthals and erectus individuals as having been members of OUR species ie the ONLY human or Homo species that has 'ever' existed (just as Genesis 1 appears to imply).

[a_haworthroberts]

As mentioned above I recently submitted THIS comment to CMI on their daily article dated 8 January 2018:
"
https://creation.com/comet-oxygen
'Oxygen in comet atmosphere undermines billions of years.'
How exactly would a 6,000 year old solar system explain this unusual molecular oxygen within one comet? (Unusual since according to Wikipedia: "Molecular oxygen has never before been detected in cometary comas"; the Abstract of the paper at your footnote 2 also confirms this.) Presumably the explanation is that God decided to put it there?
"How this enigmatic discovery of primordial oxygen in a comet is further evidence that we can’t rule out primordial oxygen on Earth either." It's just one comet that we know of (which was never part of Earth - neither by known science nor according to Genesis)."

Here are my email exchanges with David Bump re that comet with the molecular oxygen:

Him:
"If the big guns are too busy to answer, I'll take a shot at it: Notice first of all the keyword "undermines" is not the same as "disproves"; it's simply evidence that runs counter to current theory. As the article quotes from the original reports, this is something non-creationists say doesn't fit with their theory and expectations. And you're right, in a "recently" created universe, the comets would be created with various compositions for us to discover. The rarity and the fact that it was never part of Earth are irrelevant -- since we don't have any unaltered samples of the Earth's original composition, finding even one sample from anywhere in the system, even the Kuiper belt, calls into question the assumption that such compositions didn't exist in the early system, including here on Earth.
Science is supposed to be open to alternative possibilities, certainly in things that we can't repeatedly observe and demonstrate. Ruling out the possibility that the universe began with a supernatural event beyond science is an arbitrary preference."

Me:
David
It may undermine current theories but only the how not the when for the formation of certain comets (we only know of one so far). I was not disputing the scientists' conclusion "Current Solar System formation models do not predict conditions that would allow this [one finding] to occur". But this, as you recognise, has got nothing at all to do with the age of the solar system. It's to do with how quickly the comet formed within our solar system. As for possible molecular oxygen in Earth's atmosphere from 'day one' that would overturn previous scientific hypotheses and seemingly 'agree' with the Bible - but it still would not prove Genesis as 'infallible history'. The evidence strongly suggests there was no life on Earth by the end of literal 'week one'.
The comment has been zapped of course. Because they can't justify the title of the Sarfati article. But their fans won't notice or won't care so - job done.
Ashley"
Me:
"So I'm saying 'how quickly' with respect to the comet rather than the solar system as a whole (which I doubt formed within one, Earth, calendar week)."

Him:
"Ah, but you see, for us, if the theories of how things formed have cracks in them, then that opens up the possibility of other explanations -- including the recent creation.
You see, the whole "scientific" scheme of explaining how things got to be as they are is one great edifice all based on the same assumption, or presumption, that purely natural forces, operating at ordinary rates, gradually produced everything from... OH wait, some time ago they made room for everything beginning with this tremendous event of far more than everything in the universe popping into existence out of nothing, then annihilating itself again, with the universe left over as a sad remnant of matter that didn't find its anti-matter. Oh and then there is Guth's hyper-inflationary period... but after THAT, everything has been going on about the same... and somehow some of that matter condensed into stars with planetary systems, which lumped up into galaxies early on... then there's this amazing ability of matter to somehow become a living thing...
So anyway, as I was saying, the whole thing looks like a big house of cards to us, and if you find out that some of the cards don't really hold up, it could be the whole thing is just being held up by faith and not wanting to believe that there could be a whole different explanation.
But I understand how it looks to you, too."

This set of exchanges took place after my comment was submitted to CMI via their website (the only response from CMI has been silence and the censoring of my comment) and before my email of 9 January - which recorded in the opening post of this thread - was sent.

[a_haworthroberts]

Wide circulation email as just sent:


The silence from young earth creationists since they received my email of 9 January [see opening post above] has been deafening. But now one of them has confirmed what I suspected - that these people CANNOT face REALITY and instead of making a rational response to their mega interstellar asteroid travelling to our solar system problem (in their defence no such response does appear to be possible) the YEC in question - a proven pathological liar who is psychologically incapable of honesty or integrity though he identifies as 'Christian' - is resorting to downright evasiveness and foolish bravado in an effort to keep the bigoted and ill-informed peanut gallery who watch his online antics onside.

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/01 ... young.html (my comments have been inserted in square brackets)
"Deep time proponents have a terrible time dealing with facts that do not fit their fundamentally flawed worldview, especially when it comes to celestial objects. [LIAR] One problem is the presence of oxygen in a comet's atmosphere, [LIAR] but never mind about that now. (Some may think that the interstellar asteroid ʻOumuamua is devastating to biblical creation science, but it is actually rather unimpressive. [LIAR]) Secularists circle the wagons of excuses to protect their views, but they only end up looking foolish when denying the evidence in front of them. [LIAR]"
[photo attached]

He's trying to argue that if 'deep time proponents' are ever uncertain or have to change their hypotheses eg about some planetary rings or a particular comet that is proof of a 6,000 year old universe. That's why I am calling him a liar.

As for Saturn's rings, would Bob or whoever care to demonstrate that 'young' means 6,000 years old or less? No - they wouldn't. Since even the bigot at crev.info reports an age (which he 'knows' must be 'wrong') of 200 million years (not billions).

Young earth creationism has got nothing to do with genuine science. (This is not intended as bait.)

Maybe Bob wrote his latest lying tripe BEFORE the text of my email of 9 January was posted here (who knows when it was written):
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3854 (this message has now been added to the thread)

If my objective was simply to FORCE Bob to LIE again, I would have succeeded 100%. But my main aim was to force him into embarrassed silence on the subject of Oumuamua since it is indeed the DEATH KNELL of young Earth creationism. As I stated on the BCSE community forum weeks ago. Bob is rattled. So he launches another highly dishonest tirade against 'secularists' as cover. Which backfires.

As you know this evil person is also a total fraud and coward afraid of ANY genuine debate with critics and who resorts to censorship on his pages and refusal of any meaningful engagement on neutral or anti-creationist pages. And he then insists to the rabble that all his critics are 'fools'. (I thought there was a Bible verse forbidding calling someone 'you fool'.)

It's checkmate Bob - and Dr Sarfati. But you will carry on the game even though you have lost to a nuisance asteroid (rather than a 'secularist').

A H-R

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/TQEPDebunked
Flagging this: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/01 ... young.html
Response: "Yeah and the tree in my front yard is only 20 years old. Rings can form any time after a Jovian planet via moon capture."

'Like'. Or at least I would if the Facebook fascists weren't blocking me from speaking or expressing an opinion for yet another 30 days, merely because I once again exposed liar young earth creationists (Sorensen surrogates) on a Facebook page.

[a_haworthroberts]

More CMI falsehoods from Carter. I submitted the following comment for cowardly censorship at CMI central:

https://creation.com/time-great-enabler
"But since naturalism ‘naturally’ leads to a belief in an ancient earth, scientists gradually went over into the deep-time camp." Except that it is EVIDENCE that led to the knowledge of an ancient Earth.
"Hundreds of years after the Enlightenment, we know that naturalism has failed. There are many things it cannot explain, even given billions of years. There are things that simply cannot be explained by what we see happening today in the laboratory. For a long time, it looked like naturalism could explain everything. However, that has changed dramatically over the past several decades." Utter nonsense which that other CMI link does not back up. Since science has repeatedly disproven a 6,000 year old Earth (and universe). CMI propaganda such as 'Evolution's Achilles' Heels' has not changed that (otherwise they would submit the 'findings' to peer review and they would get published). CMI also wilfully ignore the fact that 'naturalism' has explained that Earth is extremely old by disproving an age of '6,000 years'; their 101 'evidences' do not prove otherwise (as Batten admitted). https://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels
"In fact, carbon dating is one of the best things to happen to the creation movement, for now that our machines have gotten sensitive enough, we have found no carbon sources on earth that contain zero carbon-14. This includes coal, oil, natural gas, amber, diamonds, and dinosaur bones…all forms of carbon everywhere in the fossil record have it." Except that radiocarbon dating regularly returns valid dates that are a lot older than just 6,000 years. I am referring to the methodology. Carter is not. The methodology falsifies a 6,000 year old Earth. Hence this special pleading (based on a fictional worldwide flood event) on the CMI website:
"Also, the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the Flood absorb CO2 which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore the 14C level relative to 12C increases after the Flood. So the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the Flood had to be lower than what it is now. Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the Flood would give ages much older than the true ages."
See https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf
Carter continues: "Mutations accumulate much too quickly in animal populations. And natural selection cannot remove them all. Thus, species cannot be millions of years old, or they would already be extinct". That is not peer reviewed science. Is it?
And: "The only way for a species to stay the same in a variable environment is for that species to be young." They often are not the 'same' species. But you appear to be admitting that evolution (as well as stasis) is possible over millions of years of real time. And despite those living fossils Earth's biodiversity has changed substantially over time (with all those unbiblical extinctions and everything).
"Erosion rates are also a problem for deep time. At current rates, the entire continent of North America would be reduced to sea level in just a few million years." That deliberately misleading statement assumes erosion is the only geological process operating on continents. It isn't. You should ask yourselves why deception is required in order to make your arguments.
"Please spend some time on Creation.com and educate yourself. There is much to learn!" You bigots are teaching scientific falsehoods. People should compare your site with reputable ones (including non-creationist Christian ones) if they want to learn real information.
"Since deep time is demonstrably false ...". That is a total lie. Think asteroid Oumuamua. Think supernovae. Think other methods of radiometric dating. To name but three.
'Cut the legs out from under Darwinian evolution.' Your site is propaganda not education.
As you will censor and ignore this response, I am publishing it elsewhere.

[a_haworthroberts]

CMI do.

https://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=8T_RHfE4wUs
"... Hundreds of dating methods support a young earth and recent creation of the universe ...".

Shameful.