Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Another YEC made-up claim

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:51 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... -pressure/
"So where did jade come from? Astonishingly, the biblical Flood cataclysm provided just the right kind of rare, stressful conditions necessary to produce this beautiful gemstone." That's not in the Bible. Although it hints at a big earthquake at the start of the flood in Genesis 7:11 - resulting in waters rising from below - the Genesis flood account says ZILCH about plate tectonics or subduction nor anything specifically about intense heat or pressure. And the flood is supposed to have been worldwide yet jade is only found in certain locations - mostly near some of today's crustal plate boundaries.

"This catastrophic bursting forth of hot waters and upwelling molten rock would have caused massive rifts in the seafloor (“the great deep”). Such rifting would have rapidly spread around the globe—including across the supercontinent, tearing the earth’s crust apart into oceanic crust and continental plates.
The plates, in turn, moved and collided, causing the heat, extreme pressures, and hot saline fluids that produced jadeite and nephrite deposits."
Nice story. But NOT found in the Bible. And continents breaking apart and then colliding again weeks or months later (did they encircle the globe in the meantime or just go into reverse) is just daft (and desperate).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rousers Ken Ham and company

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:24 pm

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

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased colleagues

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:04 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/sunday-sch ... witch-abc/
This is the Word of Man about the Word of God, and an apologetics cult - no wonder churches, even in America, are hesitant and sometimes downright suspicious of them (they may also have heard about all the pseudo-science and anti-science peddled by Answers in Genesis including their anti AGW/ACC tirades that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Bible or Christianity).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Answers 'in' Genesis

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:12 pm

https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis/
''"America is on a path to national suicide and moral insanity. All of this is a result of the Church's and the culture's rejection of the truth and authority of the Word of God." Dr. Terry Mortenson.''

Mortenson made those comments in a tub-thumping book published in October 2016.

They seem to think it's STILL true on 6 October 2018.Well, having just listened to the international news (including a speech by Chuck Schumer about that superficial FBI investigation prior to the Supreme Court vote on whether to confirm Kavanaugh - who may or may not be guilty of past sexual misconduct) I would agree with them. On 8 November 2016, with the help of many evangelical Christians, a known pathological liar and egotist filled with malice to all apart from his voting base (and one of two undemocratic despots around the world such as Putin, Assad and Kim) was elected to the position of President of the United States.

Meanwhile an email received from AiG is flagging THIS:
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... us-fossils 'Disharmonious Fossils.'
According to the email: ''Evolutionists love to tout the fossil record as evidence for their theory. No less an authority for evolution than Richard Dawkins has said, “All the fossils that we have ever found have always been found in the appropriate place in the time sequence. There are no fossils in the wrong place.” Dawkins’s statement is emphatic and confident. However, Dawkins is wrong.'' (Dawkins was speaking in 2009: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-book ... 2120091005)

Having read the new AiG article by this Harry F Sanders III, I see that whilst it quotes Dawkins it fails to address fully what Dawkins stated (and clearly meant) in that Reuters article. He made the point, in response to a question, that ''no fossils have been found in the wrong place'' (for the theory of evolution). Sanders' response is that ''Fossils are often found where they are not expected, and these finds cause evolutionists to frequently revise their timelines.'' Which they have been able to do WITHOUT needing to ditch the theory - ie in the grand scheme of things the occasional revisions required to timelines have not led to the falsification of the theory.

That is the case with this example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788615/ (Angiosperms appeared in the fossil record after Gymnosperms.)

On the next example, which concerns Confuciusornis remains found within the stomach of a dinosaur, Sanders states ''Yet this largely modern-looking bird was found inside a dinosaur fossil over 100 million years old. An essentially modern bird should not have been found there, according to the evolutionary timeline.'' So one small portion of the evolutionary timeline to be revised? Not a problem. (Like the dinosaur, the bird in question is now - unbiblically - extinct.)

The next example simply shows that (back in 2005) scientists learnt more about the mammals (now mostly or totally extinct) that were alive in the Mesozoic era. The creationist tries to claim that evolutionists were 'upset'.

The next example flags this paper (also from 2005), one which has been discussed previously by the likes of AiG and Naturalis Historia: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03150
Sanders reports that in their abstract the paper's authors suggested ''at least duck, chicken and ratite bird relatives were coextant with non-avian dinosaurs'' (initially this was controversial among biologists). Sanders then argues: ''Modern birds thus existed with the dinosaurs they are supposed to have evolved from''. But Sanders does not tell us what dinosaur(s) eg Vegavis iaai is believed to have been descended from (assuming scientists have found evidence that has led them to propose a relevant hypothesis). Of course we now know that SOME birds (most of which are now extinct) co-existed with SOME (maybe most) later species of dinosaur. Not a problem for evolutionary timescales in general.

Sanders then references this paper from 2018: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03295-9
Sanders suggests that Enantiornithes was like a modern bird (and was thus not ancient or primitive) because it was flightless upon hatching and also lacked teeth - like modern (by that I mean non extinct which is not the case with Enantiornithes) birds. However, having checked, Enantiornithes in general did have teeth and also claws on their wings, and are thought to have died out at the same time as the dinosaurs. As for that Nature paper, it mostly focused on bone development in a juvenile Enantiornithine. I could not see any mention in the Discussion section of whether this bird had, or would have later developed, teeth. I did spot this sentence: ''the largely cartilaginous sternum of MPCM-LH-26189 hints at functional limitations in terms of flying ability, which should not be taken as evidence of altriciality given that semiprecocial and many precocial species are able to walk at an early age, but are unable to fly until almost fully grown''.

The article lists other examples of 'disharmony' that I don't have the time to investigate further.

Sanders complains ''The evolutionary story is like elastic: it is constantly stretched to fit new finds''. Well - creationists do that too. Or else they 'ignore' evidence - as Sanders accuses evolutionists of sometimes doing.

And then the LYING starts:
''The major problem with evolutionists’ handling of the fossil record comes from their worldview. Instead of questioning their belief when a fossil is found in an unexpected place, they impose their worldview on the record and then make adjustments to their “just-so stories.” Thus, no piece of fossil evidence, no matter how damaging to the evolutionary tale cannot be explained'' and ''True science makes testable predictions, part of the scientific method referred to as falsifiability. In order for something to be scientific, there has to be a way for it to be disproved. If the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record can accommodate any discovery, then their evolutionary fable is never falsifiable''. It has accommodated any discovery (and refuted creationist accusations) SO FAR.

''Evolutionists will only change their minds when they change their worldview.'' Yes - only if they have a RELIGIOUS conversion of some sort. After that they MIGHT (some don't) change their worldview (essentially have a second religious conversion) when it comes to the topics of BIOLOGY and EARTH HISTORY. They might join the ranks of those who falsely claim: ''Evolutionists use their worldview to interpret the fossil record to support their worldview in a dizzying round of circular reasoning.'' I do not know whether Sanders was ever an evolutionist - but some creationists who use to be evolutionists, but then had in essence TWO conversions (or one if they were already a theistic evolutionist), use this sort of wild argumentation against their former self (even if they sincerely accepted evolution perhaps). As for circular reasoning - creationists do that MORE than evolutionists. 'True science by definition is biblical - and this particular science confirms the Bible.'
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:06 pm

CORRECTION to my preceding post. NOT Assad!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Enquiry made to AiG via their website

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:08 pm

AiG being the people who REFUSE to explain WHY Ken Ham and co rail against man-made climate change.

So presumably the bigots will ignore THIS too and carry on making snide comments and muddying the waters regarding climate past and present.


Since you people say you 'love' science, it's time for you to finally get on board with this (millions of Christians accept that man-made climate change is a reality happening now that needs to be combated, and accepting this is in no way unbiblical):
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/relea ... 1.5-report
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

And yet ANOTHER YEC made-up claim

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:55 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/jade-beauty-under-pressure/
"So where did jade come from? Astonishingly, the biblical Flood cataclysm provided just the right kind of rare, stressful conditions necessary to produce this beautiful gemstone." That's not in the Bible. Although it hints at a big earthquake at the start of the flood in Genesis 7:11 - resulting in waters rising from below - the Genesis flood account says ZILCH about plate tectonics or subduction nor anything specifically about intense heat or pressure. And the flood is supposed to have been worldwide yet jade is only found in certain locations - mostly near some of today's crustal plate boundaries.

"This catastrophic bursting forth of hot waters and upwelling molten rock would have caused massive rifts in the seafloor (“the great deep”). Such rifting would have rapidly spread around the globe—including across the supercontinent, tearing the earth’s crust apart into oceanic crust and continental plates.
The plates, in turn, moved and collided, causing the heat, extreme pressures, and hot saline fluids that produced jadeite and nephrite deposits."
Nice story. But NOT found in the Bible. And continents breaking apart and then colliding again weeks or months later (did they encircle the globe in the meantime or just go into reverse) is just daft (and desperate).



https://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/1 ... ormed.html
''Bonus for those who want to see appallingly bad reasoning from an angry, uneducated atheist about this article, click here.''

It was perfectly sound reasoning.

Which is why the pathological liar Sorensen will NOT respond to my (widely copied) challenge to him to ''tell us all HOW my reasoning was 'appallingly bad' - or WITHDRAW the accusation. If you do neither you will PROVE - yet again - that you are a hate-filled and irrational hater of truth and lover of lies.'' His accusation IS simply lies and bigotry. So - he will ignore my challenge (and carry on lying and hating as before).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his fellow liars

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:54 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MTUtvM62-g
Lying again about a past 'global flood' on Mars. No. It was an ocean (probably over a large proportion of the planet) not a global flood (there for many millennia not 12 months). Lies again that if the Bible spoke of a past 'global flood' on Mars scientists would deny it. Pretends that there's no difference between Earth and its history and Mars and its history - and therefore if scientists think there was a 'global flood' on Mars they ought to think there was on Earth (and recently too). But they refuse because they want to deny the Bible. Mars lost an atmosphere. Earth didn't.

And Oumuamua remains an (interstellar) comet. (It's not an alien light sail.) It's left us - but it's the death knell for a '6,000 year old' universe.

Purdom refers to the AiG article on Oumuamua (by Danny Faulkner) in late 2017. Which falsely claimed ''While we creationists may not have explicitly predicted such a thing, the discovery of 1I ‘Oumuamua is consistent with what we know about creation'' (meaning what those who insist the universe is just 6,000 years old claim to know about creation). But Faulkner also admitted (as was assumed at the time) that it was an asteroid that was 'interstellar'. Meaning it took geological expanses of time to reach our solar system. That is what interstellar means.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron