Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9035 total)
80 online now:
dwise1, xongsmith (2 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,593 Year: 3,239/14,102 Month: 180/724 Week: 29/93 Day: 29/22 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4606
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 106 of 109 (886664)
05-29-2021 6:59 PM


Mike the Over-the-Side Whizz
I seem to recall that some members have tried to participate on his forum, Bot Verification

In that circle-jerk he complains bitterly about how he's always mistreated here:

quote:
I know it's kind of pointlessly futile to go to EvC forum given the high concentration of evolutionists, and the more they get together with no real rules enforced, the worse they behave.(forgive the grammatical tautology, "pointlessly futile")

And of course it was just mostly a bunch of insults, mike, "go crawl back from under the rock you came from" etc......(Lol) but one comment was about this forum and I am WONDERING if there is a grain of truth to it, because it would bother me if it was true. I was called a, "bully".

Now in all honesty I don't think I am. Having thought about it I don't think I bully evolutionists here or anywhere, I think I bully arguments. As Mattias said of me (an evolutionist at this forum that no longer attends here) "you use logic as a hammer, and words as nails."

I think that's true. I won't hide it, it is my intention to use every ounce of my being to smash an evolutionary worldview into shredded duck.

However, if evolutionists here think of me as a bully or have felt bullied I would like their advice and opinion on that, and if you have felt bullied I will try to stop whatever it is that may give you that impression. So it is best to ask those who I debate with, this question. Is mike the bullier of evolution, a bully?


and then after getting fluffed by a fellow YEC

quote:
Fluffer: Just think of it as 'They' have been found inept and therefore must resort to trying to stifle you with kindness

I'll try to remember that while being blasted by the trumpets of their thousand fiery dart-dysphemisms all aimed at destroying mike as the scapegoat in place of the God they hate so much. Oh I forget, He was the scape goat, on this day, two thousand years ago, but it didn't work, because three days later,...you know the rest, and their fairytale won't change that His "words shall never pass". But evo will, and every temporary being, then they'll face the truly irrefutable one and be ashamed for all their false words against [mischief]innocent Christian geniuses like me[/mischief]


Jeez! What a loser!


  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4606
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 107 of 109 (886665)
05-29-2021 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by WookieeB
05-28-2021 3:51 PM


Re: Already Convinced

Hey you farking icehole, why don't you pull your head out and look for a change?

Referring back to Mikey's forum, there's this (Bot Verification):

quote:
Indeed we have.. But unfortunately for the Atheists, all that we have learned demonstrates that the Earth is much much younger than the Evolutionary Fairytale REQUIRES...

OOPS!

  • The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to fewer than billions of years. The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

  • The 1⁄2 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years NOTE: Insufficient evidence to be positive

  • The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old

  • Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks

  • The moon is receding from the earth a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding the continents quickly

  • The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th- 230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old

  • The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Poynting-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young

  • At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years

  • Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old

  • Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old

  • Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old

  • Jupiter’s moon, Ganymede has a strong magnetic field

    Evidence from Space of a Young Earth


  • That's from 11 May 2019. Is that recent enough for you?

    And that link at the bottom is to Eric Hovind's site which is still current and still pumping out all those old YEC claims that you think no longer exist. Actually, those were his dad's claims, but Eric has taken over all of them and claim them as his own after Daddy (Kent Hovind) nearly landed Mommy in federal prison for fraud (Daddy served a 10-year sentence).

    Those "old" claims are still current and are still in heavy use. Each new generation of creationists is still being fed them. The very fact that such old and repeatedly refuted claims are still being used is just a further condemnation of creationism and its use of lies and deception.

    But the whole point of examining those "old" claims is to examine how creationism operates. Which is to demonstrate their gross dishonesty. Even if they were to come up with all new claims, those new claims would still all be lies concocted the same way as the old ones.

    Please, just pull your head out already!

     
    ABE:
    I forgot to point out that Mike the Whizzer opened this topic up with an old long-refuted claim: the amount of sodium (ie, salt) in the oceans. Then he followed up with a few more false claims that he avoided talking about. One of those is yet another old claim about carbon-14 being found in diamonds and other formations.

    So then if it weren't for these "old claims that nobody uses anymore", this very topic would not be here. Because Mike does still use them as do most of the rest of you creationists.

    BTW, when I was on another forum a creationist used that sea salt claim so I took him through the refutation of it. He reached the point where he had to admit that that claim was false, that he understood why it was false, and he said he would never use it again. Then a few months later there he was writing to a new member and presenting that false claim that he knew to be false and had admitted that it was false. IOW, he was deliberately lying! I reminded him of what he had promised and he immediately ran away. I don't remember him ever returning.

    What is it about you creationists that you are driven to lie all the time?

    Edited by dwise1, : ABE


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by WookieeB, posted 05-28-2021 3:51 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 20101
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 4.2


    Message 108 of 109 (886686)
    05-31-2021 11:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 98 by WookieeB
    05-28-2021 3:51 PM


    Re: Already Convinced
    WookleeB writes:

    You seem to be saying that dwise1 is misleadingly characterizing contemporary creationist views by referencing old publications.

    Not exactly. Simply, dwise1 has not presented any modern views of contemporary "creationinsts". All his examples are from pre-2000. So my charge that his examples are old are indisputable.

    I wasn't questioning your assertion that dwise1's references are old. I was pointing out that the golden age of creationism ended a while ago. If you want to assign the death a specific date you could say it was December 20, 2005, when Judge John E. Jones ruled that intelligent design was just creationism thinly disguised. The wind went out of creationism's sails at that point and it made a strategic choice to back away from challenging science and instead to lobby teachers, schools and school boards to include creationism in the curriculum.

    Now, could modern creationists hold to the same old reasonings that dwise1 is presenting?

    They not only could, they do. There have not been any new ideas in creationism in a very long time.

    It is possible.

    It is fact.

    But no evidence has been presented to support that.

    You can't prove a negative. If you think there are new ideas in creationism then go find some.

    I think it is less than likely though. For example, dwise1's rant in Message 41 about an argument over Moon dust is a type of evidence that has been discouraged to be used, even pre-2000, by (those who I think are) contemporary creationists.

    If you read dwise1's message again you'll see that he's characterizing the differences between scientists and creationists. In service of this effort he was describing his interactions with creationists that took place at a time when creationists were still actively promoting the moon dust idea. His experience illustrated their dishonesty, duplicity and lack of scholarship. He definitely was not saying the moon dust idea is current among knowledgable creationists.

    But you can still find the moon dust idea being actively promoted on the Internet. For example, ICR still has Snelling's 1993 moon dust paper on their website: Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System

    His examples also appear to be as I described them, fringe. Those arguments might have been more 'creationist' accepted long ago, but today they are not mentioned and/or rejected by contemporary creationists.

    If you find some new creationist ideas then you should describe them here.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by WookieeB, posted 05-28-2021 3:51 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 109 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2021 1:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 4606
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.5


    Message 109 of 109 (886691)
    05-31-2021 1:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
    05-31-2021 11:28 AM


    Re: Already Convinced
    If you read dwise1's message again you'll see that he's characterizing the differences between scientists and creationists. In service of this effort he was describing his interactions with creationists that took place at a time when creationists were still actively promoting the moon dust idea. His experience illustrated their dishonesty, duplicity and lack of scholarship. He definitely was not saying the moon dust idea is current among knowledgable creationists.

    As noted, that was my Message 41, in which I was indeed giving an example of creationist "dishonesty, duplicity and lack of scholarship", though it was primarily to illustrate where one particular aspect of their lack of scholarship, which is claiming other creationists' "sources" as their own without ever making any attempt to verify that "source" let alone even looking at it. As I wrote when I introduced that very section in Message 41:

    DWise1 writes:

    For another case of what happens when creationists claim their actual sources' sources as their own, refer to my page, MOON DUST, which details my own original research into a creationist claim which included corresponding with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

    Now, when WookieeB followed that link and went to my MOON DUST page in order to see what I was actually saying about that claim (Oh! He didn't bother to? Typical creationist!), then he would have read this:

    quote:
    Addendum:
    2001 October 05


    A year or two after I had written the above, I showed it to a fundamentalist friend who then wrote to the ICR asking about this moon-dust claim. The response he received was written by one of their graduate students who did not reference the matter of the NASA document (to be honest, I forget whether my friend had mentioned it in his letter), but stated that they no longer use that claim because they have found the results to be unreliable. For documentation, he included a xerox of a page from Henry Morris' "Science, Scripture and the Young Earth", 1989, which basically said the same thing.

    Fine and good, but where does the matter stand now, twelve years after the ICR brushed that moon dust off their sandals? If you visit a Christian bookstore and pick up one of their books off the shelf, you will almost invariably find in it an appendix, "Uniformitarian Ages for the Earth", which still contains the moon-dust claim. The source for that claim, as well as many of the claims in that list, comes from an "unpublished manuscript" by Harold Slusher -- doesn't take much to figure out where that claim came from. Furthermore, the ICR is still selling the edition of Henry Morris' "Scientific Creationism" which contains the moon-dust claim referencing the NASA document (verified through Amazon.com and the ICR site).

    So more than a decade after they had "dropped" the moon dust claim, any new creationist reading ICR books "fresh" off the shelf will still have the claim presented to him as if it had never been refuted or recanted. Anti-creationists refer to this as "having to slay the slain," as creationists continue to use claims that have already been proven to be bogus. I first saw this effect when a young creationist (18 to 22) tried to blow away the "evolutionists" with brand-new irrefutable news: Setterfield's claim that the speed of light has been slowing down. He was totally shocked and baffled when they blew him away by repeating the decade-old refutation of that long-discounted claim.

    That illustrates one way in which creation science sets its followers up to fail. It keeps circulating bogus claims that sound convincing, especially to its followers, but that had been refuted long ago. A newbie creationist picks up the "latest" books, reads those old claims, and, thinking that they are the newest thing, uses them on the street or in a newsgroup, only to get ripped apart by a more experienced opponent who knows the history of that claim, including its refutation. The effects on that creationist are described in a "Answers in Genesis" article, What About Carl Baugh?, by creationist Dr. Don Batten:


    It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.

    Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.

    BTW, a similar case of a "recanted" ICR claim that continues to be used as well as the ICR's questionable handling of it is described in The ICR and Lucy: Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.


    First, the "retraction" of the moon dust claim was completely insufficient. Brief mention in the preface or foreword of a single book? And OBTW, WookieeB, I did mention that that claim had been retracted! You want to deny that? Then read it again!

    Second and far more importantly, that inadequate retraction has had practically no effect! Knowledge of the retraction is practically non-existent. Instead almost every creationist book still includes it! Especially books by the ICR who had issued the retraction. Go into a Christian bookstore and pull a Masters Book (ICR's publishing house" off the shelf and look inside it. Most of them have the same appendix, "Uniformitarian Estimates -- Age of the Earth". One of those estimates would be "Accumulation of dust on the moon"; that should be number 36. For that matter, pull a copy of Dr. H. Morris' book, Scientific Creationism off the shelf and open it to page 152 (2nd edition should still be the current one. Read both the text and the footnotes where Morris lists that NASA document with the false publishing date (the crux of the error).

    And the non-ICR creationists are in even worse shape since they have not been informed of the retraction. Which is why we continue to find that claim on the web as I noted on my web page.

    The problem as I have repeatedly described it is that the creationist literature just keeps recycling the same old refuted and even retracted false claims to each new generation of creationists, misinforming and misleading them all with dire consequences.

    They need to stop that.

     
    And if WookieeB had bothered to follow Message 41's first link, DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION PAGE: Earth's Rotation is Slowing, he would have found the section, A Proposed Dialog, which I had formatted in the form of a typical fundamentalist tract's dialogue wherein a third party asks questions of a creationist and me. The last question (third party's questions are in bold):

    quote:
    So what do we conclude about this creationist claim?

    The Creationist:
    Uh .... .

    Me:

    That it is false and should not be used. Unfortunately, creationists will continue to use it. Look, it was created in 1979 and developed over the next few years. But then in the Summer of 1982 it was completely and utterly refuted (As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time? by William M. Thwaites and Frank T. Awbrey, Creation/Evolution, Issue IX, Summer 1982, pp.18-22).

    And yet creationists continue to use it unabated, even when they know that it's false. In 2001 (nearly two decades after the claim was refuted), a Canadian organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, attempted to discuss the claim with creationists -- read their two-page article, An unsuccessful attempt to correct an error on young-earth creationist websites (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2001). They found fifteen sites that used the claim and explained the situation to the people running those sites. Most of the webmasters simply ignored them while others either refused to discuss it, insisted that the claim was correct, or else pretended to be reasonable in order to "smile you out the door." The end-result was that all of the websites continued to post the claim unchanged. That amounts to them deliberately lying.

    The claim started out as an honest mistake. I've read the Popular Science article that Walter Brown lists in his bibliography and it didn't go into enough detail about leap seconds to explain them properly; it didn't confuse me because I already understood leap seconds but I can see how it could have confused a newbie like Brown. But once the claim had been found to be false, it should have been dropped. Actually, I think that Walter Brown did drop it, because I couldn't find it on his site nor in his book. But far too many other creationists do continue to use it. An author quoted in the Religious Tolerance article stated:


    "I really don’t blame them for making this mistake initially. We are all entitled to a few mistakes. But this does not justify keeping this claim going for years and years. My question is, why is this claim still being made?"


    The Creationist:
    My head hurts!


    WookieeB writes:

    His examples also appear to be as I described them, fringe. Those arguments might have been more 'creationist' accepted long ago, but today they are not mentioned and/or rejected by contemporary creationists.


    If you find some new creationist ideas then you should describe them here.

    Precisely. And yet, being a typical dishonest creationist, he avoids doing so.

    Ironically, in Message 99 he goes to the defense of "basic created kinds". From what I can see, that claim goes back to 1971. Guess that would make it at least half a century old. The moon dust "retraction" that WookieeB is so hot and bothered about dates back a couple decades and here he is clinging to an "oldy moldy" like basic created kinds? Talk about a double standard!

    For that matter, Mike the Whizz started this entire topic with that hoary old "sea salt" claim which is certainly much older. The earliest creationist reference I found (in Dr. Morris' Scientific Creationism, BTW) was 1973. However, measuring such things as the amount of salt and other minerals in the ocean was an early attempt at estimating the age of the ocean dating back into the 19th century, which means that those processes and problems with the estimates are well known by scientists. I have no doubt that the modern sea-salt claims arise from a century of Seventh Day Adventist YEC claims.

    And yet WookieeB fails to take Mikey to task for using such an old and obsolete claim. Typical, creationists never fail to stick by other creationists ... unless their theology isn't exactly right, that is.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 108 by Percy, posted 05-31-2021 11:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021