The Hourglass Argument

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Christianity, Creationism, Debate, Education, Intelligent Design, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Hourglass Argument

  1. “I’m leaving your comment up just to show how bankrupt your responses are. Basically all you said was “those articles don’t say that”, yet you gave no reasoning.” I simply do not know what liar Gilleand is talking about since NO comment of mine is visible under HIS lying blog of 6 March (I only attempted one short comment there). Liar Gilleand is behaving very badly. I don’t need to explain why and how those links do NOT say what liar Gilleand claims they say since it is obvious to everyone else from a cursory glance that they do NOT in any way say what liar Gilleand wants them to say and liar Gilleand is now falsely accusing me of a ‘bankrupt’ response because I did not waste my time spelling out for him what the abstracts actually do say which is very different to what liar Gilleand was claiming they say.

    I have spent well over a year substantively challenging liar Gilleand under his blog posts but he continues to ignore ALL my rebuttals and to spout more lies and false accusations against critics.

    Liar Gilleand is also totally ignoring my very detailed and lengthy total exposure of his lies made above – made on a site where he cannot censor the truth. YECs are lying to themselves as well as everybody else that “no person can possibly prove me wrong” and “I see no rebuttal”.

    YECs disgust me – even the fairly polite ones like liar Gilleand but especially the rude, obnoxious, judgemental, arrogant ones elsewhere on the internet. YEC-ism poisons Christianity.

    However, IF liar Gilleand continues to lie and obfuscate I WILL spell out for him and anyone else reading this, in chapter and verse, HOW and WHY his claims regarding his links in his 6 March blog are total lies and that – like ANY brainwashed YEC ideologue – when accused of lying he lies AGAIN by saying “how did I lie” or “my accuser is lying not me”.

    • I made a couple of brief further comments under liar Gilleand’s 6 March blog, referring him to my rebuttal here dated 7 March (and criticising YEC peer review as a ‘joke’ because it’s a test of orthodoxy not an assessment of whether ‘science’ could be true). Instead of acknowledging the SUBSTANCE of my very detailed answers HERE, liar Gilleand has chosen instead to HIDE my comments and – so far – pretend that he has not seen my comment here timed at 2.51 pm on 7 March (or perhaps he dared not even read it despite me flagging it including the time in the US at which it was posted).

      These are the same people who go around saying that “true science has confirmed Genesis and nobody has ever shown us to be wrong” or “all our opponents are liars who wilfully suppress the truth”.

  2. Tim says:

    I am the original commenter that Star-Splitter is referring to in this video. My complete response to this video: http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/hourglass-argument-a-response/.

    • “The following three papers give evidence of how different global conditions have affected decay rates”. With respect they do NOT, as any reasonably intelligent person could quickly realise from reading the Abstracts – and to my knowledge no scientific papers have ever been published showing such an alteration or variation other than in rare cases under laboratory conditions and involving isotopes that aren’t used in radiometric dating anyway. And this 1999 paper’s Abstract says NOTHING about decay rate variations OVER time (even if it did Earth remains very old indeed NOT very young): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5441/882

      Thus Tim is speaking lies.

      “If we have found evidence of decay rates being affected by global conditions, why would it be far-fetched to believe the global flood may have affected the decay rates?” The question no longer applies for the reason given above. It refers to a FICTIONAL state of affairs instead of a factual one. Science does not deal with known FICTION.

      “I love science”. Funny, that love for science does not shine through in Tim’s blogs. Nor in any other YEC blog – and most YEC bloggers are so bigoted that they either censor most criticisms and challenges they rightly receive questioning their ‘science’ and science denial or they forbid people from commenting altogether. Tim – like ANY YEC since the position is absurdly against realities (even if the Christian god exists) – loves what he wants science to show not what it does show. Plus science denial when that is unavoidably required for reasons of dogma. Tim may be sincere but he has shown me that he is sincerely wrong since he will not accept any argument that contradicts his own cherished theories.

      “Perhaps your “science” is not as observed as you are so proudly assuming.” Perhaps Tim is displaying his bigoted ignorance and denial? The idea that only natural selection, and no other evidence supporting naturalistic evolution, has ever been observed is a YEC standard lie.

      “Although I am personally not an expert on isochron dating, it apparently isn’t a problem for creationism”. It most certainly IS a problem for YOUNG Earth creationism. But being told this Tim will remain a young Earth creationist – and continue to insists that 99% of the world’s scientists have got things wrong.

      “If the atmospheric conditions affected the speed of decay during the flood – you wouldn’t know.” I suggest otherwise. Decay rates of different radioactive isotopes would have been, under Tim’s unbiblical and hypothetical scenario, affected differently – such that the dating methods would not largely agree in the way that they do (and some would probably age rocks at 4,500 years or less and others might point to an Earth much older perhaps even beyond 4.5 bn years). YECs fail to understand – or dishonestly pretend not to – that ANY decay rate variation could HYPOTHETICALLY have happened in the past but the ONLY variation they would accept is one (among perhaps hundreds of scenarios) that would hey presto confirm ‘biblical timescales’. That is not science, it is religion conscripting ‘science’. But if you tell a YEC this they still remain a YEC and they continue to criticise scientists into the future. Thus proving that their position is purely RELIGIOUS.

      “The point is Bible-believers have specific reasons to dispute the uniformitarian assumptions you need to prove an old-earth.” The reasons are not scientific. If they were, YECs would become OECs when shown that the science for a very old universe and Earth is watertight (indeed a minority do – because, despite pressure from fellow YECs, they DO also care about scientific realities as well as the reputation of the Bible).

      People life Tim only value their own ‘truth’ – which is impervious to FACTS and hypocritically calls known facts ‘lies’ (I refer their to Ken Ham and his silly books). Yet they wish to portray themselves as more open-minded than everybody else!

      “I much prefer dialoging with someone like you who will take the time to form a complete rebuttal argument rather than someone who will quickly put me down and plug their ears and yell “science” over and over to make them feel better about themselves”. Who can Tim possibly be meaning? 🙂 SOMEONE, one of the few who ever comments under his blogs, who will not buy his dogmatic anti-science? Such as here: http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/deceptive-god/

      I repeat – Tim is making false claims above regarding alleged decay rate variations over time. Not for the first time eg he also claimed twice that ‘evolutionist’ many-branched tree of life is very similar to the creationist ‘orchard’.

      I would never embrace YEC if I was still an evangelical Christian since the position required half-truths and deliberate falsehoods in order to deal with the science in a way that could convince anybody apart from a simpleton.

      I could respect on OEC who questioned molecules to Man evolution. I do not go to their websites and berate them for either their faith or they questioning of evolution. Their position can be intellectually defended and they often have an open mind. If a YEC has an open mind he or she is ashamed to admit the fact lest they be accused of ‘compromise’ or backsliding.

      End of rant.

      • Star Splitter
        I would very grateful if you could possibly APPROVE my very detailed comment, attempted four hours ago, to the latest Gilleand nonsense claims in response to the video above. I have just requested that under his latest blog effort.
        Unfortunately the bigot has decided to silently censor me.
        Facts, and a detestation of falsehoods, clearly threaten young Earth creationists and their reputations.
        Ashley Haworth-Roberts

      • A fresh attempt to post my earlier response – without the two actual links as they appear to have triggered the not so very prompt pre-approval process by Star Splitter (NB I did not attempt to make this response on Tim’s actual blog page for 6 March – and he has censored a mere REMINDER to you about my as yet unapproved post which seems to vindicate that decision). The link contents are specified within square brackets.

        “The following three papers give evidence of how different global conditions have affected decay rates”. With respect they do NOT, as any reasonably intelligent person could quickly realise from reading the Abstracts – and to my knowledge no scientific papers have ever been published showing such an alteration or variation other than in rare cases under laboratory conditions and involving isotopes that aren’t used in radiometric dating anyway. And this 1999 paper’s Abstract says NOTHING about decay rate variations OVER time (even if it did Earth remains very old indeed NOT very young): [the paper in Science entitled ‘Tweaking the clock of radioactive decay’]

        Thus Tim is speaking lies.

        “If we have found evidence of decay rates being affected by global conditions, why would it be far-fetched to believe the global flood may have affected the decay rates?” The question no longer applies for the reason given above. It refers to a FICTIONAL state of affairs instead of a factual one. Science does not deal with known FICTION.

        “I love science”. Funny, that love for science does not shine through in Tim’s blogs. Nor in any other YEC blog – and most YEC bloggers are so bigoted that they either censor most criticisms and challenges they rightly receive questioning their ‘science’ and science denial or they forbid people from commenting altogether. Tim – like ANY YEC since the position is absurdly against realities (even if the Christian god exists) – loves what he wants science to show not what it does show. Plus science denial when that is unavoidably required for reasons of dogma. Tim may be sincere but he has shown me that he is sincerely wrong since he will not accept any argument that contradicts his own cherished theories.

        “Perhaps your “science” is not as observed as you are so proudly assuming.” Perhaps Tim is displaying his bigoted ignorance and denial? The idea that only natural selection, and no other evidence supporting naturalistic evolution, has ever been observed is a YEC standard lie.

        “Although I am personally not an expert on isochron dating, it apparently isn’t a problem for creationism”. It most certainly IS a problem for YOUNG Earth creationism. But being told this Tim will remain a young Earth creationist – and continue to insists that 99% of the world’s scientists have got things wrong.

        “If the atmospheric conditions affected the speed of decay during the flood – you wouldn’t know.” I suggest otherwise. Decay rates of different radioactive isotopes would have been, under Tim’s unbiblical and hypothetical scenario, affected differently – such that the dating methods would not largely agree in the way that they do (and some would probably age rocks at 4,500 years or less and others might point to an Earth much older perhaps even beyond 4.5 bn years). YECs fail to understand – or dishonestly pretend not to – that ANY decay rate variation could HYPOTHETICALLY have happened in the past but the ONLY variation they would accept is one (among perhaps hundreds of scenarios) that would hey presto confirm ‘biblical timescales’. That is not science, it is religion conscripting ‘science’. But if you tell a YEC this they still remain a YEC and they continue to criticise scientists into the future. Thus proving that their position is purely RELIGIOUS.

        “The point is Bible-believers have specific reasons to dispute the uniformitarian assumptions you need to prove an old-earth.” The reasons are not scientific. If they were, YECs would become OECs when shown that the science for a very old universe and Earth is watertight (indeed a minority do – because, despite pressure from fellow YECs, they DO also care about scientific realities as well as the reputation of the Bible).

        People life Tim only value their own ‘truth’ – which is impervious to FACTS and hypocritically calls known facts ‘lies’ (I refer their to Ken Ham and his silly books). Yet they wish to portray themselves as more open-minded than everybody else!

        “I much prefer dialoging with someone like you who will take the time to form a complete rebuttal argument rather than someone who will quickly put me down and plug their ears and yell “science” over and over to make them feel better about themselves”. Who can Tim possibly be meaning? 🙂 SOMEONE, one of the few who ever comments under his blogs, who will not buy his dogmatic anti-science? Such as here: [Tim’s blog post of 28 February which was originally entitled ‘Deceptive God??’ but which is now entitled ‘The Hourglass Analogy’]

        I repeat – Tim is making false claims above regarding alleged decay rate variations over time. Not for the first time eg he also claimed twice that the ‘evolutionist’ many-branched tree of life is very similar to the creationist ‘orchard’.

        I would never embrace YEC if I was still an evangelical Christian since the position requires half-truths and deliberate falsehoods in order to deal with the science in a way that could convince anybody apart from a simpleton.

        I could respect an OEC who questioned molecules to Man evolution. I do not go to their websites and berate them for either their faith or their questioning of evolution. Their position can be intellectually defended and they often have an open mind. If a YEC has an open mind he or she is ashamed to admit the fact lest they be accused of ‘compromise’ or backsliding.

        End of rant.

      • Tim says:

        I’m leaving your comment up just to show how bankrupt your responses are. Basically all you said was “those articles don’t say that”, yet you gave no reasoning. It wa simply a “no it doesn’t”. That is not proof. That is not scientific. That is, at best saying “I don’t see that”. That doesn’t mean it isn’t saying that. You haven’t given actual reasons (perhaps using quotes) how those articles do not say what I am saying they say. You are only dismissing them with no reasoning. I can do that too, but you are sure quick to point it out… right?

  3. As is typical with YEC ideologues, the dishonest bigot Gilleand has censored my last response to his false claims.
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2970&p=48744#p48744

  4. YEC blogger Tim Gilleand has mentioned the above, slightly breathless, video HERE:
    http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/deceptive-god/
    He’s trying to argue that because I have not produced a six minute video, therefore I have made no substantial arguments against his preposterous claims (now and over previous months) and have merely ranted.
    You may wish to check whether his claim is truthful.

    • In case it should disappear, my response to Tim’s very recent accusations reads as follows:
      “I HAVE made substantial and substantive contributions here (I expect Adam would agree) – but all young Earth creationists are closed-minded ideologues who already have the Truth about science and God Thank You. You have only ever gone through the motions of acknowledging ANY argument I make against your far-fetched and anti-scientific claims.
      I am posting this onto the BCSE community forum since it shows your total bigotry and dishonesty Tim.
      Your implied suggestion that I trying to convert people to evolution is hilarious.
      I am trying to expose the lies of young Earth creationism. You don’t like me doing that.
      And yes, science has disproven a 6,000 year old Earth or universe. It did so before you were born.”

  5. Michael Snow says:

    YEC’s need to forget about hour glasses and learn their Bible. http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/

    • Thank you for the comment,

      First off, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” directly means that they were made concurrently. That’s why it says “and”. Second observation, “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” seems to refute the idea that “heavens” was not referring to such things as “the moon and the stars”. But it doesn’t really matter because we know that those who wrote the Bible were largely unaware of actual cosmology and any attempt to twist the words is just an excuse to shoehorn.

      I don’t think the Bible truly implies Bishop Usher’s Chronology, but to think that you can manipulate it enough to reflect current science, and even if you could, to think they knew that back then, you’re far from the truth. It may not be 6,000 years, but it definitely isn’t millions. It definitely isn’t billions. The science that reveals the age of the universe and Earth comes first, then the Bible is morphed to fit it, and when you do that you only hurt your stance of claiming divine knowledge.

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s