Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Sparko]

Leonhard thinks quote mining is a good strategy!

A foreword about quote mining...its succesful

... this is as good as it gets.


...it doesn't get much better than that.

[MaxVel]

Neil Dumbass Tyson is an astrophysicist. He's as qualified to speak about the earth's climate as Dawkins is to speak about theology.

B... B... But they're scientists ! Doesn't that make them experts? On like everything and stuff?

[rogue06]

While you're probably correct on this matter, the picture that you got from Ed Babinski's website clearly states that the picture of the fossil you presented as a counter to this Sarfati guy's claim is an "Approximate computerized reconstruction of Ambulocetus, based on the fossil remains that do exist [Based partially on a photograph in November 2001, National Geographic "The Evolution of Whales", pages 71]".

While it is a "computerized representation" of the fossil remains of Ambulocetus that were known to exist that does not change the fact that they still represent the fossil remains of Ambulocetus that were known to exist. IOW, Sarfati's claim that the pelvic girdle hadn't been found and anything said about it was nothing more than speculation was absolutely poppycock that even a cursory examination would have revealed. Either he was incredibly sloppy and incompetent or he was trying to fool those he knew would never bother to look at the evidence themselves.

[Roy]

And most coal is found in relatively small areas around the world, so what's your point? In comparison to total coal around the world, New Zealand's entire supply is nothing. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. Total know coal reserves of the entire planet gives New Zealand 0.000286% of the total reserves with an even smaller part of the world market.

Hmmm. From your previous post:
"The nation's proved coal reserves as of December 2012 stood at 237.295 billion tonnes (Bt) comprising more than one quarter of the total proven coal reserves in the world.... Last I checked 15 billion tons is smaller than 237. "

if 237 Bt is more than ¹/₄ the world's proven coal reserves, then 15 Bt is more than 1% of the proven coal reserves, and you've got your sums wrong.

Checking various on-line resources finds that NZ has about 0.1% of world coal reserves, not 0.000286%.

In comparison to other coal rich nations, New Zealand wouldn't be all that coal rich.

These stats suggest it's in the top 20 for per capita coal production, export and resources.

Since wealth is usually calculated per capita rather than absolute values, NZ is relatively coal-rich.

So do most other coal rich countries. Your entire country could decide to no longer mine any coal and the world markets would barely notice since your country's total coal mining output was only 0.0003885% of the total worlds output in 2016. Believe it or not, I do know how to do junior high level math too.

Wikipedia suggests that NZ produced 2.9 out of 7460.4 million tons in 2016, which is 0.03887%, not 0.0003885%, and that you've forgotten to multiply by 100 when converting to a percentage.

[rogue06]

Like I said, is the demand that submissions to "peer reviewed" publications walk in lockstep with the "consensus", or the fact that any scientist who bucks the "consensus" is in real danger of losing reputation and funding, really so different than a Christian organization wanting a faith statement? Heck, even Richard Dawkins is always cautioning scientists to guard against reaching conclusions that contradict their a priori assumptions to the effect of "You must never conclude that the universe is intelligently designed no matter how much the evidence might seem to support this hypothesis."

But like I said, science is not my god, so I have no problem with accepting that scientists can be wrong.

Apparently you are not familiar with what peer review is. All it does is check to see if proper scientific procedures were followed and has nothing whatsoever to do with what conclusions were reached.

As for your "quote" from Dawkins, a quick Google check reveals no such quote from anyone (i.e., "No results found for"). What he has said about holding onto something in spite of the evidence is, as I noted in post 162:

"I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--“My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.” We clapped our hands red."

[Adrift]

While it is a "computerized representation" of the fossil remains of Ambulocetus that were known to exist that does not change the fact that they still represent the fossil remains of Ambulocetus that were known to exist. IOW, Sarfati's claim that the pelvic girdle hadn't been found and anything said about it was nothing more than speculation was absolutely poppycock that even a cursory examination would have revealed. Either he was incredibly sloppy and incompetent or he was trying to fool those he knew would never bother to look at the evidence themselves.

Well, yes, it does actually change the fact, because if that's not a picture of the fossil remains, and only a computerized representation, then that doesn't tell us if Sarfati is right about what was actually discovered. Do you happen to have the National Geographic photo in question, because that would probably clear things up.

[rogue06]

Do you have a link to the thread on question? Because I would like to see for myself what was really said. Or was that all lost in the infamous tweb crash?

This wasn't on Tweb having taken place long after he was banninated. It was published on various YEC websites in response to the PBS series Evolution including the one you've been citing https://creation.com/refuting-evolut...hale-evolution

Here is the illustration used there along with the note attached to it

00000000000000us.jpg
(A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at
the end of the power stroke during
swimming.’⁷ The stippled bones were all
that were found, and the shaded ones
were found 5 m above the rest.
(B) With the ‘additions’ removed there
really isn’t much left of Ambulocetus!

[Roy]

Apart from the fact that most of the scientific community don't knnow and don't care what creationists do or say, the creationists do worse than your so-claimed manipulation in every single technical article they write!

Found the contact plane between the Tapeats and Redwall strata yet?

So you're not even willing to do a little digging, huh? Because a simple website search would have given you this article:

http://creation.mobi/the-case-of-the...-geologic-time

That article states that the Redwall Limestone sits on the Muav and Temple Butte limestones, not the Tapeats layer.

[rogue06]

Well, yes, it does actually change the fact, because if that's not a picture of the fossil remains, and only a computerized representation, then that doesn't tell us if Sarfati is right about what was actually discovered. Do you happen to have the National Geographic photo in question, because that would probably clear things up.

Here are the actual fossils the representation is based on.

unnamed (1).jpg

The other picture is a "representation" since it uses the practice based on mammalian body symmetry that if we find a left femur (for instance) we don't have to possess the right one to know what it looks like.

In any case we had the pelvic girdle which is what Sarfati was dishonestly asserting was undiscovered.

[Adrift]

Here are the actual fossils the representation is based on.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24086[/ATTACH]

Thank you. Yes, that looks far more complete than what Sarfati apparently had claimed.

The other picture is a "representation" since it uses the practice based on mammalian body symmetry that if we find a left femur (for instance) we don't have to possess the right one to know what it looks like.

In any case we had the pelvic girdle which is what Sarfati was dishonestly asserting was undiscovered.

Yeah, I had no problem with the fact that it was a representation, it's just that that representation didn't tell us at all about what had actually physically been discovered.

[Roy]

I warned you about using sources where those who write for them sign oaths stating that they will never say anything that supports either evolution or the fact that the earth and surrounding universe is anything more than a few thousand years old. It leads to a combination of cherry picking and hand waving away of any and everything that doesn't support what they already decided.

Yeah, Snelling is trying to claim that because there's a 200m stretch of Redwall/Muav boundary that's flat, there is no unconformity and all the rest of the boundary, including the stretches where there are other layers between those two, can be ignored.

[rogue06]

More to the point, sources like AnswersinGenesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) are not trustworthy as I pointed out in a thread aptly entitled "Can YEC sources be trusted?"

Here are my first two posts...

I've noticed that a significant number of those who believe in young earth creationism (YEC) around here rely fairly heavily on various YEC websites for their information while trying to refute the various evidence for either evolution or an earth that is far older than a few thousand years old^[1]. The big three would have to be Ken Ham's AnswersinGenesis (AiG - the largest), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR - the oldest) and Creation Ministries International (CMI - the group AiG split away from when Ham took control). While there are others, for the most part they depend to a great degree on them for much of their information, often simply reprinting articles that they've published.

So the question becomes, just how accurate and trustworthy are they? After all these groups never seem to miss an opportunity at proclaiming themselves experts in issues of both science and theology.

Numerous threads and posts have sought to demonstrate that they are mendacious and deceitful pointing to such things like the fact that everyone who writes for them is required to sign an oath that they will ignore any and all evidence that contradicts their already decided upon conclusions. Others point to the dreadful level of scholarship that they offer.

Still, many YECs will not be swayed by these facts and continue to trust them as their go-to information source for supporting the YEC position. In many cases their supporters frankly don't have the necessary education in the related fields to accurately determine who is telling the truth so they stick with the sources that they are predisposed to agree with.

But perhaps there is a different way to approach this.

Perhaps it might be best to reveal how stupendously inaccurate their claims are in areas that most YECs at least ought to be familiar with or can check for themselves the veracity of the claims these organizations make.

With that I'll turn to something that has been put out by ICR and has been unquestionably reposted on Facebook and twitter by a number of YECs.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24087[/ATTACH]

In case that there is any problem displaying the image it has the following caption:
with the following assertion:

"Roughly half of Christ's references to Scripture were quotations from Genesis

He obviously understood the importance of origins to Christian doctrines"

This is a pretty straightforward claim here, and one would think that ICR wouldn't make it if it weren't true since it isn't hard to verify.

So is it accurate? No. Not even remotely close.

In reality Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books but Genesis only once -- twice if you want to be generous and count repeated versions contained in the Gospels (Matthew 19:4-6; cf. Mark 10:6-8). Although if you want to get technical, it could be said that He is citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 there.

In contrast, as best as I can tell, and only counting them once even if found in more than one gospel, He quoted Exodus (primarily the Decalogue -- Ten Commandments) seven times. Isaiah eight times. Deuteronomy ten times. And Psalms eleven times. So just from those five books Christ quotes from them on 36 occasions whereas he quotes Genesis once, maybe twice.

I guess that I should note that this demonstrably incorrect claim originates in a book called Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution which was authored by all of the staff of ICR and which declares that it was "written and reviewed by experts" in order to assure the reader that it is as "accurate as humanly possible." It can be found in chapter nine where it says

In fact, Jesus quoted from Genesis about as much as all the other books of the Old Testament combined. Roughly half of Christ’s references to Scripture were quotation from Genesis. He obviously understood the importance of origins to Christian doctrines.

So this cannot be hand waved away as the product of an over enthusiastic intern or secretary posting this without being vetted or getting prior approval. This is YEC scholarship at its finest.

So this brings us to the question of if ICR is too incompetent to get something as simple to check as this wrong (or maybe brazenly misrepresenting it on purpose trusting on their fellow YECs to swallow whatever they say without question), can they be trusted with more obscure and technical matters such as scientific research?

Personally, I think that the answer is no.

Another, and IMHO, much more egregious example would be when a couple of years ago AnswersinGenesis (AiG) got caught red-handed editing out a reference to a belief in an earth that was millions of years old by the 19th century Charles Spurgeon, sometimes referred to as the "Prince of Preachers," from one of his sermons that they reprinted on their website.

On July 17, 1855 in a sermon titled “The Power of the Holy Ghost” at London's New Park Street Chapel (later the Metropolitan Tabernacle) where Spurgeon served as pastor for 38 years he said the following:

Source: The Power of the Holy Ghost

“In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.”

© Copyright Original Source

On the AiG website they removed the sentence "We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam." AiG "sanitized" Spurgeon’s sermon for its audience apparently because they did not want them to know that he had accepted that the earth was far more ancient than a few thousand years old.

Moreover, the censors at AiG even rewrote a portion at the end of Spurgeon's sermon that changed his statement that "the Creator gave up the world to confusion" to "the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation" apparently to make it look like Spurgeon was a YEC of some sort.

This of course sparked outrage as Spurgeon and his sermons are still much beloved by many Christians and having been caught in flagrante delicto AiG added a footnote to its version of the sermon where it relegated the censored portions (which, btw is not how you properly edit a paper) and justified the decision to re-write the sermon by in effect declaring that Spurgeon wasn't intelligent enough to "understand the age of the earth issue."

That didn't wash either. Pressure continued to mount and finally AiG reluctantly put the edited portion back into the main text -- although enclosed within brackets. The editor's footnote, explaining that Spurgeon, "brilliant as he was," wasn't smart enough to be trusted on the age of the earth, remained at the bottom of the sermon.

So we see that AiG cannot even fully embrace some of the greatest conservative Christian thinkers and preachers of the past unless they alter and distort what they said to better fit in with what AiG believes.

Again, this brings up the question if AiG is willing to misrepresent Spurgeon's views in such an audacious and contemptuous manner -- deleting and re-writing his actual words to make it conform to their views, then what else are they misrepresenting? If they are willing to do this with something as widely and publicly available as Spurgeon sermons, can they be trusted in more difficult to confirm subjects? In short, what else are they lying about?

In that thread I tried to provide examples other than those of their "scientific" chicanery but can continue providing many of those if needed.

[rogue06]

Thank you. Yes, that looks far more complete than what Sarfati apparently had claimed.



Yeah, I had no problem with the fact that it was a representation, it's just that that representation didn't tell us at all about what had actually physically been discovered.

If I ever bring this up again I'll either add this image or substitute it for the one that I used to try to avoid any further confusion.

[Zymologist]

I find "YEC" to be an awkward acronym to pronounce--there's just no flow to it.

I propose the nickname Yeccies instead.

[Adrift]

If I ever bring this up again I'll either add this image or substitute it for the one that I used to try to avoid any further confusion.

Thanks. Subjects like these can be hard to work through because it seems like the actual discoveries are not completely laid out in an organized fashion for the non-expert. Briefly digging into this topic, one website I visited seemed to imply that the image that Safarti was using to suggest that the fossil remains were missing came directly from National Geographic themselves, and that the image that you added later were from another, more complete example found on a later date. I wish when things like these came to light that we'd see actual photos of the fossils as they were discovered in the ground, and the actual fossils in a museum or lab. But often times what we get (for some strange reason) is reconstructions. There's no lack of a drawings, computer simulations, and mock plaster recreations, but rarely photos of the actual fossils as they were discovered, and as they actually exist on a table in a lab/museum. Kinda frustrating. And then digging through all of the nonsense online just makes it all that much harder. This isn't just a complaint I have about paleontology, but also applies to similar fields like anthropology and archaeology. Even in the field that I'm most interested, early Christian writings...we're only just now getting fragments and codexes scanned in full thanks to the work of people like Daniel Wallace. I think the general public would be so much more interested in this stuff if it was all just more easily accessible.