Lost World of John Walton – creation.com

Last month Creation.con decided to shred me for my blog on Premier Radio.

This month month it is the turn of Prof J Walton of Wheaton College, Chicago on his trilogy of Genesis one,

Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe800px-Creation_Museum_10

the Fall

 

and the Flood.

A book for sale at the Ark Encounter gift shop. You can see on the cover that the felines all came from a single common ancestor cat on the Ark.

 

The god folk at Creation ministries are not happy bunnies and they also don’t like Steve Moshier on geology

Enjoy the read and see how they are stuck in an inconsistent position and do nothing for the Gospel.

Better is to read Walton’s books

Source: Lost World of John Walton – creation.com

Fossil Fuel Fast for Lent

In the bad old days you gave up chocolate for Lent. I confess I never have.

More recently as some in the churches have gone a very dark shade of green, the suggestion is to have a carbon fast.

http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2017/02/christians-urged-to-take-part-in-carbon-fast-during-lent.aspx

This year it is to to have a plastic fast. To some that means not using single-use plastic.  Single use plastic has been much emphasised recently but we need to go much further than that and consider problems beyond that.

My concern is that that these Lenten fasts are temporary and don’t focus on central issues.

But before being very serious , here’s my suggestion for a fossil-fuel lenten fast.

Now what about a FOSSIL FUEL FAST?

That is a great challenge but how would we do it?

Now you are not going to use anything made or brought to you by fossil fuels.

Let’s see what happens.

You get out of bed and take off your pyjamas/nightshirt/nightie and you are bursting.

You go to the toilet and realise that the water in the loo and in the pipes has CHLORINE in it made courtesy of Natural Gas by Big Bad Jim Radcliffe. So you go outside and your neighbours see you having a wee.

You come back in and feel rather sweaty and want a shower. Ooops you can’t ! The water would be riddled with bugs were it not for the Chlorine made by Big Bad Jim. You had decided to have a cold shower when you realised that the gas  is FRACKED.

You have a serious medical condition and need to take daily medication. But, you realise they are synthesis from gas or oil , so you decide not to take them on moral grounds.

You start to dress and then struggle to find clothes which a 100% wool, cotton or linen. In the end you go naked

You go downstairs, cold and sweaty, and dying for a cuppa. You are about to switch the electric kettle on and then realise that my GridGB says 47.3% of the elec is generated by gas, 6% by coal and 25% by nuclear (and greenies don’t like nuclear either).

You decide for some orange juice – but it’s in a plastic bottle.

Out of desperation you decide on a beer and realise you have a choice of an aluminium can or bottle – both made using fossil fuels.

You are thirsty so to keep your ideological purity you drink from the water butt  – and chew an insect.

You are hungry, but you can only eat organic as other food is grown with artificial fertiliser from natural (fracked) gas. You remain hungry.

You need to check your e-mails. Stop, both the phone and computer are full of oil/gas-based plastic. So you don’t.

You are standing there in your itchy merino vest , woollen trousers and shirt etc and thinking it is time for work. Oh dear , how can you travel;

The car is out

so is the railway and bus

That leaves the bike, but each tyre was made from 2 litres of oil and the aluminium frame consumed loads of fossil fuel in its making. The saddle is plastic.

So off on foot you go in a pair of ancient leather shoes.

As you go it starts to rain, a lovely cold, wet, driving March rain which soon penetrates your non-fossil-fuel woollen clothing.

You are freezing and realise this fossil-fuel fast is daft  and a rebellion like this will immediately result in your extinction. Shivering you go back home.

As you shuffle home you realise what a life your green heroes lead; some have private yachts and jets, others fly round  the world on a regular basis, many have mansions.

You say “SOD IT” 1000 times , run home get a hot shower, put on clothes regardless of material, have a cooked breakfast, check your email and ring your boss to say you’ll be late.

That evening you call into your garage and swap your Nissan Leaf for a diesel SUV.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Yes, this is all very far fetched BUT it is the logic of Dark Greens, even when their behaviour does not match their words. It is the logic of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibbin , Extinction Rebellion, Operation Noah and so much of the green movement today.

Yes, they are totally right that the planet is a mess and something has to be done to reduce the use of fossil fuels  and over-consumption generally. Pipe -dreams that it can be done by 2025 or even 2030 are just that and counter-productive. No amount of appeals to renewables can make it happen.

This diagram of June 2018 shows exactly why. Look at the tiny orange band for renewables and even the blue for hydro. Despite rapid growth recently renewables only produce a few per cent of the total energy demand whereas fossil fuels deliver a good 80%.

bp

No wonder every forecast of energy use recognise that fossil fuels will still be majorly used in 2050 , even if in decline. This is especially so for transport (when having electric vehicles actually means retaining fossil fuels to generate the extra electricity.).

The green mantra is that all fossil fuels are bad  and ignore the fact that coal is the worst both for CO2 and other pollution and gas the best. Thus all three are demonised. We need this

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Slide9.jpg

The more coal is replaced by gas the better, but that does not sit easily with a green outlook.

As well as giving energy, fossil fuels give an immense number of products – not only the scourge of single use plastic.

A good exercise is to start listing them; pens, kitchen utensils, car-parts, bike-parts, in computers and phone, medicines

This diagram lists those made from oil. A similar list could be done for gas.

oiluses

none of this is to say that fossil fuels are purely beneficial. Over the last 250 years they have given immense benefits to almost everyone on the globe.

 

But there has been an unacceptable price; the CO2 emitted is affecting the climate, which are anything but good.

Hence there need to be changes.

Activist greens argue for immediate drastic action as is seen with the recent activities of Extinction Rebellion. At best they are totally unrealistic and at worst they will be counter-productive and make both politicians and the public reject what is good in thier message.

Their claim is that governments are criminal and committing ecocide, but that ignores the strides (though very ponderous) that governments have made in the last few decades and that IPCC reports are listened too and acted on. Perhaps if they were not so full of virtue signalling they would see first how much fossil fuel they use and secondly that the slow hard graft by many in and out of government are bearing fruit.

As a result the whole issue of the climate is polarised, made worse by the frequent accusations of being a Climate Denier thrown at some, whether it is true or not.

Yes, I’ve poked fun at some of the green christian suggestions for Lent and then taken them one stage further.

Perhaps a better use  of Lent  (on top of the traditional Christian observation in prayer but not giving up chocolate) would be to getting fully informed of all the issues around climate and energy-  and that means studying publications from all perspectives and not just those perceived to be S-O-U-N-D and too our liking. I note that many Christian green groups simply only look to one side i.e. those with a similar perspective to Klein and McKibbin and ignoring those of Ecomodernism, or even Matt Ridley!

As well as that all of us need to look at ways of reducing our impact on the planet, and here I’d need to give a thousand green tips. For myself I have followed some but find others I need to adopt. These cover all areas from transport, use of water, gardening, energy in the house etc.

Think of one or two green things you can start this Lent and carry on doing them for ever.

Have a profitable and green Lent, but also a purple one

 

Fracking and Global Warming: What’s the Connection?

A petroleum engineer from New Mexico gives a college lecture to a Christian University on fracking and global warming.

It seems a good and balanced article , unlike this rather duplicitous meme

BwDMkI6IEAA6YUf

See the picture show: Is fracking good or bad? What is fracking’s share of global warming? And what sustainable solutions are there?

Source: Fracking and Global Warming: What’s the Connection?

Michael Roberts gets hung, drawn and quartered by Australian Creationists!! the final fatal blows

Oh dear my Premier Christian Radio blog of last year has caused some upset down-under. Not content with shredding my first five questions, they have had me hung, drawn and quartered as well. Have I really touched a raw nerve with these Australian creationists?

10389436_10203030956276827_2185931412440811414_n

Well, Creation Ministries International have now shredded my points 6 to 10 and I’m gutted

Much was predictable and they seem disappointed I have not taken heed of their books and articles, which they know I have read. Yes, I took head of them as far was sensible , which was not at all. Jonathan Sirfartie’s Refuting Evolution was a remarkably bad book.

Not being so blessed as them with unlimited time I make a few comments on some of their quotes from the blog.

It is essentially saying one must believe in a 6-day creation and not to do so you are compromised by secular thought and have rejected the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Over the last half century I have not found one argument for creationism which dust not turn to dust on inspection.

Here is my response to Part 1 of their crit

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2019/02/20/michael-roberts-gets-slaughtered-by-oz-creationists-rebuttal-of-10-questions-to-ask-a-young-earth-creationist-part-1-creation-com/

I give the url to their blog at the end of my response to their response, and here I pick up a few of their points.

Apostle Paul’s theology is contingent upon the Bible’s history, recognizing that the spread of death to all mankind resulted from the sin of Adam. Not only humanity but all creation suffered from the effects of sin, including animals. In a chapter dealing with salvation from sin, Paul describes the whole creation as “groaning” and being “subjected to futility” and suffering under the “bondage to corruption” (Romans 8:20–22).

CMI’s argument that all creation suffered the curse and that brought in death is not there in Genesis, however much you holler that it is. Clearly if animals, or even bacteria, have been biting the dust since the early Precambrian, then the curse is null and void. Or else the whole of science is.

The writer then appeals to Romans 8 vs 20-2. This passage is open to disagreement , especially if you take the word Ktisis in vs 20ff to mean creation/cosmos. Many theologians and NT scholars get in a fix over this and it is worrying that NT Wright almost seems to accept a curse as he does in Evil and the justice of God, where on p 117 he even thinks seasons are a sign of futility, which is very weird. https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/spring-is-here-but-are-the-four-seasons-evil/

In fact ktisis has a variety of meanings and after much research I prefer to follow Archbishop Ussher’s contemporary and fellow chronologist John Lightfoot and translate ktisis  as humanity. It makes better sense.

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/mis-reading-romans-chapter-8/

In Michael Roberts’ introduction he states, “for the last 2000 years most Christians have not believed in a young earth and it is only in the last half century that it has become a big issue for some Christians”.1

This is a blatant misrepresentation of Church history. Belief in a recent creation was the default historical position of the church from the first century right up until the era of Darwin

Total facepalm.

BmZJVIpCEAEmHN_

If CMI studied what writers had written and especially from 1600 they would see that I am right. Slowly after 1660 a longer time for creation was accepted and by 1790 few educated Christians held to a young earth, and those diminished rapidly after 1800 after from the scriptural geologists (see below) . By 1859 there were hardly any young earthers in Britain , USA or the rest of Europe.

 

he idea that there was no “geological evidence to guide” Christians is contradicted by the fact that the scriptural geologists of the time (see next section) were men who possessed expert geological competence. However, they were ignored by the establishment (many of whom were deists), which followed the academic trend of Hutton and Lyell’s uniformitarianism.

That’s fogging it up by flipping from the 17th to 19th century without noting the difference! In the 17th and early 18th there was virtually no geological evidence as so little geological work was done. A cursory look at any history of geology will show that . It was only after 1750 that geological evidence began to accumulate. This also ignores  (deliberately?) any geologist of a different perspective to Lyell and Hutton. Just take Brogniart and Cuvier in France, deLuc and de Saussure in Switzerland , William Smith (the Father of English geology), Townsend, Buckland, Coneybeare Brothers, Sedgwick and a host of others in Britain. Their inaccuracy here beggars belief.

This question borders on the fallacy of generalization, as Roberts implies that all early geologists’ views were similar and that they rejected a ‘young earth’. Terry Mortenson, in his book The Great Turning Point,3 gives detailed descriptions of seven ‘Scriptural Geologists’ who objected to ‘old earth’ (deep time) theories (see also The 19th century scriptural geologists: historical background). However, in the time of Charles Darwin, the rapidly developing field of geology became divorced from Scripture. Subsequently, many early geologists (even some Christians) pursued secular uniformitarian thinking. Sadly, then, they “deliberately overlook[ed] this fact, that … the earth was formed out of water … by the word of God, and … the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished” (2 Peter 3:5–6).

Ah Terry Mortenson! His book is based on his Ph D thesis from Coventry Univ. I had a copy of his thesis in my house for years and returned it to the the owner. It was not the best of theses. To say these anti-geologists “were men who possessed expert geological competence”  is risible when you assess their grasp of geology as measured by the standards of the early 19th century. Apart from George Young, who did some good field geology in Yorkshire, the rest did their field work sitting in an armchair. Mortenson wrote “George Fairholme was quite competent to critically analyze old-earth geological theories.” as I wrote in Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2009; v. 310; p. 155-170 Adam Sedgwick (17851873): geologist and evangelical

A frequent contributor to the
Christian Observer during the 1820s and 1830s
was George Fairholme (1789–1846), who signed
himself as ‘A Layman on Scriptural Geology’. Fairholme
was a Scot and was probably educated at
home rather than university. He wrote the General
View of the Geology of Scripture (Fairholme
1833) and the Mosaic Deluge (Fairholme 1837).
The preface of the latter discussed the theological
results and scepticism caused by geology and
especially the rejection of a universal deluge:
‘there cannot be conceived a principle more
pregnant with mischief to the simple reception of
scripture’. Fairholme emphasized the universality
of the Deluge: ‘if false . . . then has our Blessed
Saviour himself aided in promoting the belief of
that falsehood, by . . . alluding both to the fact and
the universality of its destructive consequences to
mankind’ (Fairholme 1837, p. 61).
In the General View of the Geology of Scripture
(Fairholme 1833), he gave an appearance of geological
competence by citing geological works.
However, his geology does not bear comparison
with that of major geological writers of his day.
His lack of geological competence is best seen in
his discussion of the relationship of coal to chalk.
Fairholme wrote:
the chalk formation is placed far above that of coal, apparently
from no better reason, than that chalk usually presents an elevation
on the upper surface, while coal must be looked for at various
depths below the level of the ground (Fairholme 1833, p. 243).
He had previously discussed this (Fairholme 1833,
pp. 207–210) and concluded, having misunderstood
an article in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia,
that
Nothing can be clearer than this account; and it appears certain,
that, as in the case of the Paris Basin, this lime-stone formed the
bed of the antediluvian sea, on which the diluvial deposits of
coal, clay, ironstone, and free-stone, were alternately laid at the
same period (Fairholme 1833, p. 209).
It is clear that Fairholme regarded Carboniferous
Limestone and the Cretaceous chalk as the same
formation, and he wrote that coal fields,
lie among sandstones . . . but have, in no instance, been found
below chalk, which is one of the best defined secondary formations
immediately preceding the Deluge.
Thus the Cretaceous strata were pre-Flood and the
Coal Measures were deposited during the Flood.
He continued,
But during the awful event [the Deluge] we are now considering,
all animated nature ceased to exist, and consequently, the floating
bodies of the dead bodies must have been buoyed up until the bladders
burst, by the force of the increasing air contained within them
(Fairholme 1833, p. 257).
It is impossible to agree with Mortenson’s assessment
that ‘By early nineteenth century standards,
George Fairholme was quite competent to critically
analyze old-earth geological theories’ (Mortenson
2004, p. 130). Although Fairholme took it upon
himself to criticize geology, he did so from sheer
ignorance, as is evidenced by his claim that Chalk
always underlies Coal. Fairholme, like all antigeologists,
attempted from his armchair to find
fault with geology, but his ‘scientific’ objections
were simply misunderstood geology. Then, as
now, the advantage of writing such works is that
the refutation of their absurd arguments is beyond
the patience of rational people. The geological fraternity
had very little respect for the anti-geologists
and the response was frequently biting sarcasm,
often led by Lyell.

reproduced in  https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/how-to-deal-with-victorian-creationists-and-win/

I just love the Coal measures lying above the Chalk 🙂 and dead mammals floating because of bloated bladders!! Imagine the yuk when the bladders burst.

ararat_or_bust

No wonder the good evangelical parson Sedgwick had so much fun ridiculing the Scriptural geologists!! Sadly no leading Anglican has done the like in recent years. Bishops do’t seem to want to refute heresy  – and it is their job.

 

 

We are not sure where Michael Roberts gets his figures “250 years” (under question 2) and here, “350 years”? In the former case, we assume he is referring to the publication of James Hutton’s 1788 Theory of the Earth (230 years ago). Hutton’s publication was a philosophical imposition upon the rocks. It was not based on extensive field observation over many years but upon an unwarranted extrapolation into the past. This uniformitarian approach followed from his a priori naturalism which, after the promotion of Hutton’s work by Charles Lyell, became the ruling paradigm through which geology has been interpreted ever since. Ultimately it comes down to a matter of authority. Both Hutton and Lyell were anti-Bible deists (who were influenced by Masonic belief). They did not ‘read the rocks’, but set out to undo the Bible’s historical credibility, which was accepted at the time of Hutton. Their aim was achieved by subterfuge.

Simples. 250 takes us back to 1760 when geology really got going and 350 goes back to Steno, Ray and Lhwyd. They have no justification to say Hutton’s publication was a philosophical imposition on the rocks, nor Lyell and overlook the fact that there was a tremendous diversity of outlook among the early geologists. some were Christians eg Michell, Towsend, Sedgwick , Buckland etc and others like the canal engineer William Smith had no philosophy at all!!

The subterfuge in this paragraph is the CMI grossly misrepresenting what happened

column+temp

 

and so the compare the two  – good ole creationism and the godlessness of Hutton and his successors, including me.

timeline

Just a wee problem, the Big Bang was put forward not by a rabid atheist but bu Fr Lemaitre, a Belgian priest. Whoops!

So just a few thoughts on CMI latest tirade against me.

Am I thick?

Maybe I’m in good company?

SH16DARWIN2

I am most honoured to get the response as it shows my blog has had some effect. Perhaps I have convinced some that Young Earth Creationism is twaddle

Meanwhile I remain a simple believer in God as creator and Jesus as my lord and Saviour and I delight in both the bible and geology.

Perhaps that is rather sarcastic, but groups like Creation ministries seem to delight in rubbishing the faith of Christians who do not believe the same as them. They compound that by not being rigorous in their honesty by continually misrepresenting those who accept standard views of science and rather unpleasantly calling them “compromisers”.  They seems to be a lack of both love and truthfulness.

Yet, too many Christians fall under their spell.

Now read their blog and see how I am hung, drawn and quartered.

 

Source: Answering the Premier Christianity article by Michael Roberts – 10 questions to ask a young earth creationist – Part 2 – creation.com

Michael Roberts gets slaughtered by Oz Creationists!– rebuttal of 10 questions to ask a young earth creationist – Part 1 – creation.com

 

315500_393800870693304_2100848630_n

Last year Premier Christian Radio asked me to write a blog “10 questions to ask a young earth creationist”.

I attempted to focus on the essentials

I duly did that and here is what they published

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/10-questions-to-ask-a-young-earth-creationist-premier-christianity/

I published my first draft as a blog and it is slightly longer and fuller. Even so there was much I left out and wanted to expand. Here it is

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/is-the-earth-old-or-young-questions-for-creationists/

In the ensuing three months from publication I hadn’t heard much, but now I am being honoured with a two part rebuttal from the lovely people at Creation Ministries International.

Here is the first installment

Source: Answering the Premier Christianity article by Michael Roberts – 10 questions to ask a young earth creationist – Part 1 – creation.com

An English priest in the beloved country

From late 1969 I worked in south Africa for 18 months and spent most of my time illegally living in the Richtersveld then a coloured reserve.

It was a fruitful and challenging time, especially as I had to spend much time with Afrikaners, who are much kinder than many think. Workmates did not like my views on Apartheid.

Needless to say I looked to Alan Paton and others. Thechurches, including Anglicans, were often either silenced or muted

I appreciate this blog as it does not go for all the Ban Rhodes type of tosh.
Enjoy the blog

Webstory

[Another post related to my occasional series on clergy in fiction. This time, not an English author, but an English character working overseas.]

I can think of no other novel in years that has struck me so forcefully as Cry, the beloved country, by Alan Paton. The book was first published in the UK in 1948 by Jonathan Cape; issued as a Penguin Modern Classic in 1958, and subsequently reprinted almost every year until at least 1982, the year in which my copy was printed. Paton was an educationalist, and campaigner for the rights of the native South African population. He was also a friend of Geoffrey Clayton, archbishop of Cape Town, whose biography he published in 1973.

Why am I so struck by it ? Fundamentally it is because the plot has an intense humanity, intertwining themes of place and home, familial loyalty and parental loss, individual…

View original post 699 more words

4009 BC and all that & Ben Franklin

 

1739almanac

On Robert MacFarlane’s twitter feed I found this. He was dealing with the word “almanac” as part of his wonderful study of words. As usual, I went off at a tangent and focussed on the ages of the earth presented there ;

1739almanac - Copy

This gives six estimates of the age of the earth  with considerable variance. The nearest to Archbishop Ussher’s iconic 4004BC is WW who gives 4009BC. That WW is William Whiston who wrote “A new theory of the earth” in 1696.

William Whiston.pngJacobus_ussher

William Whiston                                                      James Ussher

Whiston is typical of the the 17th century theories of the earth, of which there are legion. Readability and brevity is not their strong point. However as I have pointed out earlier, they did not quite follow Ussher with a 6 24 hour day creation but extended the time a little. Whiston reckoned that the days were a year long and hence 4004BC is extended to 4009BC. As Stephen Gould said this “was a big step in the right direction”.( S Gould Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991, p372) . Five years may not seem much compared to the earth’s actual FIVE billion years, but along with so many others of his day  along with Burnet, Ray and Hobbes, slowly paved the way for understanding deep time.

To many, this would simply show that in 1739 most blithely accepted a 4004BC date for creation, but this shows that something more flexible was being put in a popular publication. Yes Whiston’s extra 5 years was a tiny step but it was part of the beginning of many steps

Genesis 1 & geological time from 1600-1850

Now this is very significant for the mid-18th century attitude to the age of the earth, especially considering the author. From the frontispiece it appears Richard Saunders is the author and Benjamin Franklin only the publisher, but in fact, Richard Saunders was a pseudonym Franklin used. (see wikipedia on Franklin, if nowt else available) . Granted this is from across the pond but many there were bang up to date on science and not only Franklin. This can be seen with the Boston preacher Thomas Prince in 1755 after the Boston earthquake (probably Mag 6 – 6.5) on November 18th. Prince was criticised for saying the quake was due to lightning rods, drawing the power of thunderstorms to earth thus causing earthquakes. These were erected because of Franklins’s view expresed in 1737 “that the material cause of thunder, lightning and earthquakes are one and the same.”

However , that is one idea Franklin got wrong, but he was a great practitioner and advocate of science  – and the rebellion of the 1770s.

I suggest by giving a wide variety of dates for creation, he was gently encouraging his readers to think beyond  a strict Ussher chronology.

It would take a few more years before the great age of the earth in millions and not thousands became clear, but this is another example a some diversity of views on the earth’s age.

I am quite sure MacFarlane was not thinking about geological time when he “did” almanacs, but he gave me a little detail to follow up and find another leak in the ark.

 

 

******************************************************************************

For some details

http://americanantiquarian.org/earlyamericannewsmedia/items/show/111

 

“Poor Richard, 1739. An Almanack for the Year of Christ 1739.,” The News Media and the Making of America, 1730-1865, accessed February 19, 2019, http://americanantiquarian.org/earlyamericannewsmedia/items/show/111.