-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why don't creationists publish?
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Jose Fly
New member
And as we all know now, synergistic epistasis is not a "rescue device", but is instead a very real thing.
Again, given your extreme bias and anti-scientific mindset, your empty assertions are of no value whatsoever.
Pay closer attention 6days. The article says 70 total new mutations per individual, with 7 of those being deleterious.
That's not what the authors said at all. Is there a reason you feel the need to misrepresent their work? I know your extreme bias won't allow you to accept their conclusions, but that doesn't mean you have to misrepresent what they actually did.
??????? Oh my goodness....that's your level of understanding of this subject? Despite all the years you've being arguing about evolutionary biology, your impression is that humans evolved from chimps in less than a million years?
Ok then.....:noway:
The "spin" I was talking about was your characterization of their work as "trying to make data fit their a priori beliefs".
You're just projecting your own sins onto others.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
synergistic epistasis is like dumping a truckload of bowling balls at the base of a 5 mile high mountain, noting that some of them bounced off the others and rolled uphill two feet and jumping around excitedly shouting "it went uphill! it went uphill!" and claiming that you've figured out how to get all the bowling balls to the peak
6days
New member
Awesome analogy.
everready
New member
Slaughter of the Dissidents
Slaughter of the Dissidents
It begins when we are children..
Suppression by schools and colleges
Cases range from the puerile to the criminal. An example of the first involves a professor who got his students to read two articles critical of aspects of evolution from the well established Journal of Theoretical Biology. He was reassigned to the History of Science Department, and the college even cancelled its subscription of the journal, although it is hardly a creationist publication. An example of the second involves a professor who “came out of the closet” about Darwinism. He was struck with the fist by a colleague and sustained a broken nose which required surgery. No action was taken against the assailant. “The dean told me he could understand why my ideas made them mad.”
The youngest instance involves a 12 year old boy who said he didn’t believe in evolution, and was ridiculed by his teacher in front of his class. She also warned him never to say that again in her class or she would take him to the principal for discipline.
Good scholarship is no help to a Darwin doubter.
Those who get past high school and are known to be Darwin doubters are denied degrees or entry into postgraduate work, and thus entry into the science profession. Those that slip through that barrier and gain entry into the profession are prevented from publishing their sceptical views, and attempts are made to hound them out of the profession.
https://creation.com/slaughter-of-the-dissidents
Slaughter of the Dissidents
It begins when we are children..
Suppression by schools and colleges
Cases range from the puerile to the criminal. An example of the first involves a professor who got his students to read two articles critical of aspects of evolution from the well established Journal of Theoretical Biology. He was reassigned to the History of Science Department, and the college even cancelled its subscription of the journal, although it is hardly a creationist publication. An example of the second involves a professor who “came out of the closet” about Darwinism. He was struck with the fist by a colleague and sustained a broken nose which required surgery. No action was taken against the assailant. “The dean told me he could understand why my ideas made them mad.”
The youngest instance involves a 12 year old boy who said he didn’t believe in evolution, and was ridiculed by his teacher in front of his class. She also warned him never to say that again in her class or she would take him to the principal for discipline.
Good scholarship is no help to a Darwin doubter.
Those who get past high school and are known to be Darwin doubters are denied degrees or entry into postgraduate work, and thus entry into the science profession. Those that slip through that barrier and gain entry into the profession are prevented from publishing their sceptical views, and attempts are made to hound them out of the profession.
https://creation.com/slaughter-of-the-dissidents
6days
New member
Not exactly..... They ignore 90% of the mutations in the non-coding DNA because they don't know what the function is. Here is the quote "The question of how our species accommodates high deleterious mutation rates has long been pondered. Indeed, a newborn is estimated to have ~70 de novo mutations. The consensus for estimates for the fraction of the genome that is “functional” is that about 10% of the human genome sequence is selectively constrained. Thus, the average human should carry at least seven de novo deleterious mutations.Jose Fly said:
You are of course unable to back up your beliefs with science. I will re-phrase my question....Jose Fly said:
Would love to hear how 7 deleterious mutations per generation changed a few hundred million nucleotides over the course of just 5 million years, in order for modern humans to evolve from 'Panina'. (Or nearest common ancestor, if not 'pan') Then show how "the mutation rate was derived and confirmed through human/chimp common ancestry."
You can factor in the additive model, antagonistic epistasis....or synergistic epistasis or any rescue device you wish...Good luck....go!
The title of this thread seems to be intended to provoke rather than stimulate honest discussion. It is trivially obvious (as Jose Fly noted) that creationists do publish. And not just in journals directed to fundamentalist Christians, but in peer-reviewed secular science journals. Look up articles authored by John Baumgardner, Michael Behe, or Jason Lisle.
It would have been far more productive to ask a less-belligerent question, such as “What significant scientific concepts in mainstream science originated from YEC authors?” I specifically specify “mainstream science” since there are lots of pseudo-scientific ideas that have been put forth in popular fundamentalist books and journals that have never had much impact on secular science.
By “secular science” I mean science that is derived without allegiance to any specific religious philosophy – so that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. can all agree on the methodology and concur in the conclusions.
It appears that in spite of decades of pressure from fundamentalist Christians who want to tailor science to conform to their theological beliefs, they have been pretty impotent at making a noticeable impact in real scientific journals. Of particular interest is the “RATE” project that was sponsored by the ICR over a decade ago, in which an elite team of YEC scientists was commissioned to specifically focus for years on some core scientific ideas with the goal of showing that YEC scientific explanations were better than the existing secular scientific ones. Now with a decade behind us since the release of the RATE studies, how much of an impact has the RATE effort made on any of the disputed secular scientific claims?
It would have been far more productive to ask a less-belligerent question, such as “What significant scientific concepts in mainstream science originated from YEC authors?” I specifically specify “mainstream science” since there are lots of pseudo-scientific ideas that have been put forth in popular fundamentalist books and journals that have never had much impact on secular science.
By “secular science” I mean science that is derived without allegiance to any specific religious philosophy – so that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. can all agree on the methodology and concur in the conclusions.
It appears that in spite of decades of pressure from fundamentalist Christians who want to tailor science to conform to their theological beliefs, they have been pretty impotent at making a noticeable impact in real scientific journals. Of particular interest is the “RATE” project that was sponsored by the ICR over a decade ago, in which an elite team of YEC scientists was commissioned to specifically focus for years on some core scientific ideas with the goal of showing that YEC scientific explanations were better than the existing secular scientific ones. Now with a decade behind us since the release of the RATE studies, how much of an impact has the RATE effort made on any of the disputed secular scientific claims?
Last edited:
6days
New member
How about astronomy...Redfern said:
How about...
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY, or BACTERIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, or ELECTRODYNAMICS, or
GENETICS, or PALEONTOLOGY, or SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY etc etc... Much of modern science is founded on scientific concepts that originated from bible-believing Christians.
We likely agree that science is neither religious or secular.Redfern said:
Science, as a methodology for studying and learning about the universe, makes no mention of religion, so by definition that means it is secular. One of the distinguishing characteristics of fundamentalist Christianity, and YECism specifically, is that science is accepted only to the extent it supports your religious beliefs. Which means that in the views of many Christians, there are two types of science – good science that supports Biblical claims, and science that is bad when it does not support Biblical claims. Subverting science for religious reasons is absolutely making it subject to religion.
I agree. But since those scientific concepts originated, the Christian scientists who have refined and expanded on some of those concepts have largely bifurcated into two groups – those who see science unencumbered by religious precepts as the best way to understand God’s creation (OECs), and those who oppose science when it does not conform to their doctrines (YECs). Added to those two groups are a huge number of scientists who leave religious leanings outside the laboratory door. The number of YEC scientists comes in a distant 4th out of those 3 groups.
Yeah, with its widely accepted conclusions by the astronomers that the universe is billions of years old – what about it?
In the areas where each of these fields have a conflict between secular science and YEC views, show where YEC scientists have published articles in standard scientific journals defending the YEC views.
6days
New member
Depends what you mean by secular. If you mean an unwillingness to follow evidence that seems to lead to a supernatural creation, then that is a religious secularism and not science. Science is the study of the world around us through observation and experiment.Redfern said:
We agree... Sort of. For example ...Redfern said:
1) when evolutionists argue that bad vertebrate Eye Design is evidence against a creator. (if bad design is evidence against an intelligent Creator, then good design must be evidence for a intelligent creator).
2) Assuming 95% of our DNA is useless biological remnants.
3) Assuming organs such as the appendix is a useless biological leftover.
4) Assuming so-called pseudogenes have no function.
There are many many examples where Shoddy conclusions of evidence were made based on a false belief system.
it seems you are more interested in pushing a false narrative than you are in reality.Redfern said:
Geneticists, chemists, biologists, etc all use the exact same scientific method no matter if they are hardcore atheist or hardcore creationist. They can have different beliefs about the past which seldom interfere with empirical science. (A few examples noted about where evolutionary beliefs have hindered science).
When do you declare something as supernatural? When I was young, I was in charge of an early computer that was being used in support of some rocket research. The computer had about 20,000 bytes of memory that was housed in a cabinet the size of a kitchen table. Today I often carry a dozen memory chips in my pocket, each one containing more than ten million “kitchen tables” equivalent memory. If I had been told long ago that physical computer memory size would be reduced by over a factor of ten billion to one, I would likely have dismissed it as a supernatural fantasy. A vast amount of today’s technology would have been viewed as supernatural to people just a few centuries ago.
There is no supernatural, there are only things that are still far beyond our understanding. The minute you declare something as supernatural, you surround it with a shield of ignorance.
Come on 6days, you are above this level of inanity. Look at wings seen in the animal world. Sometimes we see species where the wings barely give any help at all, and other times we see wings that carry birds on flights of thousands of miles without landing. Using your logic, the crappy wings don’t show much intelligence (from mother nature) in their design, but then the creator that came up with the good wing design (also mother nature) must be intelligent. That OK with you?
Multiple times in past conversations it has been specifically pointed out to you that concluding something is vestigial is not, and never has been, conditional on it being useless. I am left with two options. Either you are mentally deficient and incapable of remembering that, or you have no moral qualms about repeatedly posting something you know is false.
Yup, like the shoddy conclusions arising from the false belief that ancient oral nomadic creation myths are reliable scientific accounts.
Discussing modern views about creation, I mentioned the current segregation into YECs, OECs, and others who simply ignore religious ideas about creation. What do you see as a false narrative in that?
Then where are the published scientific studies from the hardcore creationists dealing with places they differ with secular science? Remember, thus thread deals with the paucity of published scientific studies supporting YEC beliefs.
Just want to address this.
"Supernatural" simply means "outside or beyond nature/the universe."
Super - outside of, beyond
Natural - nature
God is supernatural, he is outside of the universe, not subject to it's laws, because He created it.
Thanks, JR. Other religions, not just Christians, make similar claims about their God(s). But science is conducted without regard to any religion’s beliefs. There are many things science does not yet understand, but I know of nothing that deals with nature that science is proscribed from trying to learn about and understand.
Do you know of any?
One would think that especially with the guidance of an omniscient deity, the scholarship coming out of Liberty University would be turning "secular" science on its head.
Not necessarily.
Even secular archaeologists will have a Bible nearby when excavating near where places that are mentioned in the Bible should be.
I think that everyone agrees on that. But there's a difference between not knowing something yet and not knowing it because it's not able to be known, because it isn't factual.
Could you rephrase your statement, please? Either my brain is malfunctioning and not reading your statement right, or you missed a word or something. I can't seem to make heads or tails of it.
Considering that God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years, there hasn't been any active guidance...
Which applies only to pagan deities... God can know everything that can be known. He can't know something that can't be known.
:noid:
I think the point Redfern would make is that it doesn't matter what "book is in your hand"; it doesn't matter what you believe; it doesn't matter what your idea is: The scientific method is available to everyone.
As long as you're willing to outline an idea you believe — without equivocation — leave it open to testing and falsification, and — most importantly — reject the idea if the evidence shows it is impossible, you're a potential scientist.
That the Bible is helpful to archaeologists doesn't add much to the discussion over what science is.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
According to your "science": God.