User Tag List

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 264

Thread: Why don't creationists publish?

  1. #61
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,993
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,338 Times in 1,010 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501706
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    OK, you are correct. How about this, "Creationists do very little actual science." Work for you? I'm satisfied.

    Perhaps we can add "What little they do has little impact."
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Insofar as creationists do creationism, they don't do science. Any actual science they perform is minimal and has contributed nothing of value to the compendium of scientific knowledge.
    Creationists do very little to support the false religion of Evolution that most people have been taught as science.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  2. #62
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,931
    Thanks
    1,062
    Thanked 3,962 Times in 2,363 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1794415
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    The ToE came about after the data had been analysed, not beforehand...
    TheToE is essentially a religion through which many view the data. Various prominent evolutionist have admitted the religious nature of evolutionism. Karl Popper for example called Darwinism a "metaphysical research programme", and said " it is not a testable scientific theory"
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    Creationism works in reverse....
    Creationism and evolutionism"work" the same. They are opposing beliefs about our history and evidence is interpreted through those priori beliefs.

    Evolutionism though often relies on illogical beliefs, often creating rescue devices trying to make the data fit their belief system.
    For example;
    Stellar evolutionists often believe that nothing created everything. They fabricate rescue devices such as faster than the speed of light, cosmic inflation, white holes, multiverse etc.

    Chemical evolutionist often believe that life can come from non-life... This is in spite of this scientific law of biogenesis.

    Biological evolutionists believe that mutations can cause 'uphill' evolution... That biological motors and a living cell can self create. They believe that given enough time and enough mutations a simple cell can evolve into a cellular biologist. Rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis is used to explain away the data to fit their belief system.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 20th, 2018),Right Divider (August 21st, 2018)

  4. #63
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,698
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 986 Times in 637 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    369836
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Biological evolutionists believe that mutations can cause 'uphill' evolution...
    that is simply incorrect . Evolution need not be "uphill" whatever that term means.

  5. #64
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,931
    Thanks
    1,062
    Thanked 3,962 Times in 2,363 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1794415
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog
    Evolution need not be "uphill" whatever that term means.
    Very true.... There is lots of evidence of "downhill" evolution, (genetic diseases, extinctions, speciation). However, evolutionists believe that mutations can cause 'uphill' evolution... That biological motors and a living cell can self create. They believe that given enough time and enough mutations a simple cell can evolve into a cellular biologist. Rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis is used to explain away the data to fit their belief system.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 21st, 2018),Right Divider (August 21st, 2018)

  7. #65
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196949
    Creationists do publish, just not about creationism. For example, Michael Behe has published in genuine scientific journals, but none of those publications are about ID creationism.

    The reason creationists don't publish anything about creationism in science journals is because creationism isn't science, as epitomized by Answers In Genesis' statement of faith....

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

    That is the exact opposite of science (it's also a framework which 6days referred to as "good" and "true").
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jose Fly For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 21st, 2018)

  9. #66
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196949
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    However, evolutionists believe that mutations can cause 'uphill' evolution... That biological motors and a living cell can self create. They believe that given enough time and enough mutations a simple cell can evolve into a cellular biologist.
    What other mechanism(s) besides those within evolutionary theory do you propose generates new traits, genetic sequences, and species?

    Rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis is used to explain away the data to fit their belief system.
    Didn't learn a thing from the debacle you went through on that, did you? Go figure....
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Jose Fly For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 21st, 2018)

  11. #67
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,612
    Thanks
    8,804
    Thanked 6,960 Times in 4,618 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147745
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    TheToE is essentially a religion through which many view the data. Various prominent evolutionist have admitted the religious nature of evolutionism. Karl Popper for example called Darwinism a "metaphysical research programme", and said " it is not a testable scientific theory"
    Creationism and evolutionism"work" the same. They are opposing beliefs about our history and evidence is interpreted through those priori beliefs.

    Evolutionism though often relies on illogical beliefs, often creating rescue devices trying to make the data fit their belief system.
    For example;
    Stellar evolutionists often believe that nothing created everything. They fabricate rescue devices such as faster than the speed of light, cosmic inflation, white holes, multiverse etc.

    Chemical evolutionist often believe that life can come from non-life... This is in spite of this scientific law of biogenesis.

    Biological evolutionists believe that mutations can cause 'uphill' evolution... That biological motors and a living cell can self create. They believe that given enough time and enough mutations a simple cell can evolve into a cellular biologist. Rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis is used to explain away the data to fit their belief system.
    Um, no. The ToE came about because of the data. That's how the scientific method works. Findings are analysed, subject to continual scrutiny and the reason why both evolution and an old earth are globally accepted is due to the plethora of evidence to support such. Creationism is only interested in trying to shoehorn anything that fits in with a pre-set conclusion and ignores anything that goes against a strict, literal reading of Genesis. That is not science. There's no plausible reason why evolution and an old earth would just be "made up" if the evidence didn't back it up. I mean, why bother? Unless you're a conspiracy nut, then even you should be able to see that it would make no sense to invent such theories?
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Jose Fly (August 21st, 2018)

  13. #68
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,612
    Thanks
    8,804
    Thanked 6,960 Times in 4,618 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147745
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    Creationists do publish, just not about creationism. For example, Michael Behe has published in genuine scientific journals, but none of those publications are about ID creationism.

    The reason creationists don't publish anything about creationism in science journals is because creationism isn't science, as epitomized by Answers In Genesis' statement of faith....

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

    That is the exact opposite of science (it's also a framework which 6days referred to as "good" and "true").
    And even AiG has issues with the more vocal proponents of creationism aka Kent Hovind...
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  14. #69
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,931
    Thanks
    1,062
    Thanked 3,962 Times in 2,363 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1794415
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    Um, no. The ToE came about becauseof the data.
    If you are referring to the belief in common ancestry / Darwimism, you are mistaken.
    Karl Popper called it a "metaphysical research programme".

    Zoology Professor Michael Ruse, an ardent evolutionist admitted "Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    That's how the scientific method works. Findings are analysed, subject to continual scrutiny...
    We agree! And that is precisely the reason why science has proved almost everything wrong that evolutionists once believed, and why science continues to expose the false beliefs. Evolutionism is only interested in trying to shoehorn anything that fits in with a pre-set conclusion and ignores anything that goes against their apriori beliefs.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 21st, 2018),Right Divider (August 22nd, 2018)

  16. #70
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,931
    Thanks
    1,062
    Thanked 3,962 Times in 2,363 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1794415
    Quote Originally Posted by JoseFly
    Quote Originally Posted by 6adays
    Rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis is used to explain away the data to fit their belief system.
    Didn't learn a thing from the debacle you went through on that, did you? Go figure....
    Someone apparently didn't learn anything.... Which rescue device do you think is the correct answer? The multiplicative model? The additive model? Synergistic epistasis? Since they conflict with each other they can't all be right. They are all hypothetical answers trying to explain away the data to make it fit evolutionary beliefs. Common ancestry is a false belief system that denies the evidence.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 21st, 2018),Right Divider (August 22nd, 2018)

  18. #71
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,612
    Thanks
    8,804
    Thanked 6,960 Times in 4,618 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147745
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    If you are referring to the belief in common ancestry / Darwimism, you are mistaken.
    Karl Popper called it a "metaphysical research programme".

    Zoology Professor Michael Ruse, an ardent evolutionist admitted "Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
    We agree! And that is precisely the reason why science has proved almost everything wrong that evolutionists once believed, and why science continues to expose the false beliefs. Evolutionism is only interested in trying to shoehorn anything that fits in with a pre-set conclusion and ignores anything that goes against their apriori beliefs.
    No, we don't agree. If science has "proved almost everything wrong" with regards to evolution then go ahead and show the evidence. Otherwise you're just blowing in the wind. Oh, not to mention physics where it comes to determining the age of the universe etc...

    It may be integral to your own belief system to believe that the earth is six to ten thousand years old but science doesn't care one whit.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  19. #72
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196949
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Someone apparently didn't learn anything.
    Definitely.

    Which rescue device do you think is the correct answer?
    Rescue device? What exactly do you think the devices are "rescuing"?

    The multiplicative model? The additive model? Synergistic epistasis? Since they conflict with each other they can't all be right. They are all hypothetical answers trying to explain away the data to make it fit evolutionary beliefs.
    I guess you completely forgot about, or ignored, THIS PAPER that tested synergistic epistasis and found it to be quite real.

    Common ancestry is a false belief system that denies the evidence.
    Again you try to project your own sins onto others. Not very Christian of you.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  20. #73
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,931
    Thanks
    1,062
    Thanked 3,962 Times in 2,363 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1794415
    Quote Originally Posted by JoseFly
    I guess you completely forgot about, or ignored, THIS PAPER that tested synergistic epistasis and found it to be quite real.
    Hmmmmm .... It may have been ignored since you posted it in a comment to somebody else, or it may have been ignored since it seems you did not know what you are talking about. Let's look at just one of your arguments from that post....
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly
    First, the current view among geneticists is that each of us is born with about seven de novo deleterious mutations, not 100.
    Jose... You either don't understand the article, or you are dishonest. (or perhaps a combination of those two things?)

    The article you reference is based on a 2015 study that discusses various types of mutations and discusses various numbers. For example the article says "We estimated the number of loss of function (LOF) mutations in consensus coding sequences to be in the range 83117 per individual..."

    In any case even the article you reference says that there are 70 new mutations per person, and they dismiss 90% of them as being in non-functional genome. (The number of new mutations per person per generation is likely in the hundreds when we consider all mutation types) It's rather an odd argument they make suggesting mutations in highly constrained DNA can't be considered. But actually...the DNA may be highly constrained because it is functional. Research continues to discover the purpose and function of noncoding DNA previously dismissed as junk.

    Furthermore.... Even IF there was only 7 new mutations, per person, per generation; it still is a problem for the common ancestry belief system. The purpose of the article is to explain away the evidence. ("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 hypothetical solution of synergistic epistasis is only one of a few competing and contradictory 'theories'. You likely should go back and actually look for the belief words in the article you use... "could be...may be...may act...sufficient to assume...likely to be"

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 22nd, 2018),Right Divider (August 22nd, 2018),Stripe (August 22nd, 2018)

  22. #74
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,931
    Thanks
    1,062
    Thanked 3,962 Times in 2,363 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1794415
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    . If science has "proved almost everything wrong" with regards to evolution then go ahead and show the evidence.
    Unable to refute what was actually said... You create a strong man!

    Have another go at the actual argument... "science has proved almost everything wrong that evolutionists once believed, and why science continues to expose the false beliefs."

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 22nd, 2018),Right Divider (August 22nd, 2018),Stripe (August 22nd, 2018)

  24. #75
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196949
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    It may have been ignored since you posted it in a comment to somebody else, or it may have been ignored since it seems you did not know what you are talking about.
    LOL....well, at least you admit you ignored it.

    Let's look at just one of your arguments from that post....
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly
    First, the current view among geneticists is that each of us is born with about seven de novo deleterious mutations, not 100.
    Sheesh 6days, try and keep up. Here is how I cited that paper...

    "I don't know if everyone can get full access to THIS 2017 PAPER, but the authors describe how when they tested synergistic epistasis against reality, they found it to be a real thing.

    If you can't get access to that paper, THIS SITE provides a good summary. "In other words, there was stronger selection against high mutation counts, as one would predict due to synergistic epistasis.""

    So it's simply a matter of written record that I cited that paper to demonstrate that synergistic epistasis has been tested and found to a real thing. But for whatever reason, you missed/ignored that.

    So now I'm curious....why? Was it a deliberate act on your part, or did you just not understand what I posted?

    The hypothetical solution of synergistic epistasis is only one of a few competing and contradictory 'theories'.
    And as the article demonstrates, it's been tested and found to be real.

    You likely should go back and actually look for the belief words in the article you use... "could be...may be...may act...sufficient to assume...likely to be"
    Ah yes....gotta love it when creationists use word choices as excuses to wave away inconvenient data. But I guess that's what you have to do when your interpretive framework is as biased and anti-science as can be.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us