User Tag List

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 264

Thread: Why don't creationists publish?

  1. #76
    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
    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."
    I presume you meant "straw man" and where it comes to evolution then the theory has modified over time so no big surprise there. There's nothing that's proven the theory of evolution itself to be flawed else get on and show it.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  2. #77
    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 Jose Fly
    as the article demonstrates, it's been tested and found to be real.
    Haha... You conflate synergistic epistasis perhaps having effect in some situations with the unrealistic belief that it can overcome genetic burden of 70 (possibly hundreds) of VSDM's added to our genome with each successive generation. Synergistic epistasis has not overcome the thousands of deleterious mutations each of us already have in our genome. Synergistic epistasis cannot overcome the accumulation of new mutations, and the increasing problem of new genetic diseases and problems. The belief nature of your replies is evidenced in the fact that you tried to downplay (saying 'only' 7 new mutations per generation)..the problem rather than just admit as your article does . The high mutation rate is not consistent with the common ancestry belief system. They are trying to propose a solution to try make data fit their apriori beliefs. See article... "Synergistic epistasis as a solution for human existence"

    The data is totally consistent with and helps confirm the biblical model. A very good creation is slowly being corrupted. Science helps confirm the truth of God's word.

  3. #78
    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
    I presume you meant "straw man"
    Yes... Thanks for correction. I do much of this by voice and I should do a better job of checking
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    and where it comes to evolution then the theory has modified over time so no big surprise there. There's nothing that's proven the theory of evolution itself to be flawed else get on and show it.
    If you mean 'a change in the heritablecharacteristics of biological populations over successive generations'..... Then both evolutionists and creationistists agree on that. If you are referring to the common ancestry belief system.... It is non falsifiable and not science. for example they argue that good design and bad design support their beliefs. They argue that both functionality and non functionality support their beliefs. That is pseudoscience.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 22nd, 2018)

  5. #79
    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
    Haha... You conflate synergistic epistasis perhaps having effect in some situations with the unrealistic belief that it can overcome genetic burden of 70 (possibly hundreds) of VSDM's added to our genome with each successive generation.
    I guess it's progress to see you change your narrative. Initially you claimed that synergistic epistasis (SE) was just something made up as a "rescue device" (while ignoring requests for you to specify what was in need of "rescue").

    Good to see you now acknowledge that SE is a real thing rather than a made up "rescue device".

    Synergistic epistasis has not overcome the thousands of deleterious mutations each of us already have in our genome. Synergistic epistasis cannot overcome the accumulation of new mutations, and the increasing problem of new genetic diseases and problems.
    Sorry, but given your extreme bias on this subject and the anti-science framework you view everything through, your empty say-so on this subject is basically worthless.

    The belief nature of your replies is evidenced in the fact that you tried to downplay (saying 'only' 7 new mutations per generation)..the problem rather than just admit as your article does .
    Pay closer attention. It was 7 de novo deleterious mutations.

    The high mutation rate is not consistent with the common ancestry belief system.
    That's hilarious, given that (as we covered in the old thread, and as was explained in paper you cited) the mutation rate was derived and confirmed through human/chimp common ancestry. Do you want to cover that again?

    They are trying to propose a solution to try make data fit their apriori beliefs. See article... "Synergistic epistasis as a solution for human existence"
    Given your bias and anti-science framework, It's not surprising that you spin it that way.
    "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

  6. #80
    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
    Initially you claimed that synergistic epistasis (SE) was just something made up as a "rescue device"
    Actually Jose....This is what I initially said" Rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis is used to explain away the data to fit their belief system".

    Synergistic epistasis has not overcome the thousands of deleterious mutations each of us already have in our genome. Synergistic epistasis cannot overcome the accumulation of new mutations, and the increasing problem of new genetic diseases and problems.
    Quote Originally Posted by JoseFly
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days
    The belief nature of your replies is evidenced in the fact that you tried to downplay (saying 'only' 7 new mutations per generation)
    Pay closer attention. It was 7 de novo deleterious mutations.
    Nope... The article says ~70. They ignore 90% of the mutations in the non-coding DNA because they don't know what the function is. (Even 7 deleterious mutations added to the genome each generation is inconsistent with common ancestry without some type of a rescue device such as synergistic epistasis or the multiplicative model).
    Quote Originally Posted by JoseFly
    the mutation rate was derived and confirmed through human/chimp common ancestry. Do you want to cover that again?
    Yes....that should be a hoot. Would love to hear how 7 deleterious mutations per generation changed a few hundred million nucleotides; changing 'chimps' into human beings in just a few hundred thousand years. You can factor in the additive model, antagonistic epistasis....or synergistic epistasis or any rescue device you wish...Go!
    Quote Originally Posted by JoseFly
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days
    They are trying to propose a solution to try make data fit their apriori beliefs. See article... "Synergistic epistasis as a solution for human existence"
    Given your bias and anti-science framework, It's not surprising that you spin it that way.
    Haha... Jose, you make me smile. The quote is not my spin. That is the title of an article by an evolutionist who is excited about your article. https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2017/...man-existence/

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

    JudgeRightly (August 23rd, 2018),Stripe (August 23rd, 2018)

  8. #81
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,958
    Thanks
    1,689
    Thanked 4,905 Times in 3,696 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147720
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Why don't creationists publish?

    Why don't publishers create?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 24th, 2018)

  10. #82
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,066
    Thanks
    285
    Thanked 9,991 Times in 7,455 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    Why don't publishers create?




    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 24th, 2018)

  12. #83
    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
    Actually Jose....This is what I initially said" Rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis is used to explain away the data to fit their belief system".
    And as we all know now, synergistic epistasis is not a "rescue device", but is instead a very real thing.

    Synergistic epistasis has not overcome the thousands of deleterious mutations each of us already have in our genome. Synergistic epistasis cannot overcome the accumulation of new mutations, and the increasing problem of new genetic diseases and problems.
    Again, given your extreme bias and anti-scientific mindset, your empty assertions are of no value whatsoever.

    Nope... The article says ~70.
    Pay closer attention 6days. The article says 70 total new mutations per individual, with 7 of those being deleterious.

    They ignore 90% of the mutations in the non-coding DNA because they don't know what the function is.
    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.

    Would love to hear how 7 deleterious mutations per generation changed a few hundred million nucleotides; changing 'chimps' into human beings in just a few hundred thousand years.
    ??????? 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.....

    Haha... Jose, you make me smile. The quote is not my spin. That is the title of an article by an evolutionist who is excited about your article. https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2017/...man-existence/
    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.
    "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

  13. #84
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,958
    Thanks
    1,689
    Thanked 4,905 Times in 3,696 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147720
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    And as we all know now, synergistic epistasis is not a "rescue device", but is instead a very real thing.
    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

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (August 24th, 2018),JudgeRightly (August 24th, 2018),Stripe (August 25th, 2018)

  15. #85
    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 ok doser View Post
    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
    Awesome analogy.

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

    JudgeRightly (August 26th, 2018),ok doser (August 26th, 2018)

  17. #86
    Over 500 post club everready's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    591
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 67 Times in 49 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    22172

    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
    Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

    6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to everready For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 4th, 2018),ok doser (August 26th, 2018)

  19. #87
    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 Jose Fly
    The article says 70 total new mutations per individual, with 7 of those being deleterious.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly
    the mutation rate was derived and confirmed through human/chimp common ancestry. Do you want to cover that again?
    You are of course unable to back up your beliefs with science. I will re-phrase my question....
    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!

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 4th, 2018)

  21. #88
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    354
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 92 Times in 77 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    13861
    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?
    Last edited by redfern; September 5th, 2018 at 12:44 AM. Reason: focused -> focus

  22. #89
    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 Redfern
    What significant scientific concepts in mainstream science originated from YEC authors?”
    How about astronomy...

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redfern
    By “secular science” I mean ....
    We likely agree that science is neither religious or secular.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 4th, 2018)

  24. #90
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    354
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 92 Times in 77 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    13861
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    We likely agree that science is neither religious or secular.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Much of modern science is founded on scientific concepts that originated from bible-believing Christians.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    How about astronomy...
    Yeah, with its widely accepted conclusions by the astronomers that the universe is billions of years old – what about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    How about...
    ANTISEPTIC SURGERY, or BACTERIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, or ELECTRODYNAMICS, or
    GENETICS, or PALEONTOLOGY, or SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY etc. etc...
    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.

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