Why don't creationists publish?

[genuineoriginal]

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."

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.

 

[6days]

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"

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.

 

[Jonahdog]

Biological evolutionists believe that mutations can cause 'uphill' evolution...

that is simply incorrect . Evolution need not be "uphill" whatever that term means.

 

[6days]

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

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").

 

[Jose Fly]

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....

 

[Arthur Brain]

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?

 

[Arthur Brain]

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...

 

[6days]

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.’

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.

 

[6days]

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.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

 

[6days]

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....

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 83–117 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"

 

[6days]

. 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."

 

[Jose Fly]

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....

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. :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

 

[6days]

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.

 

[6days]

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

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

 

[6days]

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.

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).

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!

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/2017/05/06/synergistic-epistasis-as-a-solution-for-human-existence/