Answers Research Journal volume 4
m (→Response to Comments on “How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees”) |
(→Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia: Discussion) |
||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
====<div class=plainlinks>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v4/geomorphology_Uluru_Australia_discussion.pdf Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia: Discussion]</div>==== | ====<div class=plainlinks>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v4/geomorphology_Uluru_Australia_discussion.pdf Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia: Discussion]</div>==== | ||
:''C. R. Twidal and J. A. Bourne'', September 21, 2011 | :''C. R. Twidal and J. A. Bourne'', September 21, 2011 | ||
| + | Actual geologists take down not only defend conventional geology, but also take down [[Answers_Research_Journal_volume_3#Geomorphology_of_Ulu.E1.B9.9Fu.2C_Australia|Ken Patrick's 2010 paper]]. Twidal and Bourne not only point out a certain lack of standard terminology, but the nonsensical invokation of a lake without something to block the water (whoops!). They also point out the bizarre timeline involved in [[Flood geology]]. This is probably the most analysis of evidence that we've seen in an ''Answers Research Journal'' paper yet! | ||
====<div class=plainlinks>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v4/geomorphology_Uluru_Australia_reply.pdf Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia: Reply]</div>==== | ====<div class=plainlinks>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v4/geomorphology_Uluru_Australia_reply.pdf Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia: Reply]</div>==== | ||
Revision as of 00:42, 26 September 2011
Volume 4 of the Answers Research Journal is set to run through 2011.
Volume 4 articles
- James Upton, January 26, 2011
Following Jason Lisle's publication last year of a solution to the starlight problem, Upton describes several other cosmological phenomena that require a young Earth creationist explanation.
- Mitchel Soltys, March 2, 2011
Honestly, creationists, how many times are you going to assert the same stuff ("Information cannot originate in statistical processes" and "Mutations don’t result in new genes") with nothing to back it up ("As we continue our discussion we could use actual gene mappings, but that would be overly large and complex": i.e, science is hard)? Citing common creationists such as Gitt, this article uses analogies (particularly of computer programs) and appeals to Richard Dawkins (weasel program, anyone?) to come up with a definition of biblical kind: "The set spanned by all organisms having the same instructional segments and structural arrangements in DNA." Unfortunately, there is no actual data to indicate a single kind, it's unclear how useful it is. Nor does it support a potential hypothesis that each kind was created over a few days 6000 years ago. And with common developmental genes (such as the HOX genes spanning the entire animal kingdom), one wonders if the actual kind definition is not what the Soltys intended.
- Anne Habermehl, March 23, 2011
We don't know, and Anne doesn't either: "There is a possibility that we may yet find the actual site of the Tower of Babel, but this will require further research as well as onsite archaeological excavation." So come on Creationists, dig deep and send them the money.
- Larry Vardiman, April 13, 2011
A naturalistic simulation (with videos!) ... of a supernaturally induced event?
- Jerry Bergman, June 8, 2011
Perhaps your cherry picked awesome design features are the result of evolution. Or at least, you still haven't told us how you know the retina (or anything else) is designed.
- Jeffrey P. Tomkins, June 22, 2011
In this piece, Tomkins criticizes the scientists who sequenced the chimpanzee genome for relying on the human genome. Despite that the scientists are the ones pointing out the difference between chimps and humans, Tomkins claims that the science is biased. He doesn't go so far as to claim that the science is wrong nor really provides any reason for anyone to doubt the chimp genome sequence, and, as is common in ARJ, he provides no evidence for Biblical kinds. So much for developing the creation science model.
- Tim Chaffey, July 13, 2011
This is yet another theology piece from ARJ that interprets the work of Augustine that concludes he wasn't concerned about the age of the earth.
- Callie Joubert[1], July 27, 2011
Acknowledging baraminology's lack of even basic descriptive power due to the vagueness of the concept of "kinds," the author posits a metaphysical component, which is a creationist escape hatch that serves no other purpose than to give the apologist endless fodder for moving the goalposts by defining his god to do what he wishes on an ad hoc basic. Introduction of this "metaphysical" component certainly doesn't make it any easier to distinguish one kind from another, particularly in the distant past creationists endlessly complain "evolutionsts" make unsupportable claims about, as creationists must admit that baraminology failed to even compellingly group organisms by reproductive compatibility implied by the Noachic gathering of two of each "kind." No matter. "It is hoped that the end result will serve as an apologetic for the truth of Scripture in today’s scientific and evolutionized world." And that, folks, is how creationists do "science."
- Callie Joubert, August 10, 2011
Joubert fights for the cause of non-materialist neuroscience against Christian Physicalists. Joubert has lots of evidence because of, um ... Genesis. A person can think of things, like sweeping a broom, and so Joubert concludes this must not be physical in nature, any Christians that disagree are heretics. Emergence phenomena is discussed, but Joubert can't see how unconscious matter can lead to conscious thought, so it is ignored quickly for lots and lots of biblical quotes.
- Matt McClellan, August 24, 2011
It's obvious what is occurring here, confirmation bias and cherry picking:
“”This revised chronology of the FIP shows about 19 years for the 7th and 8th Dynasties instead of the standard 24–32 years. This chronology also removes the 35–38 years of the 9th–10th Dynasties in the standard chronology. It thus reduces the period by a total of about 40–51 years....
This will allow us to see if the traditional chronology should be reduced. ... As one can see anywhere from 19–36 years needs to be shaved off of the chronology of the 4th Dynasty, while 45–78 years needs to be removed from the 5th Dynasty. That is a total of 64–114 years that the 4th and 5th Dynasties are being inflated. |
Wait a sec. Is reducing the time periods the goal, or is finding an accurate value a goal?
One has to wonder why the Egyptian chronologies can be questioned, but the Biblical ones cannot.
- Jeffrey P. Tomkins, September 14, 2011
Jeff Tomkins seems really confused.
Todd C. Wood called out[2] Jeff Tomkins for stating in his previous paper that
“”A majority of the public and scientific community are not aware of these caveats [how the chimp genome sequence has been generated] and still told hold to the dogma that the human genome is 98 to 99% similar to chimpanzee, which is most likely not the case. The fact is that major differences between the structure of the human and a chimpanzee genomes are now being documented as the genomic resources improve.[3]
|
In this piece, Jeff Tomkins states
“”It was not the goal of my recent paper to make a claim that the chimp Y-chromosome was indicative of the level of comparative differences between autosomes (non-sex chromosomes). Physical map tools and re-sequencing technologies need to be
utilized on other parts of the chimp genome as they were in the Y-chromosome study. In fact, the bigger question we may need to be asking is why have not any similar autosomal studies been published? Perhaps the results were a little too shocking.
|
This is, to be frank, quite bizzarre. As Wood points out,[2] there is good reason for there to be more variation in the Y chromosome, and certainly there has been some sequencing performed. What exactly is the "shocking" result that Tomkins implies might exist? This is nothing but invoking a conspiracy theory, and one with no evidence at that.
We await the results of ICR's analysis, as Tomkins ends:
“”Bioinformatic research in comparative genomics between human and chimp is currently in progress at the Institute for Creation Research and reports will be forthcoming in the near future.
|
- C. R. Twidal and J. A. Bourne, September 21, 2011
Actual geologists take down not only defend conventional geology, but also take down Ken Patrick's 2010 paper. Twidal and Bourne not only point out a certain lack of standard terminology, but the nonsensical invokation of a lake without something to block the water (whoops!). They also point out the bizarre timeline involved in Flood geology. This is probably the most analysis of evidence that we've seen in an Answers Research Journal paper yet!
- Ken Patrick, September 21, 2011
Other volumes
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Dr. Callie Joubert, South Africa, likely Dr. of Theology as all other references are on theological issues
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-jeff-didnt-tell-you.html
- ↑ (Quote and paranthetical from Todd's C. Wood's blog.)
| Main article: Answers Research Journal | ||
|---|---|---|
| Answers Research Journal volume 1 - volume 2 - volume 3 - volume 4 - volume 5 - | ||