RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3630Goal: $5000

Answers Research Journal volume 7

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The 2014 cover.
The divine comedy
Creationism
Icon creationism.svg
Running gags
Jokes aside
Blooper reel

Volume 7 of the Answers Research Journal ran through 2014.

Contents

Volume 7 articles[edit]

An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering the Ark Turtle and Crocodile Kinds[edit]

Tom Hennigan, January 8, 2014

"Based on the analyses of molecular data, hybridization capability, and statistical baraminology it is estimated that 11 extant turtle kinds and three extant crocodile kinds were brought on the Ark." Baraminology as point-missingly nerdy fanfiction of cladistics.

Interpreting Craters in Terms of the Day Four Cratering Hypothesis[edit]

Danny Faulkner, January 22, 2014

There are four possible "hypotheses" for when craters appeared in the universe according to creationists: Day Four of Creation Week, the Fall, the Flood or post-Flood. Faulker splits the cratered bodies of the solar system into Day Four vs. post-Day Four by assertion, not by physical evidence.

Did the Moon Appear as Blood on the Night of the Crucifixion?[edit]

Danny Faulkner, February 12, 2014

Christians have placed the date of Crucifixion on April 3, 33, since it is speculated that there was a "blood moon" on that date and there is known to have been a partial lunar eclipse. Faulkner speculates that it was not this partial lunar eclipse since it wouldn't have been enough to change the moon red. Instead, it was atmospheric conditions on the day of crucifixion.

An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering Extant Tuatara, Amphisbaena, and Snake Kinds[edit]

Tom Hennigan, February 19, 2014

This month's arbitrary division of animals is snakes, tuataraWikipedia's W.svg and worm lizards (all the amphibians except those already covered and the lizards, which are to be in an upcoming article). Hennigan makes at least three bizarre statements:

  • About biosystematics: "For example, naturalists assume randomness and universal common descent." It's unclear what he means by "randomness." Nor is universal common descent an assumption; there is much evidence for it.
  • "[T]here is still not enough knowledge about biochemistry to draw conclusions regarding the biological history and taxonomy of organisms." Only if you are a denialist.
  • "The fact that naturalists have a hard time connecting all reptiles to one or a few common ancestors suggests that they are not all related to one another, but instead were created separately according to their kind." Like, dinosaurs and other prehistoric reptilesWikipedia's W.svg? There is plenty in the literature about the evolution of reptiles.[1]

Please, stop lying about the science, Hennigan.

Radiohalos in Multiple, Sequentially Intruded Phases of the Bathurst Batholith, NSW, Australia: Evidence for Rapid Granite Formation during the Flood[edit]

Andrew Snelling, March 5, 2014

More of Snelling's much debunked radiohalo research.

Comments on the Cosmic Microwave Background[edit]

Danny Faulkner, March 19, 2014

This is an ill-timed article by Danny Faulker, coming right around the time of the detection of gravitational waves as evidence for the Big Bang (complete with Faulker's ineffective rebuttal: there might be problems).[2] In addition, it's predominately a red herring: The cosmic background radiation might be local. As per usual, Faulkner does not explain why the cosmic background radiation is consistent with a recent creation, which Faulkner admits:

The recent creation model needs a plausible explanation for the CMB, but recent creationists have yet to suggest one. The proposals to date, emission from dust and an appeal to Eddington’s calculation, are inadequate. Creationists are cautioned to critique properly work on the CMB as evidence for the big bang model. Further work on the CMB within the recent creation model would be most valuable. And we should have the goal of developing a plausible alternate explanation of the CMB within the recent creation paradigm.

The Human GULO Pseudogene—Evidence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy[edit]

Jeffrey P. Tomkins, April 2, 2014

What we can conclude from this paper:

  • Tomkins seems obsessed with the percentage similarities between humans and apes, and yet evolutionary biologists still don't seem bothered.
  • Tomkins can claim the same argument from ignorance that ID proponents can, and yet cannot provide a real model of his own other than "God did it." Certainly there is no model consistent with the positive creationists claims.

Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites: I. The Allende CV3 Carbonaceous Chrondrite[edit]

Andrew Snelling, April 16, 2014

Part of Snelling's explanation for why meteorites appear old: God put some of the decayed nuclei there. Tricky God. Or they decayed really fast (and fried up the Garden of Eden?).

A Discussion of Stellar Nucleosynthesis[edit]

Danny Faulkner, April 30, 2014

Danny Faulkner writes an entirely unnecessary review of stellar nucleosynthesis, just to provide a swipe at the end that it has explanatory power, but no predictive power. (How do astronomers continue to study it then, Danny?) Then he claims that creationists need a model. Gee, Danny, think that the creationists need a model with explanatory AND predictive power? And how about doing some science?

A Photon Reference Frame and Distant Starlight: Analyzing Ideas from Gerald L. Schroeder’s The Science of God[edit]

Andrew Mark Sibley, May 14, 2014

A Christian Response to the Crisis in Psychiatry[edit]

Callie Joubert, May 28, 2014

Christians, the Brain, and Person: Conceptual Confusion, Unintelligibility, and Implications[edit]

Callie Joubert, June 11, 2014

Anomalies with Planets and Satellites in the Solar System—Indication of Design?[edit]

Danny R. Faulkner, June 25, 2014

Defending History: Temporal Reasoning in Genesis 2:7–3:8[edit]

Steven W. Boyd, August 6, 2014

Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites II: The Ordinary and Enstatite Chondrites[edit]

Andrew A. Snelling, August 20, 2014

Circular Reasoning in the Dating of Deep Seafloor Sediments and Ice Cores: The Orbital Tuning Method[edit]

Jake Hebert, August 27, 2014

Determination of the Radioisotope Decay Constants and Half-Lives: Rubidium-87 (87Rb)[edit]

Andrew A. Snelling, September 3, 2014

Evaluating The Day Four Cratering Hypothesis[edit]

Wayne Spencer, September 10, 2014

Fossil Baramins on Noah’s Ark: The “Amphibians”[edit]

M. R. Ross, September 17, 2014

A Missing Neutrino—Dark Radiation[edit]

John G. Hartnett, September 24, 2014

Old Earth Theology: A Factor that Explains Inconsistent Belief of Inerrancy Among Florida Southern Baptists[edit]

David A. McGee, October 1, 2014

Scientific Evidence Indicates Natural Selection and Brain-Based Education Conflict with Human Nature[edit]

Callie Joubert, October 15, 2014

A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-Driven Approach: Part 1[edit]

Randy J. Guliuzza, October 29, 2014

A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 2[edit]

Randy J. Guliuzza, October 29, 2014

A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 3[edit]

Randy J. Guliuzza, November 5, 2014

Reply to “A Response to ‘Does Natural Selection Exist?’”[edit]

Nathaniel Jeanson, November 5, 2014

Expansion of Space—A Dark Science[edit]

John G. Hartnett, November 13, 2014

Critique: Faulkner’s Miraculous Translation of Light Model Would Leave Evidence[edit]

John G. Hartnett, November 19, 2014

Response to: “Critique: Faulkner’s Miraculous Translation of Light Model Would Leave Evidence”[edit]

Danny R. Faulkner, November 19, 2014

Discerning Tyrants from Usurpers: A Statistical Baraminological Analysis of Tyrannosauroidea Yielding the First Dinosaur Holobaramin[edit]

M. Aaron, November 26, 2014

Determination of the Radioisotope Decay Constants and Half-Lives: Lutetium-176 (176Lu)[edit]

Andrew A. Snelling, December 3, 2014

The Petrology of the Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona, USA[edit]

John H. Whitmore, Raymond Strom, Stephen Cheung, and Paul A. Garner, December 10, 2014

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

References[edit]