Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Peer Review and Creation Science? Oh, yeah!!!

It has been brought to my attention that I do not publish peer-reviewed articles.  This is a ludicrous claim, as I have often posted excerpts or full abstracts of scientific papers and also linked to them.  There is a long history on this blog of making sure to attribute articles and make sure they are correct and that references are included.

One of many Peer Societies in North America is the Creation Research Society, which is having their next convention in 2013.

Since my blog began publishing in 2004 I have published abstracts from AIG, ICR, RMCF, CMI, The Discovery Institute and several other groups that have peer-review and publish at least quarterly technical publications.   I have a vast library of the magazines and journals and books as well as DVD and VHS presentations from numerous sources.   While I generally publish either ID or Creationist articles, many of them are peer-reviewed and many have a large secular set of references.  From time to time I publish findings from PNAS and other secular sources as well.  The idea that I do not present peer-reviewed materials is laughable.   Here is one of interest from CRS along with their mission statement:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with worldwide membership.

The primary functions of the Society are:
Publication of a quarterly peer-reviewed journal.
Conducting research to develop and test creation models.
The provision of research grants and facilities to creation scientists for approved research projects.
Providing qualified scientists to speak to groups or churches. 

Other functions of CRS include maintenance of a comprehensive directory of creationist organizations throughout the world. The CRS also runs a secure online bookstore for ordering books and videos on special creation.

The CRS was incorporated in the state of Michigan as a nonprofit corporation for educational and scientific purposes. Shortly thereafter it was granted 501(c)(3) not-for-profit tax-exempt status by the IRS. The first issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly was published in July, 1964.

The CRS is independent and unaffiliated with any other organization, religious group or church body.
The CRS advocates the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. Membership in the Society requires agreement with the CRS Statement of Belief. Members of the society include research scientists from various fields of scientific accomplishment who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history.

The CRS does not engage in any political lobbying. Though its primary purpose is research and publishing, the CRS occasionally sponsors or co-sponsors seminars and field trips. These events serve to promote the purposes of the Society, to facilitate dialogue between creation scientists, and to serve the interests of our members. An open meeting is sometimes held in conjunction with the annual Board of Directors meeting to update members and other interested individuals on current activities of the Society.

For more detailed information on the CRS, please see the History and Aims of the Creation Research Society.





Copyright © 2001 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.

Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex Bone

CRSQ Vol 38 No 2 pp 61-66 September 2001

Abstract
A specimen of hip bone from a Tyrannosaurus rex, excavated from a ranch in Wyoming over 100 years ago, and thought to be 65 million years old is shown, by scanning electron microscopy, to have intact, mummified microscopic collagen fibers and other ultrastructural features within compact bone. Bone Haversian canals as well as lacunae and canaliculi are well preserved. Networks of collagen fibers remain intact within lacunae and what may be mummified osteocytes are shown to be present. Twenty-year-old, similarly fractured natural human hip bone shows comparable patterns of canals, collagen networks and cells, including crenated erythrocytes. Hip bone from “Moab man,” human remains collected from Utah and thought to be less than 200 years old, contains no such soft tissue features within compact bone. Moab man specimens appear cleanly stripped of soft tissues and harbor burrowing insect remains. These data call into question the long ages ascribed to these dinosaur fossils and support their rapid preservation in the absence of decomposers. The high level of ultrastructural preservation also implies that these dinosaur bones are simply not very old.


Introduction
The remarkable preservation of macro and microscopic structures of fossils in general and fossilized dinosaur bones in particular, has been the subject of many creationist books, articles and reviews (Calais, 1994; Helder, 1992; Howe, 1997; Taylor, 1999; Weiland, 1997b). 

What appear to be red blood cells have been described from Tyrannosaurus rex bones (Weiland 1997a), while other dinosaur bones have been found which “cannot be distinguished from modern bone” (Weiland, 1999). Additionally, soft muscles, internal organs and even microscopic fibers have been well preserved in a juvenile dinosaur recovered in China (Snelling 1998). 

In some of these writings it is often charged or implied by creationists that evolutionists are reluctant to make these startling revelations, even in recent times because it does not support their position that these fossils are over 65 million years old, or that they took millions of years to fossilize. Although the process of fossilization is not completely understood, it is assumed by both evolutionists and creationists that most fossils must be buried or stabilized very quickly in order to stand any chance of being preserved. Briggs states: “Of course fossilization is time dependent. But although the age of most fossils is measured in millions of years (and some diagenic processes are certainly long term), whether or not an organism is destined to become a fossil may be determined very rapidly” (Briggs, 1995). Mineralized and petrified oddities such as bowler hats, fencing wire and sacks of flour (Walker, 2000; Weiland 2000) certainly show us that fossilization can take place quite rapidly, “freezing” the feeding practice or even the process of giving birth, forever into rock. 

It is incorrect, however, to state that evolutionists have not been forthcoming with data that may show that fossilization and mineralization of biological materials can happen so rapidly as to preserve microscopic structures. As early as 1962 these scientists have shown that microscopic structures, such as bone collagen are well preserved in dinosaur bones (Little, Kelly and Courts, 1962). This work was followed by a series of studies by Pawlicki and his associates demonstrating by scanning and transmission electron microscopy that not only were collagen fibers found in dinosaur bones (thought to be 80 million or more years old), but that blood vessels, osteocytes (bone building cells) and even intact proteins, lipids, mucopolysaccharides and DNA were found (Pawlicki, Korbel and Kubiak, 1966; Pawicki, 1975; 1977a; b; 1985; 1995). There are also good data in the literature that rapid fossilization of soft body structures may occur under certain anoxic or pH regulated (low pH level) conditions (Briggs and Kear 1993a; 1993b; Briggs, 1995). Experimental taphonomy (the study of the transition of organic remains from biosphere to lithosphere) is ongoing in many paleontology laboratories. To quote Briggs (1995, pp. 539, 544), “Unless the morphology of the most labile tissues is ‘stabilized’ before the decay (within days or weeks) nothing remains…The results demonstrate that replication of soft-tissue can take place within weeks, even where the only major source of the phosphate is the carcass itself. They also show that the closure of the system is as important, at least in some cases, as the absence of oxygen.” 

In addition, some paleontologists are quite candid about the fact that the excellent preservation in many fossils must mean that fossilization or burial was instantaneous (Martill, 1989, p. 204). Martill even demonstrated muscle banding and cell nuclei in highly magnified fossilized fish muscle and stated that phosphatization (mineralization) must have been complete “within a few (probably less than 5) hours.” Thus, for over 40 years evolutionist workers have reported openly on the presence of such remarkable preservation in dinosaur and other fossils. 


In this study, fossilized bone from a T. rex dinosaur recovered from a dig at New Castle, Wyoming was evaluated for the presence of microscopic cells, vessels and fibers under the scanning electron microscope. These results were compared to recent human hipbone fragments supplied by an anatomical supply company and human hip fragments from a mine at Moab, Utah.

Materials and Methods
 
This study examined a museum specimen of T. rex hipbone (compact bone), approximately 3 X 2 cm in size. The specimen had been shellacked on one side and was indicated to have been in a museum drawer in Newcastle, WY for about 100 years (Taylor, 2000) The bone fragment was pressure fractured in half, exposing the inner structure. It was affixed to a metal SEM stub, sputter coated in gold, and viewed at 15kv on a JEOL scanning electron microscope. Low power light micrographs were also made of the unprocessed bone fragments under a dissecting microscope. Recent human hipbone was used as a comparative control. The control bone was acquired from Carolina Biological Supply Co. (Burlington, NC) in a “kit” of processed human bones for the purposes of anatomical education approximately 20 years ago. According to the supply company (Hardy, 2001), these bones were fixed, cleaned of tissues by maceration, degreased in gasoline and air dried, but were not lacquer coated. They were shipped from India to the U.S. in the 1980’s. Additionally, specimens of “Moab man” (AKA Malachite Man) hipbone were received from Mr. Joe Taylor (Taylor, 1999, p. 62). Moab man human skeletons were discovered in Big Indian Copper mine in 1971 and are considered by some to be intrusional skeletons and not in situ fossils (Berger and Protsch, 1989). These human bone fragments were similarly pressure fractured and processed for electron microscopy as above.

Results
In the dinosaur bone, Haversian bone canal systems (arrows, Figure 1) with their associated lacunae (Figure 2, arrows) are quite visible under low magnification and appear as deep impressions within the bone matrix under higher magnification (Figures 3, 4). Haversian canals contained no remnants of vessels and little loose collagen or other tissues, although their surfaces had a matte appearance. This was due to a carpet of collagen, thus, the calcium phosphate crystalline nature of the bone surface was not visible (Kessel and Kardon, 1979). Canaliculi were also observed along the walls within canals. Lacunae, on the other hand, were often surrounded and filled with large masses of unconsolidated, mummified (or otherwise preserved) fibers, probably polymerized collagen or possibly fibrin (Figures 3, 4, 5). Often there appeared a network of fibers (probably a precursor to the calcium phosphate bone matrix) as seen in Figure 5. Mummified cellular debris, including possible osteocytes, was also found within the bottom of many lacunae (Figure 4, arrows). Canaliculi could be easily seen perforating the lacunae walls and are seen as black dots also surrounding lacunae (Figures 3, 4). It was clearly evident that no mineralization of these collagen fibers had occurred, since well-rounded birfurcations characterized fiber junctions (Figure 6).

Trex01
Figure 1.
Trex02
Figure 2.
 
Collagen fibers from a fresh human wound scab (Figure 7) and similarly positioned T. rex bone collagen at the same magnification (Figure 8) are remarkably similar. The T. rex collagen appears somewhat shrunken and deformed compared to the human specimen, but in all other respects could pass as recently laid down collagen. In comparison, the Moab man samples seemed devoid of any soft tissue at all. A Haversian system is shown in Figure 9, and there are no fibers associated with the canal, nor were there any fibers or other soft tissues seen in or around lacunae. In addition, when pressure fractured, a minute (1–2 mm in size) insect exoskeleton (resembling a Springtail of the Order Collembola) was observed, affixed to the surface of a trabecular process in the cancellous bone section of the sample. This exoskeleton, probably the remains of a molt, was lost in processing. If boring insects had access to this Moab man skeletal sample, as have been discovered at other fossil sites in Utah (Hasiotis and Fiorillo, 1997), then this might explain the lack of soft tissue remains in the Moab man samples examined. In stark contrast, however, are the results from the recent human hipbone from the anatomical supply company. Internal bone surfaces were thickly populated with collagen mats while canaliculi showed up well on the inner surfaces of Haversian canals (Figure 10, arrows). In addition to webs of collagen, compressed soft tissues, resembling what might be osteocytes were observed (Figure 11), as well as crenated erythrocytes which were plentiful (Figure 12).

Trex03
Figure 3.

Trex04
Figure 4.
Trex05
Figure 5.
Trex06
Figure 6.
 
There is also good correlation between dinosaur collagen and human collagen fibers at similar magnifications, which are otherwise indistinguishable (Figures 8 and 12).

Discussion
 
Controversy surrounds the “Moab man” skeletons in several regards. There is general consensus that these remains are unfossilized and that they represent an intrusive aspect to the Dakota sandstone (Cretaceous) rock where they were found and not humans buried in situ (Taylor, 2000; Berger and Protsch, 1989). They have been renamed by Mr. Taylor as “Malachite man” (Taylor, 1999) due to the bright green patina they display as a result of the high concentration of copper (solution?) from the formation in which they are buried. This green stain was observed to extend almost completely through the compact bone, but it did not extend into the cancellous sections of the bone. The discovery of insect remains inside this bone indicates that they may have been exposed to the elements and to decomposers prior to the infiltration of the copper into the bone matrix, but in any event it seems the copper was not sufficient to preserve collagen fibers. This might explain the lack of soft tissues within the bone as it may have been consumed before any preservation or mummification could have taken place. Preserved human collagen fibers have been found, however, in ancient human remains from Egypt (Hino, Ammitzboll, Moller and Asboe-Hansen, 1982). Even though preservation of collagen and other ultrastructural features were observed (as a result of the embalming process), they were approximately one half normal size and were significantly deformed after only 1700 years postmortem. Alternately, osteocytes have been discovered in a state of perfect preservation within the temporal bone of a 2600-year-old Egyptian mummy, but in this case, the bone was impregnated and preserved by a hard resin polymer (Benitez and Lynn, 1975).

Trex07
Figure 7.
Trex08
Figure 8.

Trex09
Figure 9.

Trex10
Figure 10.
 
In contrast, the dinosaur specimen exhibits remarkable preservation of soft tissues to the ultrastructural level. The state of preservation in this T. rex bone resembles that of fixed tissues found in recent human bone, thus the preservation, or fossilization process must have immediately followed or have been concurrent with death. It must also have been rapid enough to foil decomposers, but the fine structure of the soft tissue does not exhibit the effects of any mineralization. Additionally, the fact that this level of preservation has remained to this day casts doubts on the time period that may have elapsed between fossilization and the present. The collagen fibers in the dinosaur bone appear to be mummified and not fossilized, therefore they would have been subject to the same sorts of time-related processes that have affected human remains embalmed in Egypt in 100–300 A.D (Hino, et. al, 1982). The T. rex specimen examined does not show these age-related effects.

Conclusion
 
Numerous microscopic structures such as bone lacunae, canaliculi, osteocytes and collagen fibers, protected from the elements deep within bone, have been found under scanning electron microscopy in a T. rex hip bone specimen which has been in a museum for about 100 years. These structures appear to be mummified and were not mineralized by the fossilization process. It is possible that fossilization events might be so rapid that preservation of such structures is guaranteed, and perhaps these specimens are not as old as the literature suggests.

Acknowledgments
 
The author thanks Mr. Joe Taylor, curator of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, (Crosbyton, TX), for T. rex and “Moab man” specimens and for his assistance during the project. The author is also indebted to Dr. George Howe and the anonymous reviewers of this paper for critical comments.

References
CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly
CEN:  Creation Ex Nihilo
Benitez, J.T., and G.E Lynn. 1975. Temporal bone studies: findings with uncalcified sections in a 2,600-year- old Egyptian mummy. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 89(6):593–599.
Berger, R. and R. Protsch. 1989. UCLA Radiocarbon dates XI. Radiocarbon 31(1):55–67
Briggs, D.E.G. 1995. Experimental taphonomy. Palaios 10:539–550.
Briggs, D.E.G., and A. Kear. 1993a. Decay of Branchiostoma: implications for soft tissue preservation in conodonts and other primitive chordates. Lethaia 26: 275–287.
Briggs, D.E.G., and A. Kear. 1993b. Fossilization of soft tissue in the laboratory. Science 259 (5100):1439–1442.
Calais, R. 1994. Rapid fossils. CEN 16(3):50.
Froede, C. 1995. Surficial replacement of dinosaur bone by opal in Big Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas. CRSQ 32(1):11.
Gurley, L.R., J.G. Valdez, W.D. Spall, B.F. Smith, and D.D. Gillette. 1991. Proteins in the fossil bone of the dinosaur Seismosaurus. Journal of Protein Chemistry 10(1): 75–90.

Trex11
Figure 11.

Trex12
Figure 12.
 
Hardy, Alan. 2001. Personal communication.
Hasitosis, S.T., and A. Fiorillo. 1997. Dermestid beetle borings in sauropod and theropod dinosaur bones, Dinosaur National Monument, Utah: keys to the taphonomy of a bone bed. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs 29:13
Helder, M. 1992. Fresh dinosaur bones found. CEN 14(3):16–17.
Hino, H., T. Ammitzboll, R. Moller, and G. Asboe-Hansen. 1982. Ultrastructure of skin and hair of an Egyptian mummy. Transmission and scanning electron microscopic observations. Journal of Cutaneous Pathology 9(1):25–32
Howe, G.F. 1997. Living bacteria and other living microbes have been isolated from the abdomens of fossil bees thought to be 30 million years old. CRSQ 34(3): 187–188.
Kessel. R.G., and R.H. Kardon. 1979. Tissues and organs, a text-atlas of scanning electron microscopy. W.H. Freeman, New York.
Little, K., M. Kelly, and A. Courts. 1962. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 44(B) 503.
Martill, D.M. 1989. The Medusa effect: instantaneous fossilization. Geology Today 5:201–205.
Pawlicki, R. 1975. Studies of the fossil dinosaur bone in the scanning electron microscope. Zeitschrift fur Mikroskopiche Anatomiche Forschung. 89(2): 393–398.
   . 1977a. Histochemical reactions for mucopolysaccharides in the dinosaur bone. Studies on Epon- and methacrylate-embedded semithin sections as well as on isolated osteocytes and ground sections of bone. Acta Histochemica 58(1):75–78.
   . 1977b. Topochemical localization of lipids in dinosaur bone by means of Sudan B black. Acta Histochemica 59(1):40–46.
   . 1985. Metabolic pathways of the fossil dinosaur bones, Part V. Folia Histochemica et cytobiologica 23(3):165–174.
   . 1995. Histochemical demonstration of DNA in osteocytes from dinosaur bones. Folia Histochemica et cytobiologica 33(3):183–186.
Pawlicki, H., A. Korbel, and H. Kubiak. 1966. Cells, collagen fibrils and vessels in dinosaur bone. Nature 211(49):655–657.
Snelling, A. A. 1998. Exceptional soft tissue preservation in a fossilized dinosaur. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(2):130–131.
Taylor, J. 1999. Fossil facts and fantasies. Mt. Blanco Publishing, Crosbyton, TX.
   . 2000. Personal communication.
Walker, T. 2000. Petrified flour. CEN 23(1):17.
Weiland, C. 1997a. Sensational dinosaur blood report! CEN 19(4):42–43.
   . 1997b. Frozen feeding. CEN 19(2):52.
   . 1999. Dinosaur bones, just how old are they really? CEN 21(1):54–55.
   . 2000. The Earth: how old does it look? CEN 23(1):8–13. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The "Moab" or "Malachite Man" is controversial because there were actually two different sites in the same area.  One yielded some bones in relatively loose material not far below the surface, while the other group was 58 feet down in actual rock that was labeled "Cretaceous" and associated with dinosaur fossils. 

Talkorigins and Bible.Ca have had a war of words over the findings.   Here is an overview of that particular discussion:


Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)

Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.



Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.

 





CreationWiki response:
 
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is quite true that Talkorigins is not famous for correcting their errors but rather cling to them like their last dollar.    It is also true that Don Patton is not friendly with their membership after the famous dinosaur track destruction a few years back.  In any case the idea that I do not publish or reference peer-reviewed sources is now dead.  I am a member of a short list of such organizations as a lay member but there are multitudes of great and good scientists who make up the heart of them.




 

18 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"In any case the idea that I do not publish or reference peer-reviewed sources is now dead. "

Nice dodge.

Here's what you apparently can't provide: a single link to an article that features a falsifiable, verifiable claim that would be undeniably true if the world was created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago by a supernatural being and yet would be undeniably false if the world came into being billions of years ago and life evolved over a long time... and that claim is then actually confirmed.

Still nothing.

But let's take a look at what you posted here:

An article from a creationist magazine, not peer-reviewed. There is mention of "anonymous reviewers", with no indication of their level of knowledge or experience. For all we know, his Mom checked his spelling and grammar. The article goes into some detail on a particular find, but flubs the essential aspect of grounding (no pun intended) the argument in the location of the find (and hence the age).

The talkorigins response is noted, and an intrusive burial is indeed likely. The creationist response is not much of a rebuttal ("it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated"). It's further crippled by non-scientific nonsense like this: "Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago."

Sure, creationists (YECs) would date this to the flood about 5,000 years ago, but - unlike the "evolutionist" side - this is not based on any actual evidence or data.

YECs would date everything ancient to 2348 BC (including all the different dinosaurs, regardless of where and under what circumstances they are found) - with no scientific basis whatsoever.

In any case, Radar, I hope you understand that this attempt falls desperately short of "an article that features a falsifiable, verifiable claim that would be undeniably true if the world was created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago by a supernatural being and yet would be undeniably false if the world came into being billions of years ago and life evolved over a long time... and that claim is then actually confirmed".

Got anything else?

Doubt it, but hey, surprise us.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Hot Lips, can't add much to that!

If anything, this article proves that 'creation science' is nothing but a cargo cult. Creationists despise and fear true scientific research and debate because they know it will effortlessly reveal their worldview as intellectually void.
Yet they realize that science gives credibility, so they try to imitate it by starting up their own 'peer-reviewed scientific magazines' in an effort to convince the gullible.

Sadly enough Radar is only to eager to fall for it...

For good measure, let me quote the Sensuous Curmudgeon, who states it perfectly:

"First, it’s time you recognized that you’re not fooling anyone. Everyone knows that no matter how “scientific” you try to appear, and no matter how much you insist that you want “good” science taught “properly” in the public schools, what you’re promoting is religion. Your supporters certainly know it. They’re not following you because of their concern for science. They don’t know any science and they don’t want to know it. Religion is what they care about, and it’s the only reason they pay attention to you."

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/open-letter-to-creationists/

radar said...

No, the first article is a peer reviewed article and as it happens the big Creationist peer review process is more rigorous than the secular ones. The CRS people are not so easily fooled as secular organizations. More than once some numbskull tried to put a phony paper in and it was caught.

Meanwhile the secular peer review is an old boys club so your side has fallen for a bunch of fraudulent stuff. Heck "Nebraska Man' was peer reviewed. Some examples:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090615/full/news.2009.571.html

http://boingboing.net/2009/05/03/merck-and-elsevier-p.html

http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/

As far as the quote from the Curmudgeon, it is the height of irony that you people who are supporting unscientific nonsense for the sake of religion accuse me of doing what YOU DO!!!

Science is built on the foundation of men who believed God made everything, trusted that therefore systems and processes would be logical and could be useful when understood. The scientific method was developed by Christians and did not include the artificial naturalist insertion. Newton, Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler - the giants of the age of discover were almost entirely a group of Christians and Theists who believed God created. When Pasteur put the finishing touches on Biogenesis that then settled the argument.

But a misquided Hutton, a devious liar named Lyell and a buffoon by the name of Thomas Huxley were pushing for naturalist beliefs and along came Haeckel to gladly lie and fake to advance the religion of Darwinism. Once there was a Haeckel, now there is a Gingerich. The are always high priests of Darwinism who work overtime to ensure that their religion gets the veneer of "science."

But I know better. Yes, I do not know better because I am a Christian but I know better because I have done the research. I know there is far too much evidence against long ages and against organisms coming from nature and therefore Darwinism is actually a religion rather than a science. You can yap all you like but frankly you are backwards. Organisms are being degraded by mutations and the anti-mutation processes in DNA cannot catch them all. Eventually all organisms will fail and die out. But God will end the world before that happens.

We live in a finite Universe. The God who created it has an end date in mind for it. I don't know when it will be but likely I die first and at that point I will not care. All of you who have wasted your lives seeking to disprove God will not only face His wrath but you will have squandered so much time that could have been used for good. All these Darwinists trying in vain to find evidence for naturalism instead of seeking to cure diseases or improve trash-to-energy systems or devise ways of improving water replenishment for third world countries or a thousand other good causes...a shame.

radar said...

I think it is pretty funny that someone would call Creationism a Cargo Cult since I once wrote an article outlining why Darwinism is a Cargo Cult! Hahahahhaha!

radar said...

"an article that features a falsifiable, verifiable claim that would be undeniably true if the world was created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago by a supernatural being and yet would be undeniably false if the world came into being billions of years ago and life evolved over a long time... and that claim is then actually confirmed".

I have that. It is called The Bible. It asserts how and why the Universe was made. It tells us by counting up the ages of the Patriarchs the approximate age of the Earth, which makes sense since when you include the Flood the population of Earth fits perfectly into the Creation model while the Naturalists ignore all the evidence that falsifies their claims. The Bible has proven to be accurate in the case of ancient history of the region, the genealogical records dovetail with ancient genealogies of various cultures and the Creation and Flood and Babel accounts are coherent historical records that some other cultures have Chinese-telephoned into weird tales.

The Bible is the most published and widely-read book in the world. Gutenberg's press first published Bibles. The Bible helped Western Civilization bring the lower class up to speed by giving them literacy and promoted success via capitalism and hard work.

What the Bible asserts about science is true, not counting some obvious figures of speech we all use like "sunrise" or the use of poetic language in the prophetic books, meant to express judgment and disaster to come. The Bible mentions dinosaurs and dragons, it asserts that God stretched and stretches the Universe (something secular science did not know until the 20th Century) and that planets seem to be hung on nothing and that the Earth is round.

Furthermore the Bible says that organisms all reproduce after their kind and that is what they will do. For the entirety of human history we have found that the genetic makeup of organisms allows us to use variation within kind to breed animals and plants to make them do what we like within the limitations of those creatures and plants. But no one can make a fish into an amphibian and never do we observe a squirrel become a bat. That is Darwinist fairy tales.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"No, the first article is a peer reviewed article and as it happens the big Creationist peer review process is more rigorous than the secular ones."

It's so rigorous they don't even bother identifying the "peer reviewers". Riiiight... now who's the gullible one, eh Radar?

So if this is what you call "peer-reviewed", I guess we know how seriously we're supposed to take your boast that you've linked to "thousands" of peer-reviewed articles, right? Some mention of thanks to anonymous reviewers, that's it? Ha.

[skims a bunch of unfounded assertions and silly ranting ("I think it is pretty funny that someone would call Creationism a Cargo Cult since I once wrote an article outlining why Darwinism is a Cargo Cult! Hahahahhaha!")...]

"I have that. It is called The Bible."

Okay, so where in the Bible is there a falsifiable, verifiable claim that would be undeniably true if the world was created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago by a supernatural being and yet would be undeniably false if the world came into being billions of years ago and life evolved over a long time... and that claim is then actually confirmed?

What specifically is the claim?

Can you find one?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"It asserts how and why the Universe was made."

Just like every other creation myth out there. And none of them, including Genesis, are based on science.

"It tells us by counting up the ages of the Patriarchs the approximate age of the Earth,"

All the way back to when you get to the creation myth, which is founded on nothing.

"which makes sense since when you include the Flood the population of Earth fits perfectly into the Creation model"

Erm, only if you abandon a sigmoidal curve and fudge the graph by inserting a straight line to your desired result.

And even then it doesn't line up coherently with other historical data, leaving us with absurdly low population levels just so the graph fits into your YEC belief.

"while the Naturalists ignore all the evidence that falsifies their claims."

All you've brought to the table so far is willful misunderstanding of the claims, theories and evidence. Hint: that doesn't add up to falsification.

"The Bible has proven to be accurate in the case of ancient history of the region,"

Yep, so what? The Bible is an anthology of texts from different sources. It features some contemporary accounts, and those do line up with other historical sources.

Your logic falls apart, however, when you try to use this as proof that non-contemporary accounts (e.g. the creation myth) must also be correct. Complete logic fail.

"the genealogical records dovetail with ancient genealogies of various cultures"

Ditto here.

"and the Creation and Flood and Babel accounts are coherent historical records that some other cultures have Chinese-telephoned into weird tales."

Unfounded assertion.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"a misquided Hutton, a devious liar named Lyell and a buffoon by the name of Thomas Huxley were pushing for naturalist beliefs"

Still obtuse on the subject of naturalism. Your very own creationist scientists pushed for methdological naturalism in the form of the scientific method. It's not anyone else's fault that the results they found clashed with the misguided desire to see the Bible as a science textbook.

radar said...

HLH you are rather confused, it is your side that fudges the sigmoidal curve, not mine.

Everyone can see the membership of the CRS or the AIG or the CRI or the ICR or the Discovery Institute or the RMCF and etc. It is easy to find, just look at the links on my links area to the left and down.

God asserts creation ex nihilo as a supernatural entity Who invented the natural world. He alone is a reasonable cause agent and He alone has the means and motive to do so. If you believe we just happened randomly then I wonder how you can even trust your own thoughts. Are they not simply evolved random firings of synapses programmed by millions of years of evolution to make you think that you think?

If we accidentally *poofed* into existence, what is to stop us from *poofing* out? How do you claim to have reason and free will when you cannot even prove that you exist?

radar said...

My assertions on genealogical records and creation/flood stories are already available as complete posts with references for those who want to search Google.

I am about to logically shred some of your accusations, all of you fact-free Darwinists!

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"it is your side that fudges the sigmoidal curve, not mine"

A sigmoidal population curve is consistent with early population levels remaining steady for a long period, then rising at an increasing rate. So there is no fudging required to fit what we know about population levels at varying times fit into such a graph. (Though it should be noted - as Jon Woolf has pointed out - that you can't really establish an absolute rule based on a sample of one.)

Creationists have the problem that, in order to make existing population data fit in with the mythological flood scenario which specifies a starting population of 6 (Shem, Ham and Japheth and their mates) about 4300 years ago. The only way to do that is to abandon the sigmoidal curve and draw a straight line from those 6 to the earliest known population data. Which may look like an acceptable "fix" to a schoolboy, but it still saddles you with the insurmountable problem that you would have implausibly low population levels throughout man's early history. Thus rendering the flood scenario falsified on that basis.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Everyone can see the membership of the CRS or the AIG or the CRI or the ICR or the Discovery Institute or the RMCF and etc. It is easy to find, just look at the links on my links area to the left and down."

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

Are we supposed to equate this membership list with the aforementioned anonymous reviewers? Why? And you have the nerve to talk about an "old boys club" on the "Darwinist" side?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"God asserts creation ex nihilo as a supernatural entity Who invented the natural world. He alone is a reasonable cause agent and He alone has the means and motive to do so."

God may "assert" this, but that doesn't change the fact that God is entirely a speculative entity.

"If you believe we just happened randomly"

Not quite randomly (natural laws and processes also played a part), though random chance was a factor.

"then I wonder how you can even trust your own thoughts. Are they not simply evolved random firings of synapses programmed by millions of years of evolution to make you think that you think?"

No, they are not random firings. Evolution does shape functionality. Our thoughts, the firing of synapses, do have a functionality that we can experience. Yes, our thoughts are shaped by millions of years of evolution. We may think we have free will, but if you pay attention, you'll see that our will actually follows a narrow path. Our minds are geared to live in a society, to find a mate, to reproduce. Exactly as evolution would have shaped us by favoring survival and reproduction.

"If we accidentally *poofed* into existence, what is to stop us from *poofing* out?"

1. Who says we "accidentally *poofed* into existence"? Other than you, I mean.

2. If the first part of your sentence was in any way a coherent premise (which it isn't), then

"How do you claim to have reason and free will when you cannot even prove that you exist?"

The assumption that we do in fact exist and are not just an illusion, floating in a tank, Matrix-style, is the first assumption we all have to make, whether we are Christians or atheists or whatever. It's unprovable to all of us.

This is the principle of "cogito ergo sum", and there is no difference here between the different worldviews. It is an essential starting point for all of us.

radar said...

HLH, either you did not understand the population graph or you pretend not to understand. The Sigmoidal curve appears to begin with a straight line for a time before beginning to head upwards rapidly and then tapering off to what again looks very straight. In point of fact the growth of early populations is slow at the beginning and then slows again once that population begins to fill the allotted space. While 4300 years will yield the population of the Earth by easily calculated math in accordance with what the population really is, the Darwinist viewpoint would have to have a straight line for at least 200,000 years!!!

You think you can fool people with fact-free assertions.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/03/quick-post-on-population-and-human.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-evolution-is-not-scientific-review.html

radar said...

Also, there is no way for the Universe to created itself. I use *poof* because Darwinists just pretend that time and chance will produce things that are statistical impossibilities. So we have astounding and ridiculous long formulas for a Big Bang made up almost entirely of fudge factors and with no first cause. We have claims that science is "working on" how life comes from non-life when a biochemist who is honest will tell you frankly that it cannot happen. There is nothing scientific about Darwinism at all, it is an excuse to pretend there is no God and it wastes vast amounts of time and money and brainwashes people and on top of that takes away the purpose and meaning of life.

How many people live random, chaotic and self-centered lives because they do not see any purpose to existence and do not see any particular value in human beings over, say, owls or beavers? How many take Darwinism to its logical ends and become like Jeff Dahmer, using people to satisfy his warped sex drive because like a good Darwinist he could get away with it?

The growth and power of the tiny homosexual community is pushing homosexuality on children now and the media and government is promoting it, fueled by LGBT and NAMBLA, so that more kids are trying out homosexuality, bringing on more disease and suicides. We had a 14 year old suicide victim this week, someone who had dabbled in homosexuality and then like a typical teen with up and downs the down caused the suicide. A wasted life partly laid at the feet of naturalism and the lack of purpose and meaning and value to life.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"HLH, either you did not understand the population graph or you pretend not to understand."

On the contrary, it is you who is being obtuse on the subject. Allow me to demonstrate:

"The Sigmoidal curve appears to begin with a straight line for a time before beginning to head upwards rapidly and then tapering off to what again looks very straight. [...] the Darwinist viewpoint would have to have a straight line for at least 200,000 years!!!"

Notice your logical disconnect? Yes, the sigmoidal curve appears to begin with a straight line. And that is exactly what the "Darwinist viewpoint" yields. Gotta love that weasely "for a time". "Ooh, maybe they won't notice..." Right Radar? :-D

Note, by the way, that this apparent straight line in a sigmoidal curve is just about parallel to the x-axis, not a flat line at an angle to it, as a YEC scenario would necessitate. That would no longer be a sigmoidal curve then.

"In point of fact the growth of early populations is slow at the beginning and then slows again once that population begins to fill the allotted space."

Correct. Now have a look at 6 people in 2348 BC and see what kind of population levels slow population growth would yield for that. Do they seem at all plausible? Seriously?

"You think you can fool people with fact-free assertions."

Nope, that would be you. Quite consistently in post after post.

"http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/03/quick-post-on-population-and-human.html"

Thank you for that. You really should read the comment section on your blog. All these arguments have been addressed there in great detail. Even the absurd population levels that a global flood scenario would require are detailed there. And you have no comeback to that. Okay then.

"http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-evolution-is-not-scientific-review.html"

Again, this shows that YECs can't construct a sigmoidal graph starting with 6 people in 2348 BC that actually fits existing data.

In related news, you may want to read up on the "bunny blunder": http://ncse.com/cej/4/4/creationists-population-growth-bunnies-great-pyramid

radar said...

Yes, oh yes, bring the NCSE into the discussion. They are censors who are strictly religious in nature, protecting the religion of naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism is a religion. Methodological Investigation is science and THAT is what Roger Bacon invented and Sir Francis Bacon tuned up and what you naturalists have twisted.

Pontificate away but sigmoidal graphs support a human population of near nothing around 4300 years ago. THAT is science. If man was around 200,000 years ago we would be standing on each other's heads. Bunny blunder, indeed!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Yes, oh yes, bring the NCSE into the discussion. They are censors who are strictly religious in nature, protecting the religion of naturalism."

And this, dear reader, is a textbook example of an ad hominem: attempting to discredit the messenger to avoid dealing with the message. And by dodging, you concede the issue.

"Methodological Naturalism is a religion. Methodological Investigation is science and THAT is what Roger Bacon invented and Sir Francis Bacon tuned up and what you naturalists have twisted."

For the umpteenth time, you're thinking of philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. Really not that hard...

"Pontificate away but sigmoidal graphs support a human population of near nothing around 4300 years ago. THAT is science."

You can keep repeating your statements over and over, but if you don't address the obvious falsifications of the claim, it remains falsified. Stubbornness is not an argument.

If you can't address the falsifications (for example the implausibly low population levels throughout early recorded history that the data fudging you're attempting to do would really require), then you've conceded the issue.

And seeing as you've been unable to address this argument for years, apparently, I hereby gladly accept your concession.

"If man was around 200,000 years ago we would be standing on each other's heads. Bunny blunder, indeed!"

Yep, bunny blunder indeed: if bunnies were around 300 years ago, we'd be drowning in bunnies. Therefore, there were no bunnies 300 years ago.

Now do you see the idiocy of your argument? Because, you know what, anyone else reading these lines is going to see it, so you'd better try real hard to understand it as well.

Now do you understand the bunny blunder?