Other Post Not all scientists are atheist

[Buster23]

I have been reading articles and technical papers at https://www.icr.org/articles/search/?f_typeID=12 and I find it interesting that there are scientific studies that supports the stories in the Bible (i.e. Noah's flood, creation (Genesis) as opposed to evolution, etc.).

One interesting study is the modeling/simulation of the evolutionists so-called 'natural selection' and mutation by the using a computer program called 'Mendel Accountant', the computer program is a state-of-the-art forward-time population genetics model that tracks millions of individual mutations with their unique effects on fitness and unique location within the genome through large numbers of generations.

And after running the simulation, it was found out that "Mendel shows with no room for controversy that when mutations vary in their impact on fitness, the deleterious mutations that are invisible to selection accumulate without limit and fitness declines accordingly. This reality removes the final thread of hope for evolutionists that mutation and natural selection as general rule lead to genetic improvement and not genetic deterioration. The processes of mutation and natural selection simply do not deliver what evolutionists have been led, mainly by a handful of population geneticists, to believe and claim. Careful numerical modeling now confirms this
conclusion with certainty." Hence, disproving the Darwinian theory of evolution (natural selection).

The technical paper is on this link

Mendel's Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection

by John Sanford, Ph.D., John Baumgardner, Ph.D., Wesley Brewer, Ph.D., Paul Gibson, Ph.D., and Walter ReMine, M.S. In A. A. Snelling (Ed.) (2008). Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 87-98). Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute...

www.icr.org

 

[Mordoror]

^^^^
LoL
Coming from the Institute of Creation Research
The article is so full of flaws, BS and mistakes that could have been published in Mickey Mouse magazine
Or in other words, another creationist pile of crap
While the darwinian theory of evolution could be criticized because it is imperfect by today standards (obviously leaving aside epigenetic and rate of mutations that were not known when the theory was written) it is still funny to read creationnists trying to dismiss it while not understanding the very basis of how it works (and how the aforementioned mutations, epigenetic and selection works IRL)

 

[Buster23]

First of all, I would like to say that I am not a scientist but I do have an engineering background/degree, and I did once considered evolution as possible origin of life but upon reading of articles from creationist/apologetics web sites (like ICR.org) as researched by creationist scientists and watching videos of debates between creationists and evolutionists, I am now convinced that the Bible (creation) and science does not contradict and in fact supporting each other, of which I based my opinion from with regards to this topic.

The problem is that just because these scientists believe in creation/Bible (instead of evolution), mainstream secular science fora immediately dismiss their work as flawed and ridiculous without even looking at the study in details, in fact they wont even accept these kind of studies for objective peer review just because of the authors' creationist world view.

Some if not most of these creationist scientists were once atheists but when they found evidence that life or humans could have not been possibly the product of evolution, they have changed their world view and became born again Christians. These scientists are brilliant individuals (Dr. John Sanford for example) who have contributed to the advancement of secular science and genetics, but once they have changed their world view, they are now branded as crazy and subjected to all kinds of ad hominem attacks.

John Sanford

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

Secular scientists (evolutionists) do not have monopoly of science and intelligence in my opinion.

Genetic entropy

Dr John Sanford defends his book Genetic Entropy against criticisms from theistic evolutionist Scott Buchanan regarding population genetics.

creation.com

 

[Mordoror]

@Buster23
Look, dude, you are mixing two things in our discussion
Of course, being a scientist and a believer in God is NOT incompatible
There are a bunch of scientists that believe in God, Buddha, Karma, Destiny or any superior Entity you want to name. This is particularly true for astrophysicians but you can find them in all branch of science
For the record, Darwin himself was a religious man (something that is conveniently forgotten by people that want to criticize him)
So that exact point is not really open to discussion

What IS incompatible is believing in Science and Creation dogmas :i.e Earth created 6000 years ago, Bible litteraly writen by God, Man created from Mud at His image etc and the historical timeframe of the Bible being an accurate thing.

What i was merely criticizing however is the content of the article you posted that is contradictory both with empiric and methodical observations of how life evolves and have evolved
And the source that is not neutral, far from it
Taking informations about such kind of elements from a creationnist site is akin to taking advices on health effects from tobacco on a site led by Philipp Morris and Peter Stuyvesant

Fact is that the creationnists are trying (and in fact achieving successfuly slowly but surely) to contradict established science facts
So i repeat, believing that God or a Superior Entity may have had a role in the creation of the Universe is not purely incompatible with a scientific approach of the creation of the said Universe, Solar System, Earth and life on Earth by ricochet
Believing however that Evolution is not a reality (while you have examples of it every days if you want to look and know what to look) and that all is due to an intelligent design is not
That some scientists found God, good for them, but like any convert, i am sorry to say that they are the most rabid (while the most ridiculous) when it comes to contradict their former beliefs

 

[Buster23]

@Mordoror

Well, I hope you realize that their studies are also based on and with reference to mainstream secular science studies as well, and if you have read their studies/technical papers you would have noticed that there are numerous citations/foot notes of studies of secular scientists as references, and all test and experiments are also based on scientific methods as what secular scientists would have done. Furthermore, these are works of highly respected (or was when they were still an atheist) scientists who have contributed to advancement secular science like Dr. John Sanford which I have previously mentioned.

What I see however on your comments above, is that you are only attacking their personality and belief and not objectively criticizing the article/study itself. Similarly and as I also previously mentioned, the mainstream secular (evolutionist) scientists are also shutting them down outright without objectively examining the study in details and not giving proper peer review just because of difference in world view/belief, and there lies the problem.

One should also realize that belief in evolution or atheism, is a belief system (i.e. religion) like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc., but a religion that believes that there is/are no god/s. Let us then take a look at their core belief, the Big Bang theory, the supposedly cause/origin of evolution and then life, but then one would have to ask, what have caused the Big Bang in the first place? Well, most well-known atheist personalities (e.g. Dawkins, Hawking, etc.) would say it came from NOTHING (or the universe has no beginning), NOTHING?, so how nothing becomes everything again??? Is that even a rational statement? Can they even prove it through scientific method as they would ask to prove the existence of God? Definitely not. It would take a BIG FAITH to believe that "nothing becomes everything", just as Christians believe that God created everything, and I would rather believe the latter.

 

[BCNTM]

there is no 'god' - weak people just need some sort of crutch and stronger people just exploit that for their own ends

Genetics - some people just need to learn not to marry their cousin/close relative

 

[bfc1001]

@Mordoror

Well, I hope you realize that their studies are also based on and with reference to mainstream secular science studies as well, and if you have read their studies/technical papers you would have noticed that there are numerous citations/foot notes of studies of secular scientists as references, and all test and experiments are also based on scientific methods as what secular scientists would have done. Furthermore, these are works of highly respected (or was when they were still an atheist) scientists who have contributed to advancement secular science like Dr. John Sanford which I have previously mentioned.

What I see however on your comments above, is that you are only attacking their personality and belief and not objectively criticizing the article/study itself. Similarly and as I also previously mentioned, the mainstream secular (evolutionist) scientists are also shutting them down outright without objectively examining the study in details and not giving proper peer review just because of difference in world view/belief, and there lies the problem.

One should also realize that belief in evolution or atheism, is a belief system (i.e. religion) like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc., but a religion that believes that there is/are no god/s. Let us then take a look at their core belief, the Big Bang theory, the supposedly cause/origin of evolution and then life, but then one would have to ask, what have caused the Big Bang in the first place? Well, most well-known atheist personalities (e.g. Dawkins, Hawking, etc.) would say it came from NOTHING (or the universe has no beginning), NOTHING?, so how nothing becomes everything again??? Is that even a rational statement? Can they even prove it through scientific method as they would ask to prove the existence of God? Definitely not. It would take a BIG FAITH to believe that "nothing becomes everything", just as Christians believe that God created everything, and I would rather believe the latter.

But the same argument can be levelled at Christians who believe God created everything . Who created god ? I always look at it this way , trying to explain the universe and it's origins to us humans is a little like trying to explain planet earth to an ant . We just don't hold the mental capacity to understand or comprehend . It's why gods of various religions over the centuries have always taken the shape of a human figure , because historically people could nt comprehend anything else .

 

[Mordoror]

What I see however on your comments above, is that you are only attacking their personality and belief and not objectively criticizing the article/study itself. Similarly and as I also previously mentioned, the mainstream secular (evolutionist) scientists are also shutting them down outright without objectively examining the study in details and not giving proper peer review just because of difference in world view/belief, and there lies the problem.

You are then understanding me badly
The first article you quoted is full of flaws and mishaps (i wrote it already)
Their conclusions are going against empiric and methodical observations
And the hundred of articles they have wrote are published in Creationnist linked papers, none in peer reviewed papers (the ones acceptable to scientific community)
Everything is not equal, if i write something with an orientation bias in a journal that accept only that bias, that doesn't make what i wrote accurate even if it is published in such kind of journal

I will be even more harsh than that
I have alreayd reviewed (and written) several science article
The article you quoted in your OP (and that is the basis of this very discussion) is a pile of trash
It evolves about a computer modelling. That would be OK if it was not limited to that but if the results of simulation were linked to real life examples. Which is not the case
It is published in a not referenced journal (-not registered in Google Schoolar, Web of Science or Pubmed) so with 0 values in the eye of the scientific community. Could be a predatory journal or a whacko journal (like the journal of Cosmology and Alien life) for what it is worth. In fact it is not even a journal, it 's the Proceeding of a Congress on Creationnism
The article has a mere 12 references. 12 !!!. This is ridiculously low for a 12 pages articles in particular with several (4) autocitations which is something that is shunned upon in scientific litterature
And not a single ref is older than 2008
In other word, this is just a pile of trash both in content and aspect.

Ill go further but their writting are going against all actual datas and it leaves a taste that they are not understanding what they are talking about They are opposing mathematical modelling versus empirical and methodological observations. Well, OK. I can do it too and find a mathematical model with parameters showing what i want to shows even if it goes against real life well known examples
Just a few hints :

1-a deleterious mutation can be deleterious but also positive depending of the environmental context (see B thalassemia and malaria- this is really not a recent example and one of the basis of selection of genes teached in medicine schools)
2-a positive or negative impact of mutations on the fitness can be depending of the environment (antibiotic resistance mutations in bacterias have a positive impact on the fitness of bacterias only if there is antibiotics nearby, otherwise the effect on fitness is negative)
3- some deleterious mutations can be expressed only later at lifestage so without impact on the fitness (the Huntington disease declares itself often at 40 or 50y, when your reproductive success is already complete so fitness successfully achieved)

Those are only 3 examples going against what is written and concluded in the "article" you posted

 

[Buster23]

Just a few hints :

1-a deleterious mutation can be deleterious but also positive depending of the environmental context (see B thalassemia and malaria- this is really not a recent example and one of the basis of selection of genes teached in medicine schools)
2-a positive or negative impact of mutations on the fitness can be depending of the environment (antibiotic resistance mutations in bacterias have a positive impact on the fitness of bacterias only if there is antibiotics nearby, otherwise the effect on fitness is negative)
3- some deleterious mutations can be expressed only later at lifestage so without impact on the fitness (the Huntington disease declares itself often at 40 or 50y, when your reproductive success is already complete so fitness successfully achieved)

Those are only 3 examples going against what is written and concluded in the "article" you posted

To quote from this link https://creation.com/anthrax-and-antibiotics-is-evolution-relevant

"Mutations are not evolution. They are copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation is known to increase information content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations.

To apply these principles to antibiotic resistance, there are several ways that germs can acquire resistance to drugs, none of which have anything to do with evolution from goo to you via the zoo:

Natural selection: the drugs wipe out all the non-resistant germs, so the most resistant germs survive and multiply. This leads to a whole population that’s resistant to antibiotics. This is not evolution because the resistance already existed in the population."

More answers to your mutation argument is on this link

mutations-new-information

Mutations can produce new information, depending on the meaning of new and information, but they cannot account for the evolution of all life on Earth.

creation.com

 

[Buster23]

You are then understanding me badly
The first article you quoted is full of flaws and mishaps (i wrote it already)
Their conclusions are going against empiric and methodical observations
And the hundred of articles they have wrote are published in Creationnist linked papers, none in peer reviewed papers (the ones acceptable to scientific community)
Everything is not equal, if i write something with an orientation bias in a journal that accept only that bias, that doesn't make what i wrote accurate even if it is published in such kind of journal

Here is why they don't get peer reviewed and accepted by the "scientific community", kindly refer to link below:

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

 

[Buster23]

Creationism, Science and Peer Review

"We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. "

Creationism, Science and Peer Review

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

 

[Buster23]

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest

Creation scientists

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

 

[Junglejim]

If your basis for "research is just Creation.com. Then you are failing hard and just part of that echo chamber. They are justifying themselves out of a peer review when even the Vaticans scientists go through to validate their claims like the big bang.

 

[Xaito]

Some if not most of these creationist scientists were once atheists but when they found evidence that life or humans could have not been possibly the product of evolution, they have changed their world view and became born again Christians.

That's like the perfect example of unscientific. If your theory/model doesn't work out you refine it or look for a new one - you don't fall back to the god of the gaps - i.e. "I haven't figured this part out, therefore it was god".

Secular scientists (evolutionists) do not have monopoly of science and intelligence in my opinion.

Science doesn't care - either a theory works independent of who puts it to the test or it doesn't.
Science isn't biased - it's goal is to find facts, not to support some particular ideology.
Your source on the other hand - similar to religious sects, conspiracy theorists etc. - preys on the ignorance of it's victims and on the fact that the victims want to believe something and look for confirmation, rather than proper validation of their point of view. You can make any kind of stuff up and they'll believe it without checking themselves or expecting some kind of peer review process.

 

[Mordoror]

To quote from this link https://creation.com/anthrax-and-antibiotics-is-evolution-relevant

"Mutations are not evolution. They are copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation is known to increase information content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations.

To apply these principles to antibiotic resistance, there are several ways that germs can acquire resistance to drugs, none of which have anything to do with evolution from goo to you via the zoo:

Natural selection: the drugs wipe out all the non-resistant germs, so the most resistant germs survive and multiply. This leads to a whole population that’s resistant to antibiotics. This is not evolution because the resistance already existed in the population."

More answers to your mutation argument is on this link

mutations-new-information

Mutations can produce new information, depending on the meaning of new and information, but they cannot account for the evolution of all life on Earth.

creation.com

Mutations are indeed not evolution. They can or cannot lead to evolution depending of the circumstances
The rest of what you wrote is false on several levels
Of course some mutations can (and do) increase or modify information content (in particular but not limited to, mutations in the UTRs, promoting or terminating areas of genes)

About drug resistance, it is also false
for some mechanisms, resistance doesn't pre-exist in the population, it has to appear through mutations. Some mutations leading to resistance rates are extremely rares (1 on 100 000 000 or 1 000 000 000 of copies). They are only selected, if they appear, under antibiotic/drug pressure i) because they are rare
ii) if they appear outside a positive slection system, because they are deleterious to fitness, they disapear very quickly

This is the very definition of evolution : selection of the most fit to survive under a given situation

 

[Mordoror]

Creationism, Science and Peer Review

"We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. "

Creationism, Science and Peer Review

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

And it is convenient for creationnists to hide their pile of crap behind the above arguments
JungleJim is spot on in his answer too

 

[Buster23]

I recognize that this is a real uphill battle for creationists.

If your basis for "research is just Creation.com. Then you are failing hard and just part of that echo chamber. They are justifying themselves out of a peer review when even the Vaticans scientists go through to validate their claims like the big bang.

As for my creation.com/CMI references, they have vast collection of creationist research materials/articles (done by competent and knowledgeable scientists) in their library, so why not? Though I am aware that there are also the so called 'theistic evolutionists' (i.e. 'Christians' who believes in evolution), however I am more inclined to believe with the creationists for the reasons that their research are more aligned with what the Scriptures says in a strict and traditional interpretation of it.

As for peer reviews, I have already posted their explanations about this.

And as for Big Bang, there still no scientific evidence or even a rational explanation (even by any vatican scientists or by well known evolutionists/atheists like Dawkins et.al.) that this event really happened, and that abiogenesis really happened.

 

[Junglejim]

I recognize that this is a real uphill battle for creationists.

As for my creation.com/CMI references, they have vast collection of creationist research materials/articles (done by competent and knowledgeable scientists) in their library, so why not? Though I am aware that there are also the so called 'theistic evolutionists' (i.e. 'Christians' who believes in evolution), however I am more inclined to believe with the creationists for the reasons that their research are more aligned with what the Scriptures says in a strict and traditional interpretation of it.

As for peer reviews, I have already posted their explanations about this.

And as for Big Bang, there still no scientific evidence or even a rational explanation (even by any vatican scientists or by well known evolutionists/atheists like Dawkins et.al.) that this event really happened, and that abiogenesis really happened.

And that ends this thread... that just means no matter what is placed in front you, you simply will ignore it since "it's what the scriptures say." You are pushing a personal agenda which is based on one website. To be honest if you are so sure in your belief, you dont need a website or go through with a discussion.

 

[Mordoror]

I recognize that this is a real uphill battle for creationists.

As for my creation.com/CMI references, they have vast collection of creationist research materials/articles (done by competent and knowledgeable scientists) in their library, so why not? Though I am aware that there are also the so called 'theistic evolutionists' (i.e. 'Christians' who believes in evolution), however I am more inclined to believe with the creationists for the reasons that their research are more aligned with what the Scriptures says in a strict and traditional interpretation of it.

As for peer reviews, I have already posted their explanations about this.

And as for Big Bang, there still no scientific evidence or even a rational explanation (even by any vatican scientists or by well known evolutionists/atheists like Dawkins et.al.) that this event really happened, and that abiogenesis really happened.

Dude, belief=/=science. That's where the discussion will end. Believing in Creation is one (your) personal opinion and a personal opinion has nothing to do with a science paradigm/demonstration.
BTW the amount of lack of knowledge you diplayed in the various fields we discussed before (like mutations) is also hurting your credibility in these fields of discussion.


That you believe in scriptures, that' s your personal rights. I wont go against. But avoid to walk in fields you have poor understanding about....

 

[Mordoror]

And just to show you the differences between belief and science, i do believe that there is extraplanetary life somewhere. But even if there are strong arguments for it, there are no proofs so far. So it is just an opinion or belief, not a science fact. Evolution is a fact, no matter how much people believing in a mongrel book made of gospels arbitrarily pulled together during the Nicea council in 325 AD say the contrary....