The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Zazzy]

I listed a few above. They actually have thousands of peer-reviewed articles that have been published in their own peer-review system, but I know that you will arbitrarily discount those journals so I presented only secular journals.

I have scanned through the ones (the actual papers, which I have access to) you provided (that are biological), and two things jump out at me: 1.) none of them are published within the last 30 years, and 2.) they don’t appear to be creationist. The Lambert paper does leave room by saying it’s an unanswered question. It’s not a thrilling conclusion, though. Much has been learned in 30 years about DNA and its probable predecessor, RNA, which renders the paper pretty toothless- this one I'll probably read all the way through carefully. The rest of the papers you provided are garden variety biochemistry and VERY early genetics which on first glance don’t appear to have any creationist arguments in them. Have you read them? I don’t want to sift through 30-year-old papers if you can point me to the specific arguments in them that are creationist. I have a feeling that most people claiming anything about these papers have never actually read them.

Are there any evolutionists who have published worked in creation peer-reviewed journals?

I have no idea. I don’t imagine it’s something people want on their CVs. It’s a good question, so I googled it, and got a few hits claiming that creationists have rejected critical reviews by evolutionary scientists. I don’t know if that’s true, or if so, why they were rejected.

I was not making a point about anything creationists believe; I was making a general point about allowing for illusions in science. Once you are allowed to discount evidence as illusory, how do you then determine which evidence is genuine and which evidence is illusory? That was my point; sorry for the confusion.

No problem. Things often appear to be one way, and once you investigate them thoroughly, they turn out to be another way. This happens ALL THE TIME in research- you get fooled by an appearance. You determine what is correct by working out the mechanism. That’s my point about “all things being equal in the primary research.” You have to actually investigate the mechanisms that produce biological forms to determine how those forms come to be. If there was a great deal of primary research that provided molecular mechanisms that were contradictory to evolutionary theory, then you’ve got a case. And challenges to existing theory happen all the time. Barbara McClintock is my favorite example. She challenged genetic dogma with a spectacularly weird claim, was treated like crap, kept researching, turned out to be entirely right, changed the way we think about genomic behavior, and won a Nobel Prize. Now, I order lab-made transposons to generate mutations- it’s so established that it’s standard lab protocol.

Science is a contact sport. EVERYONE who challenges the status quo in science gets rough treatment, because extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence. McClintock provided it and changed the field.

Why do all things have to be equal in the primary research? Dawkins never asserts anything of this nature.

But I AM asserting this. I don’t know Dawkins, but I’m pretty sure he thinks evidence is necessary to support a claim. If he doesn't think so, then he's a tool. His whole book DOES provides the evidence for his claim. Have you read the book (It’s a little outdated now, but still good), or are you just quoting from the cover?

Life on Earth is the result of design; much of the diversity we see in life on Earth is the result of natural selection.

To clarify your position, are you YEC? Or are you more in the Behe camp (now THAT guy is a published creationist)? Where does natural selection end? Why would it end? Some explication of your view on genetics would help me know where we both are.

Who determines whether a journal is well enough respected or not and how do they make this determination?

The quality of the work in the journals is judged by the community. There is snobbery involved- everyone wants to publish in Science or Nature, even though many other journals publish work that is just as good (Is Harvard REALLY better than the University of X State? Probably not). Through experience, I have learned which journals are both relevant to my work and consistently publish useful research.

Well none of the articles I listed above were ever retracted by any of the journals they were published in.

I see no reason for them to be. They don't appear bad, just old.

I do not believe this reflects the actual purpose behind the peer-review system. Some of the best science we’ve ever seen was never published by peer-reviewed journals.

Sure- this was almost entirely true until the 20th century. Darwin is my favorite example. But things have changed. I’m sure there is some good science out there now not published by peer-reviewed journals, but close to 100% of it is now, because it’s a pretty good system, and it gets exposure. Plus, not subjecting yourself to peer-review is a suspect thing, because peer-review tends to make our work better.

Yup, I screwed that up, my apologies.

Look, both of us are going to make grammar mistakes, even though we’re both clearly literate people. Do we have to play the [sic] game every time? I hate it. And for the record, I think posters here and everywhere often use it as low-hanging fruit for insults, a boring way to spend time.

IT’S not that simple. You’re falsely assuming that science does not have ITS own axioms. If two scientists differ on their axioms then they are incapable of merely examining the research and data and coming to a conclusion as to which side won.

Sure, science proceeds according to the assumption that things in the natural world can be explained by natural means. This is a good axiom, because if it can’t be explained by natural means, then why the hell bother studying it, since we can’t predict and experiment on magical supernatural things? Sure there are things we can’t explain now- it would be a major bummer for all the grad students if there were no more questions to answer. I think it’s wise to proceed with the attitude that we should try to understand it as best we can. If there do turn out to be magical things, OK. That just hasn’t proven true yet.

If you are going to claim magic and the supernatural... then I agree that we can never get our axioms in line with each other. Perhaps that's the end of this conversation?

You only said that in this response, let’s not be disingenuous here.

Of course I said it in response. Why is that disingenuous? I said I'd retract it if you showed otherwise, and I did. It does appear that a handful of creationists published experimental work 30 years ago in the scientific publication system- and only one of those papers really has anything remotely to do with creationism. So I retract my earlier comment, and say this instead: creationists aren’t doing any CURRENT primary experimental work that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS CREATIONISM. If you can refute it, then I’ll retract this claim as well.

They’re not merely overlooking it, they are purposely censoring it (something a former managing editor of Science has admitted to in the past).

Sure. If all you have to say is that it looks designed and it must have been magical, that’s a science stopper. If a useful scientific tool in service of creationism was discovered, scientists would be on that like white on rice. All they care about in the end is results. Good science eventually wins the day, as McClintock and many like her have shown.

There are huge moralistic and existential implications to creation research, implications that most people do not want to deal with. It is much easier to just filter it all out of the system, although as I have pointed out some of it still sneaks by the censors because creationists have their methodological ‘ducks in a row’ so to speak.

Yes, the implications are huge. There would also be huge implications if it turned out that witches really can cause disease by cursing people, or many other things that people around the world think and claim. Evidence is what matters in assessing these claims. I still haven’t seen any to support a creationist position- and yes, I’m following your other conversations.

What gets filtered out of the system is bad science- and it happens to plenty of evolutionary scientists, too. Badly designed experiments and analyses happen constantly everywhere. And the "ducks in a row" aren't creationist ducks, as far as I can tell. If you read the papers and point me to the creationist arguments in them, then we'll talk about those.

There are more than ten articles published from this year, but if you are anything like other atheists on here you will discount them a priori because they are published in creation peer-reviewed journals.

Well, let’s see a few from that, then. If they’re biological (especially genetics) I can assess whether or not they’re any good. If that’s what you’ve got, bring it on. I want to see your evidence, although if you fully accept natural selection and common descent, then I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing on.

If you are genuinely interested in learning the material and their position then that is where you will have to look.

I will look at it if you provide it, and I’ll read it as I read every paper- critically. I am curious, but I'm not going to waste my time sifting through creationist papers. You're a creationist who reads the literature- show me the best ones recently. Or don't. It's up to you.

They do not have the funding to publish numerous articles every year in secular journals. If you are merely trying to prove that creationists never get published in secular research journals then I have provided enough information to refute that claim; they in fact do.

Yeah, OK. If you think a few old, garden variety papers that aren’t creationist in nature support that claim, then technically you’re right. I yield the point.
I'm tired of the "quote for quote" thing now, so (if I miss an important point, let me know):

I understand your frustration with the “peer-review” conversation. It’s frustrating. It’s difficult to get published in a good journal. Creationists are not the only people in this boat. Since I have no idea what your research actually looks like, I don’t know if it’s quality work or not, but if it proposes or explains no mechanisms and comes to a magical conclusion, then it DOESN’T belong in a scientific journal.

Somewhat surprisingly, I am also enjoying the conversation now that our hackles are lowering. Show me a few, good, RECENT papers (preferably in genetics) from your journals if you care to. My expertise is primarily in genetics of bacteria and viruses (hence papers on those would be nice), although I can certainly read papers about other organisms. I want recent work because in almost ALL old work in genetics, the unanswered questions get answered later, rendering the paper pointless. And I’m only interested in primary bench research using currently accepted techniques, NOT in reviews of other scientists’ work. AND I’d like to see these papers directly support creationist analyses, unlike the papers you provided earlier. Surely you can find work in your journals that meets these criteria.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Somewhat surprisingly, I am also enjoying the conversation now that our hackles are lowering.

I'm finding the same. Though the more I talk to this guy, the harder it is to shake to feeling that he's a poe

[orogenicman]

Statler Waldorf burbled as he wrote: "You have that backwards; the plate tectonic action caused the flood by pushing oceanic waters onto the continents and then caused the flood to recede due to continental upheaval back to the oceans towards the end of the flood year."

Utter nonsense. You'd have to be 5 cans short of a six pack to believe that.

[Zazzy]

Somewhat surprisingly, I am also enjoying the conversation now that our hackles are lowering.

I'm finding the same. Though the more I talk to this guy, the harder it is to shake to feeling that he's a poe

I'll take that bet. His arguments feel genuine to me. And he's willing to acknowledge a misunderstanding and an error, which I've discovered is rare with the theists here.

[orogenicman]

I'm finding the same. Though the more I talk to this guy, the harder it is to shake to feeling that he's a poe

I'll take that bet. His arguments feel genuine to me. And he's willing to acknowledge a misunderstanding and an error, which I've discovered is rare with the theists here.

Right, so when he asks questions, such as:

"Are there any evolutionists who have published worked in creation peer-reviewed journals? "

You think it is a genuine question , right? Zazzy, there are no peer-reviewed creation journals. It's a red herring. Creationism is not a science. It is a religious belief. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court.

[Zen Badger]

Somewhat surprisingly, I am also enjoying the conversation now that our hackles are lowering.

I'm finding the same. Though the more I talk to this guy, the harder it is to shake to feeling that he's a poe

Oh no, he is genuinely this stupid.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Oh no, he is genuinely this stupid.

I'm not convinced. A stupid YEC would have questioned the science itself, rather than our understanding of it.

[Zazzy]

"Are there any evolutionists who have published worked in creation peer-reviewed journals? "

You think it is a genuine question , right?

I think he means to give me tit for tat, because he sees those things as equal. And I'll give him a chance to prove that they are instead of dismissing him out of hand. I've never seen a creationist science journal, and I'm actually curious. Just as newbies to any field need help finding the best material out there, he can help me by showing me his best material. I'm not curious enough to go wade through it, but I am curious enough to read something he provides me.

Zazzy, there are no peer-reviewed creation journals. It's a red herring. Creationism is not a science. It is a religious belief. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court.

I've been a bench scientist long enough to know that if there are creationist journals, they aren't useful to bench research. And I've been battling creationism in the public school system long enough to know it's a religious belief. What I don't know is what Statler Waldorf thinks is a good primary creationist research paper in my field. I hope you'll join me in looking at what he provides.

[orogenicman]

"Are there any evolutionists who have published worked in creation peer-reviewed journals? "

You think it is a genuine question , right?

I think he means to give me tit for tat, because he sees those things as equal. And I'll give him a chance to prove that they are instead of dismissing him out of hand. I've never seen a creationist science journal, and I'm actually curious. Just as newbies to any field need help finding the best material out there, he can help me by showing me his best material. I'm not curious enough to go wade through it, but I am curious enough to read something he provides me.

Zazzy, there are no peer-reviewed creation journals. It's a red herring. Creationism is not a science. It is a religious belief. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court.

I've been a bench scientist long enough to know that if there are creationist journals, they aren't useful to bench research. And I've been battling creationism in the public school system long enough to know it's a religious belief. What I don't know is what Statler Waldorf thinks is a good primary creationist research paper in my field. I hope you'll join me in looking at what he provides.

I would think that what he has already provided is a good example of how disingenuous he is - citing mostly outdated research papers from mostly dead or retired researchers that have nothing to do with creationism as his example of creationism research. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out his game plan.

[Doubting Thomas]

I would think that what he has already provided is a good example of how disingenuous he is - citing mostly outdated research papers from mostly dead or retired researchers that have nothing to do with creationism as his example of creationism research. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out his game plan.

And he has the knack for trying to change the meaning of what he posted before when he's proved wrong. Like in this thread where I mentioned the creationist idea of the speed of light changing drastically, and he claimed that wasn't something creationists claimed. When I proved him wrong with numerous links, he claimed it's not what creationists claim now. Which if that's what he really meant, he could have mentioned that in his initial response.