Error-free Creationist Literature?

[VoxRat]

This subject originally came up nearly a year ago.

A particularly obtuse creationist made the astonishing assertion that creationist literature - specifically the articles you find at AnswersInGenesis - stacked up at least as well as the mainstream, peer-reviewed professional scientific literature in terms of accuracy and reliability.

I issued the challenge at that time:

Show me any AnswersInGenesis article that makes claims at odds with mainstream science, and I will show you significant, demonstrable errors in facts and/or logic.

The challenge was repeated on its own thread over at IIDB.

Creationists have popped in from time to time to say "What are you talking about!? There are lots of error-free articles at AiG?" But they have never offered a single example for scrutiny.

Meanwhile, every single article suggested by non-creationists for scrutiny has failed the test miserably. And yet... no candidates have been forthcoming from our creationist friends.

What do you make of that?

Meanwhile, I'd like to extend the challenge to any and all creationist literature. I contend that you can't find a single creationist article anywhere that makes claims at odds with mainstream science, that does not contain significant, demonstrable errors of fact or logic.

Let the creationist no-show continue.

[Dlx2]

Creationism: Science Until 1851.

[Deleet]

Try this one:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlet...reatedGod.html

Update: I read most of their remaining 'scientific' articles, but couldn't find an error free one.

A note: depressingly, creationists cite the 2. law of thermodynamics to their favor, while ignoring the conservation of energy later.

[Plognark]

Try this one:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlet...reatedGod.html

Update: I read most of their remaining 'scientific' articles, but couldn't find an error free one.

A note: depressingly, creationists cite the 2. law of thermodynamics to their favor, while ignoring the conservation of energy later.

yeah, it's pretty sophomoric.

God created time. The statement of Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” is making reference to the creation of time. The reason that things like heat death, the expansion of the universe, and the depletion of hydrogen do not apply to God is because He is outside of time. God has always been. He did things before time began (see 1 Corinthians 2:7). He not only began time; He will also end it. When time ends, all matter and all mankind will enter eternity—a timeless condition free of the negative things that time brings upon us now.

When did/will he have time to do that?

This whole "outside of time" nonsense isn't even supported by the bible. God changes his mind quite a bit in the old testament. If he's outside of our time, he shouldn't need to think about anything and change his mind on anything that goes on here. Fucking guy can fast forward or rewind and edit on the fly.

[Gavinicus]

The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit: ...
Matthew 16:17
... for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should ... ;


Obviously, the descriptions and concepts of God given in these passages are that God is a spiritual entity. He exists outside of the three-dimensional physical world in which we live.

Well, the god of John the Batshit may be ectoplasm, but the ass-kicking god of Moses and Abraham is solid--and a bit squeamish.

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee.
For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

I'm not sure whether this is an error of fact or logic. Let's just say that a ghost shouldn't be too worried about stepping in shit or letting people see its ass.

[SkepticalPete]

Meanwhile, every single article suggested by non-creationists for scrutiny has failed the test miserably.

Ah, but of course everyone knows that non-creationists, being evil atheists without exception, are of course biased in their presentation of articles, attack them out of their proper context, and are pursuing an agenda to obscure the fact that Darwinism is responsible for everything bad that's happened throughout history. So naturally they can't be trusted!

I think that sums up the excuses on the IIDB thread nicely. Hope one of our friendly neighbourhood creationists finally delivers the goods here...

[Deleet]

You beat me to it, I was about to cite the bible against, this weak spiritual idea of god.

I'll try again:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologe....html#timeless

How does this get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us.

I couldn't find anything scientific on that page, except for all the data of 'fine-tuning'. However, they seem to lack the inference I was looking for (design was caused by god).

[Flint]

Creationists have popped in from time to time to say "What are you talking about!? There are lots of error-free articles at AiG?" But they have never offered a single example for scrutiny.

Meanwhile, every single article suggested by non-creationists for scrutiny has failed the test miserably. And yet... no candidates have been forthcoming from our creationist friends.

Of course, VoxRat has stacked the deck here. He is playing the game by his own rules, without telling anyone he's doing that.

I tried reading the Bob Jones biology textbook. Chapter after chapter, page after page hammered home one single point: Where reality conflicts with (their interpretation of) scripture, reality is wrong. Observations contradicting their interpretation of scripture are simply not evidence, by definition. God has spoken. Therefore, conclusions based on analysis of conflicting observations are not science. And this means (here it comes...) there as absolutely nothing in science that conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis. There CAN'T be, since Genesis (their interpretation) is true by definition.

This is the point VoxRat doesn't seem to grasp. VoxRat thinks that evidence *matters*, that reality is the appropriate source of truth about the natural universe, and the appropriate arbiter of any disputes about natural matters. As AiG (and the Bob Jones textbooks) make clear, THIS is the point where prior agreement must be pinned down. If it is not, then the AiG people can grab their bibles, and VoxRat can grab his successful testing of natural phenomena, and they can beat one another over the heads, neither deigning to notice the other's misguided efforts.

So we see that either ALL of AiG's articles are without error, or none of them are, depending on what is held to be the proper measure of error. Are you gonna believe God's plain word, or misguided misunderstandings of His creation, where the two disagree?

[Deleet]

So, empiricism vs. scripturicism.

Examine history a bit, which works better?

For instance:

[VoxRat]

Of course, VoxRat has stacked the deck here. He is playing the game by his own rules, without telling anyone he's doing that.

Well, of course Flint raises a very good point here. But I would contend that it's not VoxRat stacking the deck; it's that pesky reality.

See, I'm not poking my little head into the Fundies' world and saying "that's not consistent!" As I've said many times, I'm not interested in interfering with, or getting involved in any way with, anybody's fantasy world. Not Ted Haggard's, not afdave's.

It's when these guys stick their little heads into the real world the rest of us inhabit that I feel duty-bound to insist that they play by the same rules as the rest of us.

So when they say that their biblical fantasy is true, by definition, and that any apparent conflicts with science or reality must be only apparent, I say "whatever".

But when they say that science and reality, correctly interpreted, confirm their biblical fantasy, I say "prove it - using the same rules the rest of science and reality uses".

This is the point VoxRat doesn't seem to grasp. VoxRat thinks that evidence *matters*, that reality is the appropriate source of truth about the natural universe, and the appropriate arbiter of any disputes about natural matters.

And Flint is correct: to VoxRat evidence *does* matter, reality is the appropriate arbiter, etc. But that's not the point. The point is that to science, and to pretty much the whole post-enlightenment world, evidence matters, reality is the appropriate arbiter, etc. And these guys are claiming their fantasy stands up to the standards of our real world. I'm not insisting these guys play by VoxRat's rules; I'm insisting they play by science's rules, if they want to maintain their claim that their story is scientific.

Is that so unreasonable?

As AiG (and the Bob Jones textbooks) make clear, THIS is the point where prior agreement must be pinned down. If it is not, then the AiG people can grab their bibles, and VoxRat can grab his successful testing of natural phenomena, and they can beat one another over the heads, neither deigning to notice the other's misguided efforts.

That would seem to suggest the situation is "symmetrical". Again: who's poking whose head into whose world here?

So we see that either ALL of AiG's articles are without error, or none of them are, depending on what is held to be the proper measure of error. Are you gonna believe God's plain word, or misguided misunderstandings of His creation, where the two disagree?

Fair enough.

Are we talking science here?

Or religious dogma?

[Wolfie]

Meh!

I keep misreading AiG as Ali G, who did actually interview Hovind...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8[/YOUTUBE]

[Deleet]

How about this?
http://www.infinityinst.com/articles...conscious.html

Found in a creationist member here on RnR:

I'll have a go:

Lipton believes the cell membrane is where consciousness resides - that the outer boundary or each cell is where self and not-self come together.

???

When a cell is constructed, it’s built to act on its own; it can survive by itself in a laboratory environment.

Not too sure on that one.

The entire cell community receives instructions from the life force itself similar to the way in which a radio pulls in broadcasts from the air. If we beam negative messages, Lipton says, the cells will respond in a negative manner.

Life force? Please..

Cells are programmed to respond in certain ways beginning in infancy or even before birth, but they can be reprogrammed to act differently. It is the process of the membrane receiving information, processing it and sending it on into the cell for action that determines the behavior of the cell - not any inherent, fixed programming. Lipton scoffs at the assumption that “cancer runs in the family”. There is no cancer gene, he insists. Cells go cancerous when they are told to do so.

By correcting this thinking, we can correct the diseases which plaque us, Lipton continues. In other words we can heal ourselves by changing our beliefs. His theory would explain the success of visualization, Hypnosis, faith healing, psychic healing and Christian Science.

This sounds like Deepra Cobra guy in India.

[VoxRat]

How about this?
http://www.infinityinst.com/articles...conscious.html

A former Stanford professor, Lipton ...

look up the guy's CV: he was never a "Stanford professor"

He first explains that every cell is a microcosm of the larger organism.

Wrong or Bullshit? I guess there's no reason it can't be both.

Apparently, there are 70 trillion of these self-contained copies of us running around in our bodies, each with its own digestive, excretory and reproductive systems.

Except of course, for all the terminally differentiated cells. Hey, Lipton! Show us how an erythrocyte reproduces.

Lipton scoffs at the assumption that “cancer runs in the family”. There is no cancer gene, he insists. Cells go cancerous when they are told to do so.

Yeah. Often because a mutant tumor suppressor gene, like p53 in Li-Fraumeni syndrome, fails to tell it not to "go cancerous". And, yes, those genes run in families.

By correcting this thinking, we can correct the diseases which plaque us, Lipton continues. In other words we can heal ourselves by changing our beliefs. His theory would explain the success of visualization, Hypnosis, faith healing, psychic healing and Christian Science.

While there may be some data on hypnosis and psychogenic illnesses, maybe even addictions, there are no data supporting "success" of any of these other scams.

AIDS, cancer and other diseases can be started through fear.

Fear of condoms, fear of sunscreen, fear of quitting smoking, for instance? Nah. This is just wrong.

He feels that when a person has no health insurance he or she tends to stay well.

I believe statistics argue otherwise. But - hey - Lipton should pitch this idea to the Republican candidates for US President! They'll love it! (And probably won't be so rude and petty as to ask for statistics.)

Dr. Lipton has been featured on PBS with his revolutionary findings.

I don't know if this is false. I hope it is. Considering that pretty much everything else in this piece of crap turns out to be false, it seems likely. But, being a regular donor to PBS (that's the Public Broadcasting System here in the US), I'm going to have to look into this.

_____________________________________

Summarizing then, this bit of flim-flammery fails - with flying colors - to pass the "error-free" test.

Next?

[RAFH]

Meh!

I keep misreading AiG as Ali G, who did actually interview Hovind...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8[/YOUTUBE]

Geeze, what a complete fucked idiot, a brit twit posing as a american muslim ghetto hoodie. He makes Hovind look intelligent.

[VoxRat]

Still no candidates from creationists for an error-free creationist "science" article?
Imagine that.

Well, no worries.

Ardent Young Earth Creationist Dave Hawkins has made the remarkable claim that, having read this one creationist article makes him more knowledgeable on the subject of viruses than virologists who have PhD's, decades of research experience in virology, much of which they've published in non-creationist journals (i.e. the peer-reviewed kind; the kind that universities subscribe to).

(Think I'm engaging in hyperbole here? Check it out!)

Anyway, that's the article we'll take a look at tomorrow, to see how it stacks up against real-world science in terms of accuracy and reliability.

[RAFH]

Lipton: He feels that when a person has no health insurance he or she tends to stay well.

Yeah, they don't go to doctors and hospitals so they must be well, right? It couldn't be they just live, or die, with whatever medical condition they have because they can't afford to see a doctor or go to a hospital.

I know, cause I'm one. To get health insurance for just myself, even here in Hawaii where its mandatory for employers, the cost would be close to $1500 a month (because I was erroneously diagnosed with high blood pressure 30 years ago, currently 125/75, cholesterol at 155, at age 55, and recently with osteoporosis, though I am male and which no-one will confirm or treat). As self-unemployed, I simply can't afford that.

Then again, I haven't much faith in most doctors. Virtually everything medical I've ever experience was either 1) so fucking obvious Ali G could diagnose it ("Um, er, from the unusual angle of your arm and the ragged ends of bone sticking out and the fact you were in a car accident I'd say you might have a broken arm.") or 2) they haven't a clue (as in "Sorry sir, we've done $12K of testing and haven't a clue what's wrong with you, sure you are making this up so you can get drugs?") I left Kaiser when I was told they did not have any diagnosis for what ailed me (severe chronic pain) but they were certain it was permanent and untreatable.

[Mike PSS]

(... though I am male and which no-one will confirm or treat)...

Wow. You do have some non-committal types at your Hospitals.

Don't they have a cheap test for that now???

ETA: And you do have choices to treat your condition. TomboyMom may have some friends....

[Non Homogenized]

How about this?
http://www.infinityinst.com/articles...conscious.html

I happened upon that link a short while ago, and, consequently, found myself at his site: http://www.brucelipton.com/about

There are no words. I was laughing so hard. I don't know where to begin. I'm not sure I'll be able to finish writing this post, re-reading the page still makes me crack up laughing.

Dr. Lipton began his scientific career as a cell biologist. He received his Ph.D. Degree from the University of Virginia at Charlottesville before joining the Department of Anatomy at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine in 1973.

Starts out innocuously enough, eh? But soon...

In 1982, Dr. Lipton began examining the principles of quantum physics and how they might be integrated into his understanding of the cell’s information processing systems. He produced breakthrough studies on the cell membrane, which revealed that this outer layer of the cell was an organic homologue of a computer chip, the cell’s equivalent of a brain.

Yes. The cell membrane is apparently homologous to computer chips, which are what cells use for brains. Stripping away one layer of the stupid, he's claiming that the cell membrane is somehow an information processor. But it gets better! "Surely that's not possible!" I hear you exclaim with despair, but oh, it is.

His research at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, between 1987 and 1992, revealed that the environment, operating though the membrane, controlled the behavior and physiology of the cell, turning genes on and off. His discoveries, which ran counter to the established scientific view that life is controlled by the genes, presaged one of today’s most important fields of study, the science of epigenetics.

Yes, that's right. His idea that the cell membrane is a computer paved the way for epigenetics
And then, to cap it off:

Dr. Lipton’s novel scientific approach transformed his personal life as well. His deepened understanding of cell biology highlighted the mechanisms by which the mind controls bodily functions, and implied the existence of an immortal spirit. He applied this science to his personal biology, and discovered that his physical well-being improved, and the quality and character of his daily life was greatly enhanced.

Well shit, why didn't I think of applying this science to my personal biology

Oh, and his publication record is interesting, too:
From 1972-1979, he was publishing fairly regularly in journals like Developmental Biology.

He then disappeared from the publication record for a year before publishing one article per year in 1981 and 1982, and disappeared for a decade. He resumed publishing an article a year in 1991 and 1992, then disappeared again until 1998, when he started publishing in chiropractic journals and such.

Surprisingly enough, his last grant apparently ended in 1982, and the last of his two grad students to finish did so in 1981.

I feel kind of bad about laughing at someone who clearly was once a competent enough scientist, but who has clearly long since gone insane. On the other hand, this shit is hilarious!

[faust]

But he's been on TELEVISION!!!

Looks to me like the crazy bug bit him some time after 1982. Also, he stopped publishing in peer reviewed journals and went the prestigious journals of Chiropractics (though wtf they have to do with cell biology is beyond me).

[Mike PSS]

But he's been on TELEVISION!!!

Looks to me like the crazy bug bit him some time after 1982. Also, he stopped publishing in peer reviewed journals and went the prestigious journals of Chiropractics (though wtf they have to do with cell biology is beyond me).

I wonder if him and JAD (John A. Davidson) ever met up in 1982.

IIRC, that's about the time JAD's congnition went AWOL too.

[ninewands]

I issued the challenge at that time:

Show me any AnswersInGenesis article that makes claims at odds with mainstream science, and I will show you significant, demonstrable errors in facts and/or logic.

Might as well ask for "true fiction" IMO

[RAFH]

(... though I am male and which no-one will confirm or treat)...

Wow. You do have some non-committal types at your Hospitals.

Don't they have a cheap test for that now???

ETA: And you do have choices to treat your condition. TomboyMom may have some friends....

Depends on your definition of cheap, cost me close to $700 (with the 40% discount for paying in cash). And all I got was "Those other bozos don't know what they are talking about, you don't have osteoporosis, you have osteopenia." Which is essentially mild osteoporosis, though I have moderately severe form of osteopenia. Just not enough to warrant treatment. I was told to walk a lot and get a lot of calcium in my diet. Problem is, with chronic pain in my Sacro-Iliac joints, lower spine, legs, knees and ankles, walking a little is sort of like getting beat up with rubber hoses after being in a serious head-on car accident, but just from the waist down.

So, I take pain meds.

[RAFH]

But he's been on TELEVISION!!!

Looks to me like the crazy bug bit him some time after 1982. Also, he stopped publishing in peer reviewed journals and went the prestigious journals of Chiropractics (though wtf they have to do with cell biology is beyond me).

Chiropractics are holistic, din'yaknow? The whole body and its chakra.

[Deleet]

How about this one?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ednks004.html

Such a great event as Noah's Flood would surely have left evidence to be found today. For instance, one would expect to find billions of dead creatures buried by water in mud and sand (now hardened to rock). And that is exactly what scientists do find around the world.

Thousands of dinosaur bones can be found where they were washed together by violent flood waters and buried under mud, sand and rock. Many of the animals were torn apart and their bones broken and jumbled-up. The muds and sands hardened like concrete to form the great layers of fossil rocks we find today.

AFAIK, dead animals float on the water, due to gases in their bodies. Am I wrong?

[VoxRat]

Let’s start with the title:

Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?

Well, technically, I suppose a question can’t be considered an “error”. But since we’re considering this article as science, and since “God” is not a subject that any serious scientist would ever consider in the realm of science, I’d say we’re off to a bad start.

How about the by-line?

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

Bergman is, in fact, a fraud. His “PhD” comes from a diploma mill that has since been shut down by state authorities. But let’s defer any discussion of his misrepresentations of himself till later.

For now, let’s just focus on this article, and his incompetence will be more than evident without having to look any further.

We’ll skip over all the God talk in the first paragraph, as it’s completely outside the realm of science.(I.e. if “God” intentionally put pathogens on “the ark”, does that imply malevolence?... That sort of thing). If some creationist wants to defend it, perhaps we’ll return to it.

The first statement that Bergman makes that even could be right or wrong is – surprise! – wrong:

Viruses can also produce health problems by influencing the immune system to attack the body, resulting in auto–immune diseases such as diabetes, lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Viruses can cause auto–immune diseases by leaving parts of their DNA in their host which may cause their protein–immune fingerprint to become embedded in the hosts’ cell membranes.

Many real-world, actual scientists suspect that viruses may at least sometimes be involved in these diseases. There are some animal models that indicate certain viruses can cause diabetes in mice, for instance. And research is ongoing as to what, if any, viral involvement there might be in the human versions of these diseases. But Bergman’s bald assertion is unwarranted. And unsupported; he gives no citations to support any of this.

Viruses can cause auto–immune diseases by leaving parts of their DNA in their host which may cause their protein–immune fingerprint to become embedded in the hosts’ cell membranes. When these cells reproduce, the daughter cells also possess these unique markings. White blood cells may mislabel these self-cells as foreign and inappropriately attack them. Viruses can cause auto–immune diseases by leaving parts of their DNA in their host which may cause their protein–immune fingerprint to become embedded in the hosts’ cell membranes. When these cells reproduce, the daughter cells also possess these unique markings. White blood cells may mislabel these self-cells as foreign and inappropriately attack them.

Bergman’s summary of autoimmunity is completely wrong. Autoimmunity results from an immune reaction against antigens that are endogenous to the host, and therefore generally “tolerated” – which has a specific meaning in immunology. What Bergman is describing is just plain old immunity against foreign, i.e. viral, antigens expressed in infected cells.

[more later... best to divide this into bite-size chunks of wrong. Too much at a time and creationists just pick the easiest things to equivocate on, nebulate about, or otherwise weasel out of]