When I found out that the renowned liars for God, Answers in Genesis, were looking for papers for a new journal they are publishing, literally my very first thought was, "I wonder if I could write up a fake paper for submission?"
Now I see I can win a prize for it!
These AiG guys are among the worst of the bottom feeders for fundamentalist nonsense. They sponsored the creation (har har) of the creation museum in Kentucky, as one fine example.
I also found out the journal has two papers published. I am neither a biologist nor a geologist (sigh, I love geology, and someday I’ll learn a lot more about it), so I am not qualified to judge the articles. Anyone out there wanna take a stab at them?
January 14th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Knife, sword, spear or pitchfork?
January 14th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Go for it, Phil! Bonus bragging rights for you if you can encode the phrase “Darwin Rules” (or something similar) somewhere in your paper!
HJ
January 14th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Cool! I’ve got the first post here – a personal first!
Ok, just for the really literal, humour-challenged folks who just might, perhaps be reading that : NO, I do NOT actually seriously advocate murdering or stabbing the Creationists. I’ll leave ‘em to do that to their own feet over time ..
BA : “These AiG guys are among the worst of the bottom feeders for fundamentalist nonsense. … the journal has two papers published. I am neither a biologist nor a geologist (sigh, I love geology, and someday I’ll learn a lot more about it), so I am not qualified to judge the articles.”
Neither are they.
My guess is anyone with a basic understanding of science or logic would probably – most likely – be better qualified to assess and write scientific papers on *any* topic than those AiG clowns. Seriously.
It may almost be worth posting a copy or link totheir paper just toprove that …
————————–
PS. Don’t know if this is okay netiquette~wise (hope it is, apologies if not) but please could somebody answer the question I asked on the “Double supernova remnants in the LMC” (Looking like a bi-lobed planetary, Type Ia white dwarf version on left, type II supermassive star SN on right) thread a couple of days ago? A friend of mine asked the qu. & I told her that someone here would probably answer it … so I’d be grateful if someone did. It was just about how true to life the photo was .. Thanks.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Oh & while I’m high in the thread just one more favour to ask if I may – which I bet you can already guess :
Please, Dr Phil Plait, Mr BA sir, please, isn’t there any way you can enable us to edit these posts … after posting them?
I swear my computer adds typos to mine between me clicking submit and them turning up on the board!
The one thing that I’d most love to see on this forum I already love is a simple edit post button that allows me to do just that..
Pretty please with the rings of Saturn and Eta Car going supernova on top …?
January 14th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Never understimate the power of pure idiocy. hdw
January 14th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Hmmm. This sounds like it could be fun. Anyone know of a degree mill where I can get a doctorate in biology on the cheap?
January 14th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Why doesn’t anyone seem to see the danger in this journal I do? We’ve been saying, “peer review” like a mantra, and now they’re setting up a journal to say “see! peer review!” What do we look like if we say, “but that doesn’t count as peer review!”?
January 14th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I only wish I had the free time to write up something…
E
January 14th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I’ll take a look.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Re StevoR : The link is posted, in the article click on the sentence : ‘the journal has two papers published’ and you will be led there.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Well, they’re not science in the sense that they’re not empirical.
The one on microbes is correct given its premises, but gives no reason for anyone but a creationist to trust the premises. And how would you test its conclusions? I can’t see a way to carry out an empirical test.
The one on geology requires “enhanced radioactive decay” in early Earth history (early Earth history being 6,000 or so years ago, to these folks). No evidence for that, and the author(s) cite Gentry’s polonium halo stuff as if it hadn’t been massively discredited. I note, also, that there are no equations or calculations in the paper, though there are lots of nice diagrams. A paper with a quantitative conclusion should show the work.
In short, I doubt either paper would pass peer review at a real science journal.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Phil,
I don’t think you’ll be able to get a paper through. Check out this quote from their guidelines:
“The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith. The editors play a very important initial role in preserving a high level of quality in the ARJ, as well as protecting AiG from unnecessary controversy and review of clearly inappropriate papers.”
Looks like nothing but Creationism junk will get through. Also, earlier in the guidelines, it states that you will have to work hand-in-hand with an advisor. How would you be able to do that and remain an anonymouse?
Anyway, I say go for it, and good luck!
Regards,
Mike Petersen
January 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I never understand why they wanna try to make sciency papers in a religion thing. Justifying faith destroys it. Here here, lemme write them a paper. It will be brief, and it will be very high in religious content. I’m sure they will agree with my work.
“GOD MADE IT SO!”
That’s it. Simple isn’t it? And I bet that works COMPLETELY with their biblical standing and their statement of faith.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Happy Jihad’s contest for a bogus paper to AiG’s bogus journal is a neat idea, but AiG already stacked the deck against us in typical fundy-biased fashion, so unless you’re awfully clever I don’t think we’ll have much luck:
From AiG’s Authors Guidelines, Section VIII:
“Remark:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of
faith. The editors play a very important initial role in preserving a high level of quality in the ARJ, as well as protecting AiG from unnecessary controversy and review of clearly inappropriate papers.”
A paper is going to have to sound exactly the way AiG wants to hear it; BIBLICAL STAND/STATEMENT OF FAITH.
Personally, I just wouldn’t have the stomach to produce such a work of fiction, and I know I don’t want to waste my time and money trying.
But I sure hope someone can get it done, and win Happy Jihad’s challenge. It’d be a great smackdown of AiG and their anti-science/willful ignorance agenda.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Oh, you don’t have to be a biologist to know that ‘Microbes and the Day of Creation’ isn’t science. No original research is even offered – it’s pretty much one page about microbes (of course, can’t judge this part) and three pages of ‘I wonder which of the Genesis verses microbes fall under’. How could this possibly be useful? I don’t see ARJ getting many citations.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I’m no biologist, but I’ve taken enough college level biology and chemistry classes to understand a biology paper. The paper you link to wouldn’t be considered research in biology. All it has is a completely made up story on how how bacteria and virus could fit in Genesis. All the insight required to make that point is basic knowledge of how virus and bacteria interact with multicellular organisms.
It’s all hogwash, as expected.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Why would you bother with paying for a fake degree, Centipede? If you’re going to fabricate the content of the paper, you may as well fabricate your credentials.
Dr. President Michael Barrett, PhD. MD. ®
January 14th, 2008 at 8:42 am
The real problem that I see isn’t that AiG publishes crap. Lots of people publish crap, so that they’re doing it is neither new nor especially important in general.
As I see it, the problem is that they’re publishing it on the Internet, where (mostly young) people will find it, and are more likely to accept it as factual due to a widely held belief that if it’s on the Internet it must be true. The root of the problem is that people aren’t well taught how to research things in a critical way.
In effect, AiG’s journal is a symptom of a larger problem. If I was a teacher, I’d expect to see excerpts from that Snelling paper on granite turning up in high school science projects soon.
I see that Snelling is referring to the long-discredited polonium halo issue to support his fast-cooling argument. Ugh. I’ve always loved fast-cooling arguments, be it for granite formation or formation of the earth’s crust or whatever… they always talk about how fast things cool, but they never talk about where the heat goes. I guess that’s the part where Jebus comes in and takes all the heat away and dumps it into the sun to be sent back to us as beams of love.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I dunno. Because I really do want to have a lot of random doctorates? Then again, I suppose they’re not looking for doctors of science in biology.
So, anyone know how I can become a Real Life Officialized Reverend Minister in short order and on the cheap?
January 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I should state for the record that I am not a geologist, although I have some undergrad geology courses in my degree, and that seems to be ample to exceed the scholarship in Snelling’s article.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
As I look at the link, I see three articles, FYI.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Michelle:
“I never understand why they wanna try to make sciency papers in a religion thing.”
Here’s why they do this: They want to wield the –Sword of Scientific Truth– and make it their own weapon. They therefore tacitly imply that Science works and they want it to work for them. You’ve surely seen lots of screeds with titles like “Science that prove the Bible!” at the checkout line of your grocery store. There you have it. They want science to be their baby.
Won’t work, of course, but that’s their motivation. Science and enlightment is their enemy and that’s all there is to it.
StevoR:
My ‘puter does the same thing! I doubt the software will allow editing, though. Mucho headaches involved in tinkering with things like WordPress…
Richard B. Drumm
President, CAS
January 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Is there an emoticon for one’s-head-spins-360-and-one’s-eyes-bug-out-in-disbelief?
Cause I need one.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Professor Behe from Lehigh Univ is probably hot on the subject as we speak (much to the chagrin of the other faculty). Too bad Phil, you could have had your name in heaven’s lights.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:08 am
>>What do we look like if we say, “but that doesn’t count as peer review!”?>>
If someone wants to know why the Answers Research Journal isn’t a valid journal of science, refer them to the rules of submission for papers, which reads in part:
“The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of
faith.”
In real science, you follow the evidence wherever it leads. In the Answers Research Journal, your evidence must lead to a pre-existing conclusion. This is not science, and the journal can be dismissed as unscientific.
J. D.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Convoluted, contortionist thinking. They’re very good at tying themselves in knots. Reminds me of all the “adjustments” early astronomers had to do to make their calculations of planetary positions agree with observation(prior to the heliocentric theory).
Humans seem very adept at containing contradictions. I wonder how long it will take before we get tired of such energy draining, obsessive thinking. Monk would be proud of creationist double think,,,
GAry 7
January 14th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Do any reputable science journals _require_ submissions to be in Word or RTF format? I just don’t see that in physics and astronomy; those journals tend to view Word submissions as a hassle….
January 14th, 2008 at 9:30 am
D’ya really expect them to want it in LaTEX?
January 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
If you accelerated the decay of radioactive isotopes to the point that you could condense 3 billion years worth of decay down to 6,000 years like the creationists at AIG want, wouldn’t that extra energy be enough to turn the surface of the planet molten? Did the AIG’s “peer review process” catch that?
January 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
wouldn’t that extra energy be enough to turn the surface of the planet molten
That’s part of the “God as a universal heat sink” sort of thing I was talking about above.
If God could market CPU coolers, He could drop the tithe requirements on his poor, beleaguered minions.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Christians, even devil-worshiping pseudo-Christians, do not deny the validity and efficacy of science. Ever since Thomas Aquinas brought Aristotle under the Christian umbrella in the 13th century, Christians have accepted as a first principle that all truth is one. (In this, Christianity differs from mainstream Islam, which has mistrusted and denigrated science, per se, since al-Ghazali’s 12th-century “The Incoherence of the Philosophers”.)
The problem, of course, is that since the evidence is against them, they are forced to cheat on the evidence. But the truth is, they’re not really any different in this from other pseudo-scientists — homoeopaths (some of whom I personally know to be true believers), Velikovskyites, astrologers…. “[Playing a recorder] is as easy as lying.” says Hamlet; he is wrong; playing a recorder is a good deal more difficult.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:44 am
The Centipede: You can become an official minister of the Universal Life Church for a nominal fee. Payment entitles you to hold services in whatever “religion” you choose to observe. Most folks who are “ordained” by this outfit make up their own religions. Their web address is: http://www.ulchq.com/, and their e-mail is: generalcontact@ulchq.com. Happy reverending!
January 14th, 2008 at 9:44 am
God’s a universal heat sink? Huh… given that God in the Christian concept is the Universal Creative Force, thus having limitless exergy, God would have to be the universal heat /source/.
Ruh roh, rermorynamics rin ranger!
January 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Here’s a geoblog that’s taken a crack at it. (I’m a geologist, too, but my specialties run more towards the volcanic rather than plutonic igneous rocks).
http://zsylvester.blogspot.com/2008/01/absurd-catastrophism.html
January 14th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Much ado about nothing.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Hmm…
I am neither a Biologist or a Geologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
oops
Should be “neither…nor”
January 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I have to say, they make it fairly obvious that they’re trying to cherry pick for their creationist point of view. To quote their “Call for Papers” page:
“… this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.”
So straight up, they say “we will only accept papers that back our predetermined ideas”. They’re trying to call this ’science’? They’re trying to call this a professional technical journal? That’s laughable!
They go on in the second paragraph to say:
“… Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.”
Well duh, ARJ. By only allowing papers that supposedly back up your predetermined ideas, of course the journal is going to be “consistent with the biblical account of origins”. All you’re proving is that you can cherry pick information/articles. Good work.
I’d like to see someone write and send the ARJ a well written/researched paper about the evidence that refutes the idea that there was a world wide flood. They’d be completely stuck – either they accept and publish it, which would destroy the purpose of the site; or they reject it on the grounds of “it doesn’t fit our beliefs” in which case they’ve demonstrated that the journal isn’t really ’scientific’ (or professional) – which also destroys the purpose of the site.
Good luck to anyone working on a crank submission.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
The geology paper contains a major contradiction: the author invokes rapid cooling of granitic intrusions while claiming a huge increase in the rate of radioactivge decay. The main product of radioactive decay is heat in large quantities. If 4.5 billion years of decay happens in only 6000 years where did this heat go? How could granitc bodies cool faster than we currently understand the process to have taken with all this extra heat energy? The author fails to deal with this contradiction or even acknowlegde it. Perhaps he should submit his work to one of the many peer-reviewed journals that publish real science.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Looks to me like where they’re headed with this is to be able to say there are articles published in a science journal that support their version of rality, which will literally be true (pun intended). With their loose understanding of the concept of bearing false witness on one hand, and gullible people unwilling to think for themselves on the other, they will get some mileage out of the subterfuge.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:03 am
God’s a universal heat sink? Huh… given that God in the Christian concept is the Universal Creative Force, thus having limitless exergy, God would have to be the universal heat /source/.
Ah, but He created Hell into which He can sink all the heat. Gotta keep it all nice and toasty for, well, everyone.
Of course, that raises the issue of what happens when the heat gets to Hell, and whether or not Hell radiates heat.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Yeah, I think the Alan Sokal approach to this is a great idea. I wonder if we could make it Post-Modernist as well? Both views are just as dead and silly.
“The dialectic approach to understanding the reinvention of modern creationist theory requires a sevenfold approach to understanding which will be outlined forthwith using the Tiber series of analytical statistics to reiterate standard model physics with quantum creational forces. Herein Tiber uses a standard prescient geometrical series to redirect modern paradigmal thought trends of theistic geological invention within a framework of transcendental numerical geometries not heretofore explored by modern statisticians. We will use these statistical tranformations to…” (prove that white is black, up is down, and that popes don’t wear funny hats)
Be sure to quote fictional papers.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
All of this smacks of Cargo Cults, and I imagine the editor in a bamboo tower with carved coconut earphones and vines mumbling into a carved receiver.
Geology Johnny: Well, isn’t it obvious? God used the radioactive decay to evaporate the waters from the flood, flinging it into space and removing much of the water that was on earth prior to the flood. In fact, the radioactive decay probably caused the waters of the deep to precipitate out as massive lava extrusions causing a lot of the layering we see today at the same time.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I am no geologist, but skimming through the geology paper I think AIG achieved one thing–superficially it looks impressive enough to pass for real science to the vast body of creationist sympathizers and the general public. After all, the paper’s got nearly three whole pages of references, so the author must know what he’s talking about, right?
And that’s all they’re looking for. They’re constantly admitting that they’re not interested in impressing real scientists and skeptics. If you notice much of the journal is couched in terms like “From a creation view…” and “For creationists…” essentially admitting that without the initial premise that the Bible must be literally true, none of it makes any sense whatsoever.
Fearless prediction. As with the once active Intelligent Design “peer reviewed” journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) which was meant to be issued quarterly and basically lasted three year before grinding to a halt (in Nov 2005) this new AIG journal will also come to a screeching halt once the initial enthusiasm dies up.
Oddly enough, a serious science journal needs real science to be done to keep it going. Since neither AIG or ID have no real science to offer, even their fake journals have a tough time staying afloat.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:32 am
@ The Centipede:
Try The Universal Life Church at http://www.themonastery.org/
My friend is a minster from them. The best part? You get to pick your own title.
He didn’t know this when he chose, simply “Reverend,” or else he may have chosen “The Revelator” instead.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I’d say a basic point in scientific approach is to list information sources, but “The Holy Bible” isn’t listed in the references of the papers
In the first paper, “God” (the word…) appears 17 times, “Bible” or “biblical” appears 5 times and there is a quote from Genesis 1:11–12 without mention of the books version or translation. In the references there is at least a mention of a journal as “A Journal of the Biblical Creation Society”.
In the second paper the “biblical” adjective is used 7 times in the text, but not a single “bibl*” word appears in the 3.5 pages of its references list !
January 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Okay, Phil, because I adore you and think you’re cute, I destroyed several IQ points reading the geology paper. In the interest of full disclosure, I am NOT a doctor of geology. I’m just a lowly undergrad.
That said, wow, even I can tell this thing is total [bad word deleted by The Bad Astronomer -- whether you think I'm cute or not, I cannot allow bad language here-- TBA].
The big problem is that the entire paper hinges on “accelerated nuclear decay” during creation week. I mean, right there it’s a show stopper, since this thing is basically one enormous conjecture based on an assumption that they’re not justifying beyond ‘God made the nuclear decay faster.’ So they justify rapid melting for the formation of plutons (plutons are ginormous chunks of granite that form under the surface and are later revealed via uplift and erosion – for example, the Rocky Mountains are plutons) with this super special creation week radioactive decay, then justify extremely rapid cooling (like 6-10 days) by saying there were super special plate tectonics during the flood that let in all the rain to cool them down.
Creationists have latched on to the research that plutons can form rapidly with particular, special circumstances – rapidly on the geologic time scale. As in a hundreds to thousands of years rather than millions of years. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/full/408669a0.html) I guess if you mix this in with the magic “god done it” potion and ignore the fact that only certain plutons could have been formed this way, coupled with a profound inability to grasp the grandeur of geologic time, it would seem like an easy leap to go from a couple thousand years to a week.
“After the
granite plutons intruded underground into these
strata sequences, erosion (at the end of the Flood and
since) removed all the rocks above the granites to
expose them at today’s ground surface. Again, it is
uncertain as to just what thickness of overlying rocks
have been eroded away, but it is likely only 1–3 km.”
So… we have plutons that formed in less than a week, which then had up to three kilometers of consolidated material (both igneous and sedimentary strata, some of which can be EXTREMELY resistant to erosion) in a matter of days and the couple thousand years since then. This is a completely unsupported assumption; observation and experiments show that erosion doesn’t happen that quickly.
The next few pages of the paper look okay to me; they’re just basic things about magma and melt. Though I will note that during my searching on the internet (I can check the Earth sciences library at my school later if necessary) I found that there doesn’t seem to be the consensus that the author is claiming as far as rapid magma rise via dyking rather than slower rise via diapirs. What I’m getting is that the current argument seems to be more of a combination of both slow and fast with various mechanisms, which would make sense. (interesting review here: https://www.icsm.gov.au/image_cache/GA3705.pdf) Creationist author person is implying that dyking/rapid transport is the only real way, since it’s necessary for this brand of crazy for transportation and deposition to be rapid.
I’m hoping there’s someone that reads your blog that knows more about igneous geology than me, though, since I’d really like to know what the current score is, myself.
On page 8, though, they undo a lot of their previous good work:
“However, as suggested
by Woodmorappe (2001), the required timescale
for partial melting is not incompatible with the
6,000–7,000 year biblical framework for earth
history because a very large reservoir of granitic
melts could have been generated in the lower crust
in the 1,650 years between Creation and the Flood,
particularly due to residual heat from an episode of
accelerated nuclear decay during the first three days
of the Creation Week (Humphreys 2000; Vardiman,
Snelling, and Chaffin 2005).”
…again, this “accelerated nuclear decay.”
They really skip over the cooling rates, which is another big threat to their time scale; the last number they figure in the section is 3500-5000 years for a pluton of the relevant size, but the author airily dismisses this number by saying it doesn’t take into account the shape of the pluton. I’m thinking they should probably be justifying – and stating – just how much time they think the shape should be taking off that figure. If I get a chance, I’ll see if I can find the article regarding the 3500-5000 year figure. It’s been cited in several other non-crazy articles so I bet it’s decent. I’m more curious as to if they do take shape into account (or make any statement as to its effect) that Mr. Creationist Author just ignored.
The section on the role of hydrothermal cooling makes sense up until here:
“Of course, granitic magmas rapidly emplaced
during the Flood would have been intruded into
sedimentary strata that were still wet from just
having been deposited only weeks or months earlier.”
This just makes me cringe because of the implication that these sedimentary rocks, several kilometers below the surface, had just been deposited within months. (Aroo?) However, I will note that there IS plenty of water in deep sedimentary rocks, something to which anyone who’s ever worked oil can attest. (For example, the field I’m currently studying has wells drilled down to 13,000 feet and the oil comes mixed with plenty of salt water.)
There’s a section about polonium radiohaloes, which is a big axe the creationists grind because they would have to form extremely rapidly. Talk Origins refutes these, and there’s also an article on AAAS (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/4092/1272) states in its abstract: “A review of the literature indicates that there is no firm evidence that polonium halos exist, all evidence being equally consistent with the interpretation that these are uranium halos.”
Returning to the article:
“Conventional radioisotope dating,
which assigns ages of 80–120 million years to these
granites (Bateman 1992), appears to be grossly
in error because of not taking into account the
acceleration of the nuclear decay (Vardiman, Snelling,
and Chaffin 2005). Subsequent rapid erosion at the
close of the Flood, as the waters drained rapidly off
the continents, followed by further erosion early in
the post-Flood era and during the post-Flood Ice
Age, have exposed and shaped the outcropping of
these granitic plutons in the Yosemite area as seen
today.”
*scream*
…post flood ice age? There are an ice age less than 6000 years ago? WHY DOES NO ONE TELL ME THESE THINGS?
Reading this article was a bizarre experience for me. There are several times where they were reiterating something that sounded okay, then they’d unexpectedly whip out the crazy, like that whole accelerated radioactive decay. Overall, it’s just a lot of dishonest justifying and misuse, where they gloss over or dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with the view of “Hey, if it could happen in a couple thousand years, we can totally justify it in a few months!”
January 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am
D’ya really expect them to want it in LaTEX?
No, but to require Word just makes it seem so… unprofessional (for a publisher).
Also, each equation must be submitted as a separate pdf. That pretty much kills it for any real physics or math papers, except for the hand-waving kinds that avoid actual math (which, I suppose, are the kinds of papers creationists tend to prefer).
On the other hand, there is another requirement that is going to turn away the majority of creationist authors: “Emphasizing text should be rare.” I mean, how are they suppose to convey their arguments without every third word in italics/bold/red/all caps?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am
> Ah, but He created Hell into which He can sink all the heat. Gotta keep it all nice and toasty for, well, everyone.
> Of course, that raises the issue of what happens when the heat gets to Hell, and whether or not Hell radiates heat.
Hmmm… actually, that works. If God is the Ultimate Creative Force (infinite exergy), and Hell is not only separate from God but, in Christian mythology, the domain of Satan who is only not an ‘evil god’ in that he cannot create anything (null exergy). So we have, by definition, a realm of infinite exergy and zero exergy, and thus a reasonable heat source and a heat sink. However, for them to be heat sources and sinks the source must always be hotter than the sink. Sinks are generally (in basic thermo at least) assumed to not reradiate absorbed heat which means only one thing: Heaven must be aleph degrees in temperature and Hell must be aleph minus one degrees in temperature. Which mean both are actually quite hellish and the only difference is that one of these lakes of fire is theoretically pleasant.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, but not in any scientific sense.
For everyone pointing out The Universal Life Church:
Thanks! That sounds like an idea. Muahahaha.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:41 am
You have to cautious, people can make up anything they want on the internet. Believing everything was created in one week is foolish. But human nature is always trying to find an explanation for everything, even if it is based in fantasy land.
Whether it is religion or ufo’s there is no hard evidence.
Life is a mystery…
January 14th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Doesn’t the Chinese calendar go back 5,000 years? Has anybody found any kind of ancient chinese texts that might cast some light on this whole global flood thing?
Samurai diary:
“Foiled another ninja assassination attempt on the emperor over the weekend. Oh, and I was underwater when I woke up this morning. Very odd. Probably the work of those damn ninjas.”
January 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Oooh, whoops, sorry about the bad word in the previous comment, Phil! I forget which blogs I’m allowed to cuss on or not. ;_;
I guess it’s a sad comment on my normal style of discourse that I’m surprised I only said a bad word once in that whole thing…
January 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hey. I just realized something. If that Church thing is legitimate, I can actually marry people in the name of the Church of Airpower.
Sweeeeeeeeeeet.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
The thought of submitting a paper to ARJ in LaTeX amuses me…
January 14th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
It would be interesting if these papers included full citations for their references. For example,
“From Genesis 1:11–12 [1]” would have the citation
[1] God, the person he told, the person that the person told (repeated for many generations), the person that first wrote it down, the person that copied it (repeated for many editions), the person that translated it to Greek, the person that translated it to Latin, the person that translated to English. The Holy Bible (some version), edition unknown.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
If you are interested in participating in the contest but don’t can’t write a paper, please feel free to pledge an award to the winner. It can be anything. An honorary degree from the Church of Airpower, an autographed picture of Eugenie Scott, any one of a number of fine products sold by George Foreman… the list goes on and on.
I won’t handle the prizes but will put you in touch with the winner if you want to be an prize-giver. Contact me at littletinyfeardemon@yahoo.com. Be creative!
HJ
January 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I totally have to submit my “God=Dark Energy” paper.
Well, I have to make it up and write it first.
And Dark Matter is the Baby Jesus.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
OK, I haven’t read all the comments yet, so someone else might have said this already:
I am a biochemist, and I know one or two things about microbes.
I have indelibly sullied my computer by downloading the garbage masquerading as a scientific report that is entitled “Microbes and the Days of Creation”.
First off, it reports no science at all. The author is merely pontificating.
Second, of the other work referenced, nearly all of it is the work of other creationists, so, despite its initial claims, the essay does not reference any new science (it does reference a couple of textbooks which the author has used as a source to find symbiotic relationships that actually exist, but there is no indication that he made any attempt to understand those books). He also appears to have been unable to find any descriptions of the use of the term “microbe” more recent than 1938.
Third, it makes two key assumptions without making any attempt to justify them at all:
The first of these is the assumption that Genesis is literally true.
The second is that, where Genesis fails to mention something (such as any microbes at all), it is perfectly all right to speculate about the missing information. But, tellingly, the author fails to point out that these omissions are actually flaws in the creation account (why does the Bible fail to mention over 95% of the occupants of the globe?). The author claims that one cannot be dogmatic about things that are not mentioned in scripture, but fails to recognise that it is possible to be dogmatic about anything.
In conclusion, it is a load of rubbish. It is credulous speculation interspersed with a few “science-lite” factoids, written for an audience with the education level of a 12-year-old.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Church of Airpower
There’s a church of AIRPOWER???
(Bleep)! Where do I sign up?!
No, but to require Word just makes it seem so… unprofessional
Eh… Apple’s new office apps can save in Word format. I think OpenOffice can, too, yes?
January 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“Remark:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of
faith. The editors play a very important initial role in preserving a high level of quality in the ARJ, as well as protecting AiG from unnecessary controversy and review of clearly inappropriate papers.”
And yet—-
Doesn’t the Disco ‘tute claim that their ’science’ does NOT lay any claims on religion – that they don’t specify WHO the ‘designer’ was, just that there was one?
Or is noAIG keeping their distance from the DI – - – And how long do you suppose it will be before somebody from the Disco ‘tute quotes one of these ‘papers’ in court?
Not to mention, the bit about ‘protecting noAiG from unnecessary controversy’ – in Science, if your evidence leads in an unexpected direction, controversy is sure to follow. If the evidence is strong enough, it will stand.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
How do these people make a living? Is there a “make up a lot of crap about stuff you really don’t understand and somehow make a living at it” club, or are they just True Believers (TM) that do it out of personal conviction on their own time?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Guys, you don’t have to be a geologist to know that AIG is ordained horse puckey. All you have to do is know a few units used in classical physics. And this online reference – wps.prenhall.com/esm_tarbuck_earth_8 – smokes AIG totally.
AIG, and the people who cite them, are an insult to the memory of Jesus at the very least.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Phil, and many others,
I believe that this “Creationism” gig is a stunt by those who don’t understand christian theological methodology, from which the scientific method is derived. Examine a premise logically and then test it a few?dozen? times. The Jews and the Greeks were past masters at the art long before Jesus.
I wonder whether the Creationists really have the theological knowledge to back up the faith they claim to have or is it really a form of political reaction to the religious neutrality of academia.
I find it interesting that Paul Davies the astrobiologist has no conflict between God and Science. Galileo didn’t, Darwin didn’t. Stephen Hawking doesn’t seem to.The current Vatican Astronomer certainly doesn’t.
Good luck and management.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Nigel Depledge ended his analysis of the paper on microbes with “In conclusion, it is a load of rubbish. It is credulous speculation interspersed with a few ’science-lite’ factoids, written for an audience with the education level of a 12-year-old.” This was what struck me as well. Neither paper struck me as being directed towards scientists already informed in the relevant background science. Indeed, both struck me as being more like magazine articles trying to explain this difficult science stuff to laypersons. Both accept an interpretation of Genesis. The paper on microbes just trys to fill in an explanation about microbes which Genesis fails to provide. But even that is just talk. Indeed, the abstract explicitly says, “Therefore, we postulate that microbes were created as
‘biological systems’ with plants, animals,and humans
on multiple days, as supporting systems in mature
plants, animals, and humans.” Postulation does not good science make. It may be OK for forming hypotheses. The science comes in when we try to test hypotheses, but there was none of that in the article.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Thanks again to Dan Gerhards for answeering my questionon the Two-SN thread.
Barton Paul Levenson, I’ve tried to answer your question on the “Little dogstar” Procyon A there too.
Cross link to the other thread is :
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/01/11/aas-18-two-supernovae-no-waiting/
Assuming (& hoping) that works is ok netiquette~wise …
January 15th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Jaohn Armstrong wrote:
“Why doesn’t anyone seem to see the danger in this journal I do? We’ve been saying, “peer review” like a mantra, and now they’re setting up a journal to say “see! peer review!” What do we look like if we say, “but that doesn’t count as peer review!”?”
Well, my answer is this: what is this journal actually reporting? Where’s the science?
There’s more to “peer review” than peer review, as it were. There’s independent confirmation, which is at least as important a part of the scientific endeavour.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Barton Paul Levinson wrote:
“In short, I doubt either paper would pass peer review at a real science journal.”
In fact, the microbes paper would be rejected before it ever got sent out for review, because it contains no science.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:50 am
The Centipede said:
“So, anyone know how I can become a Real Life Officialized Reverend Minister in short order and on the cheap?”
Just do what the “Reverend” Ian Paisley did: form your own church, with you as the head official. You are then legitimately entitled (pun not intended) to call yourself anything you like.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I, my Creative Anachronism persona, and my dog are Univeral Life ministers. I didn’t know anyone wasn’t.
The thought that someone would, with a straight face, write an essay on what day of creation bacterian were created just made me ..scream or laugh, one or the other.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Re separation of AIG and DI: yes, absolutely. DI are lying cowards who deny their God by denying the bible revelation of his works and then pretending to find it out again by science, although they really don’t. AIG’s Web site seems to have changed slogan from what I remember as “upholding the truthfulness of the bible from the very first verse”, but their web icon (favicon) appears to be a figure “1:1″ that refers to it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
I am a geologist, so I reviewed the catastrophic granite paper. It has a lot of way cool recent references on granite emplacement, but a lotta buncha key fallacies:
1. The paper refers to processes that may vary in rate by many orders of magnitude, invariably picks the fastest rate, then reasons that because SOME granite magma MAY be emplaced and cooled quickly, ALL of it does.
2. The “news” that granite intrusions are thick disks has been common knowledge for 20+ years. It may be true that granite can rise quickly through crack networks, but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how you make room in the upper crust for this huge disk. If faulting opens cracks to make room for granite intrusions, it would have to provide kilometers of opening, and that doesn’t happen quickly.
3. The authors breathlessly report that intrusions underlie their own volcanic rocks and that the Sierra Nevada consists of thousands of smaller intrusions. Anybody wanna see my undergraduate map from 1968 showing multiple intrusions in the Sierra? This is old, old, news. The section on viscosity reads like a seventh grade science fair project.
4. As several folks have noted, the paper deals with time scales by postulating accelerated nuclear decay in the past. Creationists have gotten smarter. They generally don’t deny field evidence any more, like early creationists denied the existence of thrust faults. Instead they telescope the time scale. The paper refers to subduction of the Pacific under North America but makes it a catastrophic Flood event.
5. I pointed out in a letter to Physics Today (36 (4), 1983) that if polonium haloes can be identified in rocks, that proves nuclear decay must be constant in rate and radiometric ages are correct. If decay rates have changed, it is impossible to be sure the haloes are polonium. They can’t have it both ways. I presume creationists are crafting a very careful reply, since I’ve heard nothing in 24 years. We should note that the polonium occurs in settings typical of uranium and thorium minerals, very strange since polonium is in the same column of the Periodic Table as sulfur but perfectly understandable if it formed through straightforward decay of U and Th.
6. Diapirs are masses of light, plastic rock that rise through the overlying rocks by buoyancy. It was once common to represent intrusions schematically as diapirs. As the paper correctly points out, ALL granites are not diapirs, but SOME unquestionably are, as shown by their teardrop shapes and deformation of the surrounding rocks.
How can an author find and master a large amount of rather technical literature and yet write something so outrageous? It’s important to realize these people do not see themselves as lying. They regard the Bible as DATA, as a factually accurate account of events on a par with Pliny’s account of Vesuvius or newspaper accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg. As far as they are concerned, they have fully documented evidence; if you don’t accept the document, that’s your problem, not theirs. To creationists, that means that you, not they, have the closed mind, because you are not willing to consider their evidence. In their view, any finding that contradicts the Bible is ipso facto wrong. In all other respects, they are just as intelligent and just as capable of critical thinking as anybody else.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
These “papers” are complete garbage. trying to make a fitional collection of fairy tales fact. the bible has been wrong time and time again. What is wrong with these people?????they can not see what is in front of them?the whirled is not flat nor the center of the universe. if anybody thinks that garbage is real I’ve got a bridge in brooklin to sell instant money maker the tolls will make you rich!!!!!! only 4,999,999.95 dollars act now this offer won’t last!!!!!!