Al Fresco

Thanks for the helpful advice in dealing with Mr. Knapp's "evolutionist challenge." I think making the case that the CRS's "Statement of Belief" disqualifies the signatories from engaging in real science is a good approach to take. The fact that the CRS is working with a bogus definition of science is also a valid point to make. And the business about the purported multiple Nobel nominations is worth bringing to his attention.

I also found articles by Glenn Morton here and Howard Van Till here that shed additional light on the CRS's scientific integrity - or lack thereof.

Yes, it has been maddening at times communicating with Mr. Knapp - especially since he habitually ignores most of the salient points I make in my responses to him. However, as I stated above, I am not in this for his benefit. I am directing my efforts toward those fence sitters who have not been hopelessly indoctrinated by anti-evolution rhetoric. I hope there are still a few of them out there!

Pierre Bezukhov

Do they do their “pier” review on Sally Brown’s Arbor Day?

Lobstrosity

Maybe they set their articles on a pier and if it's still there the next day, that means that God approves.

Oolon Colluphid

Welcome back Lobstrosity! Where've you been, we've missed you!

Cheers, Oolon (formerly Darwin's Terrier)

Doubting Didymus

We've been up all night. We were worried sick! We phoned all the hospitals and tried to file a missing persons report. If we'd had your photo we'd have stuck it on the milk cartons.

Dr. Evil

I picked an article to glance over in the Creation Science Journal entitled "Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex Bone" and it was absolutley appalling. The entire article is based on an incorrect assumption without any attempt to prove their assumption to be correct. What they contend is that the microscopic anatomy of a T. Rex fossil is intact, i.e. haversian system intact, lucunae and canaliculi present, therefore the fossil can not be old. They state this without proving that an old fossil will not have these structures present!

Here's his conclusion:
Lacunae and canailiculi, so what, they probably should be present, they are after all composed of the mineralized substance hydroxyapatite which fossilizes quite nicely. He says there are also unmineralized osteocytes and collagen upon examination, however his osteocytes don't look like osteocytes and his collagen could be anything, a piece of lint on the specimen, anything (one thing to note is that what he points out as collagen lacks a specific banding pattern that is typically seen on collagen fibers using EM). He doesn't take the necessary step of proving they are what he says they are. If they are indeed unmineralized proteins, he needs to do a protein screen, either sequence the protein or use an antibody to identify the protein as collagen for example. I'm sure this type of nonsense is typical of this journal.

I suggest you look over the EM's he shows and simply compare it with EM's from a histology textbook. You may want to learn a little about bone composition, formation etc. as well.

Ugh, it gets worse. I just finished scanning the article "ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell", once again it is based on a false assumption. In the article, the author states:


By stating this he makes the assumption that life evolved before ATP. Why does he make this assumption? Well, he doesn't say, therefore he invalidates his argument. Since ATP is a precursor to our genetic material, its the Adenosine used in the A-T base pair, it was around before life began. I'm sure you've heard of Oparin's experiments at the beginning of the 20th century in which he basically mixed water, nitrogen, carbon etc. which were elements found in primordial earths atmosphere, subjected these molecules to UV radiation in a reducing atmosphere, and subsequently found, amino acids, nucleic acids, sugars etc. The key point is, life isn't necessary to create ATP and ATP was present before any self replicating life began. The article is bogus.

Accckkk! Check this out:

This is in the introduction of an article submitted to a peer reviewed journal? It just shows the quality of creationists publications. You would never see this kind of commentary in a true peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyway, what this clown forgets to state is that genetic testing of different phylums created using anatomical inspection has verified almost all of the classifications that have been made by evolutionists over the past couple of hundred years. What a joke.

I would advise you to read these articles and make note of claims that sound too good to be true, aka the thesis of their argument he he. Comprise a list of the noncreationist articles they cite. I would bet that they misrepresent what is printed in the legitimate journals to further their own agenda. I would further bet that what is written in the legitimate journals may even contradict what they say when read in the correct context.

Lobstrosity

Heh, thanks for the welcome-back you guys. I feel so...loved!