Answers Research Journal volume 7
| The divine comedy|
Volume 7 of the Answers Research Journal ran through 2014.
- 1 Volume 7 articles
- 1.1 An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering the Ark Turtle and Crocodile Kinds
- 1.2 Interpreting Craters in Terms of the Day Four Cratering Hypothesis
- 1.3 Did the Moon Appear as Blood on the Night of the Crucifixion?
- 1.4 An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering Extant Tuatara, Amphisbaena, and Snake Kinds
- 1.5 Radiohalos in Multiple, Sequentially Intruded Phases of the Bathurst Batholith, NSW, Australia: Evidence for Rapid Granite Formation during the Flood
- 1.6 Comments on the Cosmic Microwave Background
- 1.7 The Human GULO Pseudogene—Evidence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy
- 1.8 Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites: I. The Allende CV3 Carbonaceous Chrondrite
- 1.9 A Discussion of Stellar Nucleosynthesis
- 1.10 A Photon Reference Frame and Distant Starlight: Analyzing Ideas from Gerald L. Schroeder’s The Science of God
- 1.11 A Christian Response to the Crisis in Psychiatry
- 1.12 Christians, the Brain, and Person: Conceptual Confusion, Unintelligibility, and Implications
- 1.13 Anomalies with Planets and Satellites in the Solar System—Indication of Design?
- 1.14 Defending History: Temporal Reasoning in Genesis 2:7–3:8
- 1.15 Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites II: The Ordinary and Enstatite Chondrites
- 1.16 Circular Reasoning in the Dating of Deep Seafloor Sediments and Ice Cores: The Orbital Tuning Method
- 1.17 Determination of the Radioisotope Decay Constants and Half-Lives: Rubidium-87 (87Rb)
- 1.18 Evaluating The Day Four Cratering Hypothesis
- 1.19 Fossil Baramins on Noah’s Ark: The “Amphibians”
- 1.20 A Missing Neutrino—Dark Radiation
- 1.21 Old Earth Theology: A Factor that Explains Inconsistent Belief of Inerrancy Among Florida Southern Baptists
- 1.22 Scientific Evidence Indicates Natural Selection and Brain-Based Education Conflict with Human Nature
- 1.23 A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-Driven Approach: Part 1
- 1.24 A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 2
- 1.25 A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 3
- 1.26 Reply to “A Response to ‘Does Natural Selection Exist?’”
- 1.27 Expansion of Space—A Dark Science
- 1.28 Critique: Faulkner’s Miraculous Translation of Light Model Would Leave Evidence
- 1.29 Response to: “Critique: Faulkner’s Miraculous Translation of Light Model Would Leave Evidence”
- 1.30 Discerning Tyrants from Usurpers: A Statistical Baraminological Analysis of Tyrannosauroidea Yielding the First Dinosaur Holobaramin
- 1.31 Determination of the Radioisotope Decay Constants and Half-Lives: Lutetium-176 (176Lu)
- 1.32 The Petrology of the Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona, USA
- 1.33 Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites: III. The Eucrites (Basaltic Achondrites)
- 2 See also
- 3 External links
- 4 References
Volume 7 articles
- Tom Hennigan, January 8, 2014
"Based on the analyses of molecular data, hybridization capability, and statistical baraminology it is estimated that 11 extant turtle kinds and three extant crocodile kinds were brought on the Ark." Baraminology as point-missingly nerdy fanfiction of cladistics.
- Danny Faulkner, January 22, 2014
There are four possible "hypotheses" for when craters appeared in the universe according to creationists: Day Four of Creation Week, the Fall, the Flood or post-Flood. Faulker splits the cratered bodies of the solar system into Day Four vs. post-Day Four by assertion, not by physical evidence.
- Danny Faulkner, February 12, 2014
Christians have placed the date of Crucifixion on April 3, 33, since it is speculated that there was a "blood moon" on that date and there is known to have been a partial lunar eclipse. Faulkner speculates that it was not this partial lunar eclipse since it wouldn't have been enough to change the moon red. Instead, it was atmospheric conditions on the day of crucifixion.
- Tom Hennigan, February 19, 2014
This month's arbitrary division of animals is snakes, tuatara and worm lizards (all the amphibians except those already covered and the lizards, which are to be in an upcoming article). Hennigan makes at least three bizarre statements:
- About biosystematics: "For example, naturalists assume randomness and universal common descent." It's unclear what he means by "randomness." Nor is universal common descent an assumption; there is much evidence for it.
- "[T]here is still not enough knowledge about biochemistry to draw conclusions regarding the biological history and taxonomy of organisms." Only if you are a denialist.
- "The fact that naturalists have a hard time connecting all reptiles to one or a few common ancestors suggests that they are not all related to one another, but instead were created separately according to their kind." Like, dinosaurs and other prehistoric reptiles? There is plenty in the literature about the evolution of reptiles.
Please, stop lying about the science, Hennigan.
- Andrew Snelling, March 5, 2014
More of Snelling's much debunked radiohalo research.
- Danny Faulkner, March 19, 2014
This is an ill-timed article by Danny Faulker, coming right around the time of the detection of gravitational waves as evidence for the Big Bang (complete with Faulker's ineffective rebuttal: there might be problems). In addition, it's predominately a red herring: The cosmic background radiation might be local. As per usual, Faulkner does not explain why the cosmic background radiation is consistent with a recent creation, which Faulkner admits:
“”The recent creation model needs a plausible explanation for the CMB, but recent creationists have yet to suggest one. The proposals to date, emission from dust and an appeal to Eddington’s calculation, are inadequate. Creationists are cautioned to critique properly work on the CMB as evidence for the big bang model. Further work on the CMB within the recent creation model would be most valuable. And we should have the goal of developing a plausible alternate explanation of the CMB within the recent creation paradigm.
- Jeffrey P. Tomkins, April 2, 2014
What we can conclude from this paper:
- Tomkins seems obsessed with the percentage similarities between humans and apes, and yet evolutionary biologists still don't seem bothered.
- Tomkins can claim the same argument from ignorance that ID proponents can, and yet cannot provide a real model of his own other than "God did it." Certainly there is no model consistent with the positive creationists claims.
- Andrew Snelling, April 16, 2014
Part of Snelling's explanation for why meteorites appear old: God put some of the decayed nuclei there. Tricky God. Or they decayed really fast (and fried up the Garden of Eden?).
- Danny Faulkner, April 30, 2014
Danny Faulkner writes an entirely unnecessary review of stellar nucleosynthesis, just to provide a swipe at the end that it has explanatory power, but no predictive power. (How do astronomers continue to study it then, Danny?) Then he claims that creationists need a model. Gee, Danny, think that the creationists need a model with explanatory AND predictive power? And how about doing some science?
- Andrew Mark Sibley, May 14, 2014
- Callie Joubert, May 28, 2014
Psychiatry is facing a crisis because it conflicts with the Book of Genesis. Since scientific discoveries in psychiatry problem areas are consistent with the teachings of the Scripture, Joubert postulates that it would be "wise" if psychiatry practitioners accept the Bible as "serious on all matters about which it speaks."
- Callie Joubert, June 11, 2014
- Danny R. Faulkner, June 25, 2014
- Steven W. Boyd, August 6, 2014
- Andrew A. Snelling, August 20, 2014
- Jake Hebert, August 27, 2014
- Andrew A. Snelling, September 3, 2014
- Wayne Spencer, September 10, 2014
- M. R. Ross, September 17, 2014
- John G. Hartnett, September 24, 2014
- David A. McGee, October 1, 2014
- Callie Joubert, October 15, 2014
- Randy J. Guliuzza, October 29, 2014
- Randy J. Guliuzza, October 29, 2014
- Randy J. Guliuzza, November 5, 2014
- Nathaniel Jeanson, November 5, 2014
- John G. Hartnett, November 13, 2014
- John G. Hartnett, November 19, 2014
- Danny R. Faulkner, November 19, 2014
- M. Aaron, November 26, 2014
- Andrew A. Snelling, December 3, 2014
- John H. Whitmore, Raymond Strom, Stephen Cheung, and Paul A. Garner, December 10, 2014
- Andrew A. Snelling, December 31, 2014
This third paper documents the radioisotope dating data for more meteorites, so as to continue the discussion of the significance of these data.