Skip to comments.New Findings Presented at Creation Research Society Conference
Posted on 08/01/2014 6:47:59 AM PDT by fishtank
New Findings Presented at Creation Research Society Conference
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
ICRs BioOrigins team is entering a new, exciting phase of investigation. In August, we will present several preliminary research advances at the Creation Research Society (CRS) conference. This represents an important step forward in our current biology research initiatives.
To date, we have made significant progress toward answering the four major research questions that we described over four years ago.1-5 For example, Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has found that the supposed human chromosome 2 fusion site actually sits in the middle of a gene and encodes a functional domain, effectively refuting the pervasive evolutionary idea that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.6 He has also discovered that the actual overall genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98-99% as is frequently claimed but rather only 70%, a genetic gap far too large to be bridged even in the six million years of evolution that secular scientists commonly invoke.7 Additionally, Dr. Tomkins has investigated and rejected several of the junk DNA icons, and he is now in phase two of each of these projects.8,9
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
Parallel Session Schedule:
A-1: The Flood/post-Flood Boundary is in the Late Cenozoic (Michael J. Oard)
A-2: iDINO - Investigation of Dinosaur Intact Natural Osteo-Tissue (Mark Armitage)
A-3: The Grand Canyon Was Carved by Late Flood Channelizes Runoff (Michael J. Oard)
A-4: Report Of Soft Tissues From A Triceratops Horridus Frill (Mark Armitage)
A-5: The Genesis Flood and Floating Log Mats Solving Geological Riddles (Michael J. Oard)
A-6: Triangles as Evidence Of Intelligent Design In Nature (Mark Armitage)
A-7: Why the Spanish Flu went extinct (Robert Carter and John Sanford)
A-11: The Molecular Clock Fails (Jerry Bergman)
A-12: Thinking within a biblical creation model in biology (Jean K Lightner)
A-13: Biogenetic Family History, an Under-Appreciated Creation Science (Jim Johnson)
A-14: The Myth of Homologs and Paralogs(Change Tan)
A-15: Applying eliminative induction to biosphere origin theories (Hugh Miller and J. Michael Fischer)
A-16: State Education Standards in Science: The Need for Objectivity and Neutrality (Robert P.
A-17: Use of Geologic Columns to Develop a Comprehensive Flood Model (Timothy L. Clarey, Davis
J. Werner, and Nathaniel T. Jeanson)
B-1: The 60 parsec break in the cumulative distribution of sizes of supernova remnants in the Milky
Way and several nearby galaxies is the expected signature of a recent creation 6000 years ago (Keith
B-2: Defying the Ancient W UMa Binary Scenario: The Strange Story of the Short period Binary, HR
Boo (Ronald G Samec, Travis Shebs)
B-3: Further Studies of the Oscillations of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (Bob Hill)
B-4: Are Redshifts Quantized? Analysis of Selection Effects in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data (Jake
Hebert and Jason Lisle)
B-5: A Creation View of Comets (Wayne Spencer)B-6: A New Hermeneutic Methodology (Gorman Gray)
B-7: Local Engineering Applications from Large-Scale Cosmology Parameters Part 2 Standard
Cosmology’s Date for the Flood (Chuck Glatt)
B-11: Mt. St. Helens, the Forgotten Miracle? (Rich Overman)
B-12: Locating Sodom and the Other Cities of the Plain (Anne Habermehl)
B-13: Comparison of Different Radiometric Dating Techniques (Rich Overman)
B-14: Ar Dating Statistical Analysis (Rich Overman)
B-15: Weaving programming language theory, fixed point computations, fractals and quantum
mechanics into a case for a created universe (Robin Snyder)
B-16: Simplifying information theory into a classical statistical argument for a created universe (Robin
B-17: Energy estimates of a geomagnetic field dynamic-decay model during the Genesis Flood (Tim
C-1: Evolution of Religion? (Mary Beth De Repentigny)
C-2: Alleged Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Site Definitively Encodes a Transcription Factor Binding
Site In the First Intron of the DDX11L2 Gene (Jeffrey P. Tomkins)
C-3: On the Overdue Course Correction in Intelligent Design Science: Engineered Adaptability (Randy
C-4: Incomplete Lineage Sorting for Diverse Protein Coding Genes Among Humans, Chimpanzees,
Gorillas, Orangutans and Macaques (Jeffrey P. Tomkins)
C-5: Atheistic or Theistic Selectionism: Rigorous Design Analysis shows that both are Mystical Beliefs
(Randy J. Guliuzza)
C-6: Systematic Comparison of Human Chromosomes and Their Known Gene Space to the Chimpanzee
Genome (Jeffrey P. Tomkins)
C-7: Answering Objections to Creation Ex Nihilo in Six Days (Suzanne Vincent)
C-11: Animal extinction on the young-earth timescale: Fossil occurrence data uncover a new, testable
explanation (Nathaniel T. Jeanson)
C-12: Unique Dinosaur Trackway in Middle Jurassic Rocks Poses Problems for Evolution (Terry P.
C-13: Post-Flood speciation: Which mechanism is most probable? (Nathaniel T. Jeanson)
C-14: Post-Flood biogeography: Mitochondrial DNA patterns define the timing and units of migration
(Nathaniel T. Jeanson) C-15: Man as Message (Diane Kingsley Powell)
C-16: The Extra-Terrestrial Search for the Origin of Homochirality (Charles McCombs)
C-17: Forensic Science Insights for Creation Controversies (Jim Johnson)
Excellent, thank you for these links.
Boy, the use of bonafide scientific research to support faith must sure chaff the evolutionist’s hyde.
How do you know it’s bonafide?
Um... maybe he is a published geneticist, and is capable of reading and understanding all of these claims, and thus verifying that the new evidence presented actually does repudiate mainstream thinking among modern scientists?
Or, more likely: Because he didn't understand it all, but the tenor of the article flatters his creationist worldview.
As in Jekyll.... ?
"...The CRS meeting fulfills a vital role in the research process: peer review.13 While the exchange of scientific ideas at the meeting is primarily oral rather than written,..."
Looks like they want to keep the ideas away from those not part of the CRI by using oral presentations. I guess they don't want to get chaffed by real scientists before they gather for their medicine man pow wow.
It’s the “he said / she said” method of peer-review.
Published continuously since 1964
Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists
Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines
Fresh perspectives on science and society as impacted by origins
Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood
The have slick marketing, I’ll give them that.
Interesting work. Science can’t call itself science if it just dismisses, without considering and addressing, any challenge to its theories as coming from ‘junk science’ any more than it can just ignore DNA, the function of which it can’t explain, as ‘junk DNA’.