ICR article image
Posted on 08/20/2014 9:14:04 AM PDT by fishtank
What Is 'Real Scientific Research'?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A recent article in The Dallas Morning News1 and a follow-up NBC interview2 presented some history and touched on the tenets of the Institute for Creation Research. Both news reports sparked inquiries from readers and viewers. For example, some are now asking, "What defines credible scientific research?"
As the article points out, [ICR's Director of Research, Dr. Jason] "Lisle says his team analyzes the same data as secular scientists—but they interpret it differently, and often find flaws in accepted assumptions."1 Studying, analyzing, and interpreting data are a part of any research methodology, and so ICR scrutinizes data gathered by other scientists as a part of the process. But ICR goes beyond basic analysis.
While our private donor-based funding pales in comparison to many secular institutions, ICR scientists are involved in original research. For over four decades, generous donors have ensured our scientists' fruitful production of genuine independent research3, as the following examples of ICR discoveries clearly show:
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image
What Is ‘Real Scientific Research’?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A recent article in The Dallas Morning News1 and a follow-up NBC interview2 presented some history and touched on the tenets of the Institute for Creation Research. Both news reports sparked inquiries from readers and viewers. For example, some are now asking, “What defines credible scientific research?”
As the article points out, [ICR’s Director of Research, Dr. Jason] “Lisle says his team analyzes the same data as secular scientists—but they interpret it differently, and often find flaws in accepted assumptions.”1 Studying, analyzing, and interpreting data are a part of any research methodology, and so ICR scrutinizes data gathered by other scientists as a part of the process. But ICR goes beyond basic analysis.
While our private donor-based funding pales in comparison to many secular institutions, ICR scientists are involved in original research. For over four decades, generous donors have ensured our scientists’ fruitful production of genuine independent research3, as the following examples of ICR discoveries clearly show:
A floating log-mat model of coal formation was confirmed at Mount St. Helens by sonar and underwater dives into nearby Spirit Lake, refuting evolutionary notions of coal formation requiring millions of years.
Carbon-14 found in Pennsylvanian coal shows it’s only thousands of years old.
Carbon-14 discovered in diamonds indicate they’re only thousands of years old.
Radiohalos in granitic zircons show that water transported daughter-product particles away from their decaying parent uranium atoms, thereby accelerating uranium decay rates high enough to produce millions of years’ worth of daughter products (at today’s slow decay rate) in only years or days.
Six thousand years’ worth of helium—a product of Uranium decay—has accumulated in granitic zircons that should contain mere traces of helium if their granites really lasted for billions of years, helping to explain why conventional radioisotope systems make unreliable clocks.
Genes and other useful DNA information are encoded within the so-called human chromosome 2 fusion site, showing that it was never a fusion site—where evolutionists imagined two chimpanzee-like chromosomes had fused to become the human chromosome 2, but was always a well-designed fully human chromosome.
The absence of all the tell-tale genetic scars that identify chromosomal fusion from the alleged chromosome 2 fusion site also identify the region as not a fusion site at all—but as a supply of useful information for human cells.
An approximately 70 percent similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences directly contradicts the often-quoted 98 percent identity. There are 900 million DNA letter differences between human and chimp genomes.
Genetic differences between species are much too low to have arisen over millions of years but correspond exactly to the expectations of an origin less than 10,000 years ago.
Research continues at ICR:
Our geologists are mapping for the first time all of North America’s rock systems by rock type and thickness onto a giant 3-D assemblage, with its keen revelations and implications for Genesis Flood history forthcoming.
Others continue to discover radioactive carbon in fossils from around the world, with stunning results set to appear in several publications in upcoming months.
Our physicists have been running the numbers required to rigorously rule out possible errors that may have caused light from distant galaxies to appear organized into colossal concentric rings with Earth near their center—as though Someone placed us here on purpose.
The power and significance of these discoveries lie in the fact that they emerge from original data obtained by independent credible research. ICR is grateful to its dedicated constituents for enabling these fascinating scientific discoveries for almost a half century. Together we will continue to demonstrate that creation is confirmed by scientific evidence.
References
Farwell, S. Dallas researchers out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation. The Dallas Morning News, August 15, 2014. Some results of this independent research are visible in the Dallas Morning News online video that accompanied Farwell’s report: Institute for Creation
Research works to prove Genesis is scientifically true. DMN video. Posted on dallasnews.com August 15, 2014, accessed August 15, 2014.
Dallas Researchers Out to Scientifically Prove Biblical Version of Creation. NBC, Channel 5 News. Posted on nbcdfw.com August 15, 2014.
Institute for Creation Research Technical Papers. Posted on icr.org, accessed August 15, 2014.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on August 20, 2014.
Science died with the acceptance of Evolution, which became a religion unto itself.
Sadly, no one can now refute the idiocy spawned by Darwin without being pejoratively labeled as less than sentient, unthinking and unanalytic morons.
Well, we’ll see about that. Logic, science, based on observation, testing of hypotheses has pretty much died off.
God calls them fools.
Or not, I side with the Creator.
Sciene died when they said the earth was not flat
There are many in Kansas who believe in the Flat State Theory.
If they label their opposition as 'secular scientists' then wouldn't they be 'religious scientists'? And then wouldn't that place their work in the realm of theology?
Stated well from an evolutionists.
No, they would be non-secularist scientists?
And then wouldn't that place their work in the realm of theology?
Nope.
ping
I have neither the time nor the patience to go through the whole nonsensical list but a couple of items can be addressed.
“Carbon-14 found in Pennsylvanian coal shows it’s only thousands of years old.
Carbon-14 discovered in diamonds indicate they’re only thousands of years old.”
With the coal mine example, the ICR folks are conveniently “forgetting” the fact of background radiation which in C 14 testing is controlled for. Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Now this can account for the C-14 date of the diamond as well. The begs the question of using C-14 testing on a rock (diamond) that has never been alive. It proves nothing but illustrates C-12 to C-15 formation in the presence of U- 238. They are measuring background radiation found in samples greater than 50,000 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.