The article states that the rotor very much evolved. But if you follow the linked evidence, various flagellar motors appear to have evolved from an original ancestor. This is exactly consistent with intelligent design and creationism. It does not demonstrate the origin of the flagellar motor in the first place. Everyone, whether creationists, theistic evolutionists, or materialistic evolutionists all agree that mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow etcetera occur. This paper advances the debate about origins no further distance. The debate is not about the survival of the "fittest", the debate is about the arrival of the fittest.
An upper bound probability for the RNA world hypothesis is 10^-1018. A reasonable interpretation is that the RNA world hypothesis is impossible in the real world.
I hope you are aware that the sustainable scientific enterprise we all appreciate today was birthed by Christian Europe, and relied on the faith that the universe was understandable because it was created by a rational being.
Christians and some prominent secular scientists agree that the origin of life on earth is a miracle. One group posits a Divine miracle. The other a secular miracle. Abiogenesis is foundational to the secular origins account. Before abiogenesis occurs, the mechanisms of biological evolution cannot be invoked. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner called abiogenesis both impossible and implied it was a miracle. Francis Crick implied it was a miracle. Fred Hoyle, atheist, calculated a probability for abiogenesis of 10 raised to the power of negative 40,000. Eugene Koonin in about 2012, invoked the multiverse as an infinity to try to make abiogenesis seemingly plausible. He calculated the probability of the RNA world hypothesis at less than 10 raised to the power of negative 1000. It has been labelled the hardest problem in biology. The most celebrated atheist of the twentieth century, Anthony Flew, left atheism when he realised the impossibility of abiogenesis and became a theist of some sort. If you need a miracle to explain abiogenesis, as these secular authorities have said, then the secular origins account is not as rigorously "scientific" as some might suppose.
All origins systems are underpinned by unprovable presuppositions, including atheistic origins accounts, the biblical origin account, and so on. Origins accounts have to be logically compatible with science and have explanatory power. Philosophical uniformitarianism is an atheistic presupposition. It is more in the realm of philosophy than science, yet it has a significant bearing on how atheists interpret scientific evidence, especially in the origins domain.
That is broadly true, although there are creationist organisations within the Roman Catholic world. The major creationist organisations are evangelical (Protestant).
I am not going to defend every YEC. But you are using too broad a brush. Read the book and decide for yourself. We did not use chatgpt to write the book; it was part of the editing process and we checked everything from chatgpt, because, as you said, it is not known for watertight reliability.
That is true, going outside of areas of expertise is fraught with risk. The best creationist material on radioactive dating was published by the RATE group. We include a summary of this material in an appendix of the book.
Thanks for that comment. A very important point. Worldviews condition how we interpret evidence. In that sense they can be self reinforcing. This applies to all worldviews- atheistic, Christian, and others.
If you use a philosophical uniformitarian interpretation of the amount of process that has occurred on earth or in the cosmos, you will get a figure of hundreds of millions of years or even billions of years. We do not dispute the amount of process. We deny philosophical uniformitarianism, which is an atheistic presupposition. The age of the earth, according to a reasonable interpretation of the Old Testament, is likely to be 6000 (Masoretic text) to 8500 years (if you rely on the Septuagint versions).
In medicine, for minor procedures such as blood tests or ECG, there is the notion of implied consent. Just holding out your arm for the blood test is implied consent. To refuse, you might say, I am of sound mind and I do not consent to this procedure. Or, you are performing this procedure without my consent and against my wishes. I'm not a lawyer,and not in the US, but this is how it generally operates for practical reasons. Written informed consent is required for more invasive or significant procedures.
CREATE TABLE user(
pk INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
area INTEGER,
age INTEGER,
active INTEGER
);}
for {set i 0} {$i < $loop} {incr i} {
puts "
WITH RECURSIVE tmp(pk,area,age,active) AS
(
SELECT [expr {$i * $increment}],
500001,
5,
0
UNION ALL
SELECT pk+1,
10000*(abs(random())%9+1)+abs(random())%100000,
5*(abs(random()%3)+1),
abs(random()%2)
FROM tmp
WHERE pk < [expr {($i+1)*$increment-1}]
)
INSERT INTO user
SELECT * FROM tmp;"
}