I agree with @r_speir here @Rumraket just because people think they have refuted it, doesn’t mean they have. Publish a paper in a journal that goes through review.
I thought this was generally the new paradigm based on what I’ve been reading in the forum? Perhaps it should have been stated more artfully - it’s not his field.
Publishing a paper in a journal that goes through review also don’t mean they have refuted it. Of course, Sanford’s book hasn’t gone through peer review either. Things don’t become true simply by virtue of where they are written.
Of course, if scientists actually bother to respond in peer reviewed articles, creationists will turn around and claim this means there’s a lot of merit to Sanford’s ideas because why else would anyone even bother responding if they thought it was all nonsense so their responding must mean they’re really worrried and doing damage control right? We’ve got other creationists on this very forum stating such sentiments. If professional scientists even bother responding at all (no matter where they do it) it’s because the creationist ideas are really important and substantial!
And you’re playing right into it, and I don’t buy for even one second that you’re not aware that this is what you’re doing. You’re too “thoughtful” not to be aware.
Pity that’s already been refuted by every bit of genetic evidence we have. Sanford doesn’t have a scientific model, he has YEC apologetics.
Why hasn’t Sanford done this with his GE claims then?
Specifically, I’d say that your claim that they are testing a hypothesis is highly suspect if you can’t articulate the hypothesis and its predictions.
I don’t think she is going to buy any of that. I know I don’t.
@r_speir, you may not realize it, but the community of scientists here at PS is far, FAR more accomplished than the entirety of the ID community. By a very long shot. The “larger scientific community” is well-represented here, are the opinions and assertions made by the scientists who participate here are entirely representative of this “larger scientific community”.
Heck, @swamidass should be charging you tuition for all this access.
Sorry, but I can only agree that you are far more accomplished in your bias and therefore only appear to be more accomplished overall. To be fair, I will say the same of the ID community. They are far more accomplished in their particular bias as well.
As far as one being truly more accomplished? I completely disagree with your conclusion about yourself.
But all of this is deflection and hay anyway. Sanford deserves a paper in rebuttal to his ideas. Can you produce it?
Why is that since Sanford never presented his ideas in a paper in the first place?
He has done this. Did you forget his paper on H1N1?
Sanford’s paper on H1N1 doesn’t mention genetic entropy anywhere.
And I deserve a peer-reviewed research publication in a Cell Press journal that refutes my claims about Axe’s work.
@r_speir, think that’s gonna happen? Think it should?
Up front, I want to appreciatively recognize the work that you have put into providing a thorough time stamped annotation for the video.
I see he references his H1N1 paper, which suffers from pain inducing errors and some massive logical inconsistencies. It has been torn to shreds in this forum, but search for yourself to avoid repeating it all here. When I say logical inconsistencies, I mean that the short comings in this paper are not just of a highly technical nature evident only to specialists, but obvious to anyone who can pass the SAT.
In his writings concerning the lifespan decay curve, in addition to massaging the data, he misrepresents the mathematics of curve fitting in a manner I would consider deceptive.
There is expertise of much greater depth here on this forum than is required to address Sanford’s arguments.
Take a real viral disease investigator like Trevor Bedford, whose lab has over 60 on topic published papers, and compare to Sanford’s H1N1 work. Why should somebody like him take time from actual science to rebut a paper no serious epidemiologist cares in the least about anyways? There is a market for the Sanford’s of this world, and they will always exist and will always have a following. They should not be allowed to distract from real progress.
Yes it should, that is, unless its not worthy of publication. Apparently you think it is. Perhaps they don’t think you have much of an argument against Axe.
Tell us again why any scientist should waste time publishing a peer-reviewed paper refuting Sanford’s YEC claims when Sanford never published the claims in any peer-reviewed paper to start with? Do you also think scientists should spend time publishing peer-reviewed papers refuting a Flat Earth?
Just listened to it. That was well worth the time. Very interesting to hear Sanford’s response.
Because then they can use that as an apologetic tool. See how busy scientists are responding to us? It’s because we’re really important and right, and they’re really worried. Check all my citations!
ID-creationists are doing this even with posts written on this forum:
Look at this. “Scholars” here with qualifications actually bothered to respond to Gpuccio? This non-stop credentials game is getting exceedingly boring and predictable.
You listened to the entire video or just that part?
If I don’t put enough time stamps on myself, will I travel backwards in time? (Postage due! 
)
For now, just that part.