ICR Sues Texas

Quite right, precious little of what the ICR (and other organisations like it) teaches is true.

The constitution says otherwise.Edited by Huntard, : did quote wrong...again...

It's pretty much the same over here, although I think we've got a higher percentage that identify themselves as atheists. Although, what you see mostly here is the woo belief of "there probably being something more". And that's about as far as it will ever e taken, which for all intents and purposes, to me at least, is atheism.Our government also spends money on religious schools (catholic, protestant, islamic, for example), but they all have a curriculum they need to abide to. Which pretty much is the secular curriculum. Although, of course, you will be taught about the religion of the school you go to.I myself went to a catholic school (being from the south and all), but the only thing you would notice about this is that once a week a priest would come over to talk about the catholic faith an hour or so. I don't think anyone from my class is ever going to church these days (well, perhaps with Christmas, but that's a bout it).In summary, even though quite a few people will identify themselves as "believers" here, it's not the kind of belief people like archie will appreciate.

Well, creationists/IDists need to supply evidence for their assertions. So far, they haven't.

Sorry Arcie, but asseting is all you have done since you came here, that is why you were temporarily suspended. Yes yes, we know by now that you hate us, please keep these comments out, they add nothing. Gravity is evidence for creation? Uhm, yes we can. Gravity is the warping of spacetime by mass. That is how it works, that is why it keeps people on earth while holding the moon in place. Makes me think the rest of his book is worthless. No, no evidence has been provided, agani not in this post.

Secularists have noting to do with it. The problem is that ICR state a priori that the bible is correct no matter what. That's not how science works. If evidence is found that contradicts earlier held beliefs, those beliefs need to be discarded or modified. This can't happen with ICR "science", therefore they're not doing science.

Take an a priori assumption about something, distort the actual evidence, lie about stuff like other publications on the subject not existing, write a book, and commit purgery in a court.

That would indeed make an interesting thread, I'll see if I can start one on it this evening. Unless you want to start one yourself, of course. Your daddy raped you didn't he? Don't worry mate, if there's one thing about me, I am not easily offended, nor did I read your first line as such.

Wasn't that Behe?

Well, then all science came from god, including evolution, since they all use that same "intelligence". Of course it had, the scientific method was used in inventing all these things. Yes, using the scietific method. It had everything to do with it.

Since the argument can be made for anything to be designed, whether it shows order or not, you can't say that order points to desing since you can equally say chaos points to design.We like to pick the possiblilty that requires the least assumptions. So, since there is no evidence of a designer, we omit him from our explanations as unnecessary.Until you have evidence of a designer, or the processes by which he designs, you have no valid reason for saying things are designed.

Yes we have, it's called parsimony. For you? Yes. The first one is, the second one (by adding unnecessary things), isn't. It could all have been pooped out by a purple three horned hippo, this is because there is order. Should we teach this as well now? Well, you are.

But that's what we're trying to tell you. There is no obvious obeservation of design. Literally anything can be said to be designed. Especially since you can't explain how or why it was designed. All you're doing is saying order=design. But I could equally validly say chaos=design. But every observation can be said to support design. It is therefore not reasonable to use it. No matter what is observed, it can alays be said to be designed. Thereofore, unless there is some evidence of design, we use the less parsimonious explanation, which is the one that reequires no designer. Yes it is, it violates parsimony.

Of course it does, the fact that literally everything can be explained by design means design explains nothing, and adds nothing to an explanation. Meaning it should be left out. Yes, and like I explained to you, in such a case science demands we pick the most parsimonious one. Which would exclude design. No, I have eliminated the conclusion because it violates parsimony, something science says we should do. Not as science it shouldn't. It violates one of the prime rules of science, parsimony.

Yes, Dawn did, but I think she was trying to quote Taq and did it wrong, or something. If you look at Taq's Message 409, you will see him using the exact phrase, and the first time Dawn uses it is in response to that post.