ICR Sues Texas

Don't know if anyone posted this already from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in 2008: Page one gives a short summary of the reasons cited by Dr Paredes, the Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, for why accreditation was denied: --Percy

So, what?"We aren't allowed to call it science, but that's okay because it's actually apologetics, and religious stuff doesn't need official tickboxes anyway because it's religious, not scientific."Loving how they shot themselves in the foot there.

Very verbose but simplistic. The only fact here under discussion is the fact that we both the evo and the theist operate on the exact same playing fieldOne does not need to "pile up facts" to know that it is limited in and by tenable evidence. I have demonstrated this to many times to mention [qs]The "theory" you have been trying to convey to us does not organize facts into a useful body, nor does it allow predictions.It is more of a catechism, repeated over and over until it is beaten into the heads of the audience. Its not a theory that there is limited information and evidence on both sides of the coin. Its not a theory that neither conclusion drawn by theist or evos can be proved. Its not a theory that we both use the same type of evidence gathering to demonstrate each side. Its not a theory that both positions are oneof only two possible solutions to the question.These are facts of the highest orderYou could not demonstrate my contentions above as otherwise,norcould you demonstrate evenon of the conclusions or assertions from the TOE as provable beyond any doubtAnd that is the theme of my contentions, that we both operate on the same limited evidenceDawn Bertot

Once again for all those unable to follow along. this is not about evo, it is not about design or even the appearance of design, DIRECTLY. Its about the EVIDENCE of the fact that we are both lmited by direct observation and evidence, to prove any conclusions about the things refernced above.This is the fact that you are EVALUATING.Is it true that none of the conclusions you draw for your own position or thise which you dismiss inmine are provable, yes or noThe evidence you offer above about those demonstratable things only allows you to go so far in your search. they are only evidence of immediate materials, which conclusions are drawn from to extrapolate possible tenative conclusions.Both of our conclusions from design and the things mentioned above by your self get you no closer to a resolution of how they became to be in the first place.That is simple rule of observation and evidence, the conclusion of which is irresistibleDawn Bertot

You must be one of those that doesnt know how to follow along logically. Ill start putting it in question ofrm to help the slow ones. Here is a simple rule of evidence.Is it true that all the information and evidence gathered from evo and the design theory, actuall get you no closer to an explanation of he How things became to be inthefirst place. Yes or NoIf you answer is No, then perhaps you could explain how and with what you arrived at the provable conclusion of how things came to be in the first place.It is a simple rule of evidence that you cannot. I can get even simpler if you need me toIt is a simple rule of observation and evidence that you and I use the same materials and evidence to arrive at our conclusions.you believe your methods are better, but you are replacing, the word simpler with the word, involved and calling it better.the truth is that no matter howi nvolved the method they bring to the table you are no closer to an answer.It is a simple rule of evidence and observatin that there is order, consistency and laws being adminstered and followed in the universe and in nature. that is simple evidence, but it allows me no better a conclusion than does yours, but it is oevidenctial nonethelessDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This is a strawman and misrepresentation of the TOE. TOE has nothing to do with origins. I think this has been pointed out numerous times. I do not think anyone you are debating with has posited a theory of the origin of life, or the origin of anything.Remember the topic is evolution and design, not abiogenesis and/or special creation.Do I need to get simpler for you?You see your snippy, catty remarks bring nothing to the debate. Do you notice that no one is supporting you? If no one understands you, maybe you are the one with the comprehension issues.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And design has nothing to do with ORIGINS. It is a simple observation from known evidence, that which has already been stated to many times to mention, that allows a tenative conclusion, about the possible explanations of life on earth.It is evidenced by the same laws, rules and test applied to evolution, both of which are not provableAll one needs to do to demonstrate that the design principle does not follow the same basic tenets of observation and fact gathering, is to, demonstrate that we do not follow the same rules of evidential proceedure and processessNone of the conclusions of even the TOE can be proved, just demonstrated using the same methods. we all use the same rules of evidence toarrive at our conclusions, you simply like tothink yours are better, they ARE NOTDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial. The design principle is useful in demonstrating that it is applicable to both reality and reason and applies to only two logical explanations of the nature of things.That is what reality and the evidence suggests. that is what you need to deal with in this connectionWhy does a demonstratable theoryneed to bedetailed and complicated to be validDawn Bertot

They won't tell me how to drive a car, or how to tie my shoelaces either.As Theodoric pointed out, this is a complete strawman.And you still have not indicated what are these "rules of evidence" that you have been referring to.

You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial. The design principle is useful in demonstrating that it is applicable to both reality and reason and applies to only two logical explanations of the nature of things.That is what reality and the evidence suggests. that is what you need to deal with in this connectionWhy does a demonstratable theory need to be detailed and complicated to be valid?Dawn Bertot

As I suspected you no little or nothing about debating, what you actually need to do to demostrate that you understand evidence and debating is go back to post 443 and respond to that for which you asked me in the first place. I set out these simple rules of evidence, instead of answering what you asked for, you make jokesif you cant answer the questions or you dont know how to respond simply say so. I will take it as your inability to respond to what youasked me for in the first place

I'm going to guess that you are again referring to those mythical rules of evidence. Yet somehow, you have managed to post 107 messages in this thread. But you have provided not one iota of evidence or persuasive argument that your design principle is useful for anything.

No scientific theory is proven. Science does not deal in proofs. Evaluation, yes. One evaluated the data and determines if the data matches the hypothesis. If it does, it is accepted, if it doesn't it is rejected. That is what the term falsification means. All scientific theories can be falsified if better data is found. The reason that the TOE is accepted and Design is not is that there is evidence supporting the TOE whereas there is none to support design. One needs data to evaluate data, no data no evaluation.
The evaluation may turn out wrong, as has been seen numerous times ie. Phlogiston, but the overturning of phlogiston was done by evaluation of data obtained from the discovery of oxygen.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

All well and good, but what does this line of argument have to do with the subject. If neither design or TOE have anything to do with origins why bring it up. Other than to muddy the waters or you don't understand your argument either.I notice you did a major edit of post Message 455 after i responded, but it did nothing to improve it. They are just words that make no sense to anyone but yourself.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Can you clearly and concisely give us what these 'rules of evidence" are?Maybe some authority that accepts these "rules". Just someone that agrees with you about these "rules"Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts