ICR Sues Texas

My understanding is that all involve ICR research. They are examples of what ICR teaches in their graduate school as well. Not cited on my list of examples, if you access the link and read the whole list are papers on both Mt St Helens and the Grand Canyon. I have videos of both from ICR showing their on site scientific research.Please cite evidence if you think I'm mistaken.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

And you'll be the judge of what things are designed.Watch out, Buz, that circular argument is right behind you P.S. Snowflakes are made fresh each snowfall.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

No, I'm sure they have papers.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

I expect some fairnes and balance. As usual secularists insist on their majority bully pulpit science to be exclusively allowed for accreditation. The peer reviews have the same attitude towards what is considered science. None other need apply.

Do you have any evidence that the ICR was subject to standards different from any other institution?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

If they are so proud of this research why is it only found on their website? Why don't they publish in science journals?

---

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

ICR's version of science is anti-science, and you know it. Henry Morris has provided us with the statement, "The creation revelation in Scripture is thus supported by all true facts of nature..." His "The Tenets of Creationism" provides us with the following (from the ICR website):Tenets of Scientific Creationism

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
  
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
  
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
  
• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
  
• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
  
• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
  
• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
  
• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
  
• Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.

Tenets of Biblical Creationism

• The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  
• There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.
  
• The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
  
• All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
  
• The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.
  
• The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
  
• The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ we are indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.
  
• The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and eternal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
  
• The eventual accomplishment of God's eternal purposes in creation, with the removal of His curse and the restoration of all things to divine perfection, will take place at the personal bodily return to Earth of Jesus Christ to judge and purge sin and to establish His eternal kingdom.
  
• Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation," by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such.
  

(Yellow highlighting added.)Now Buz, do you see any resemblance to science in this? I don't. What I see is overriding dogma, which will not permit any scientific evidence to the contrary. They have no interest in science, nor are they willing to follow it's methods because it's findings contradict their beliefs.So don't pretend what the ICR, and those who follow in it's footsteps, does is science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Because those mean ole scientists make 'em do real science work before they accept it. Bunch of secular elitists (even the Christian ones).

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Just working from the partial list you posted, do you suppose there are some experiments in those papers that I could try to replicate?I haven't looked yet, but I think, "Probably not." How about you?

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

And away we go.I see no real disagreement in the above classification as to what might be reguarded as an evidential process, except for the fact that it is incomplete.It does not include the fact that these events, observations, experimentations are of unobserved events. they do not include observation, of even the conclusion of the alledged process,if there were such a thingWithout playing word games about the theory of a thing or the fact of it, or the hypothosis of it, that which is described as factual and demonstratable as evidence, in this case evolution, assigns itself to incomplete evidence, hence its EVIDENCE is of a certain type, namley unobserved, yet these points are not serious considered when formulating a theory of EVIDENCENow watch, whether evo is true or not is not the issue, the method of evidential adminstration is, and is in question.Thus if evo can be demonstrated as factual, and proclaimed as factual, yet unobserved, it is relying SOLEY on the evidence at hand and assumes its starting source or the fact that it needed a source to begin with. By doing this it sets a standard of evaluation, that has to apply across the board (no pun intended)Now the options are obvious, drop the idea that evo is actually factual, because the process cannot be actually observed. or incluse in and as evidence, that one can know a certain thing based on evidence without having witnessed the event or its originating sourceIn a court of law, with overwhelming evidence that a certain crime had taken place and that certain person had committed that crime, no one would say, well we didnt see him actually commit the crime, so the evidence is no evidence at all.I dont need to demonstrate how the designer changes and manipulates, or even bring the designer into the lab and put him on the table, to demonstrate that evo accepts as factual, event that unobserved designer and proclaims things as factualThus design, yet unobserved by its designer, or the designer himself has enough evidence within itself, to constitue evidence IF THE SAME STANDARDS of evidence ARE APPLIED, in each situation equally. They are not.it is ludicrous to assume asyou have suggested Adequate that evolution succeds, where design fails, using the same rules, when there is not a single piece of that process that is differentSome want to complicate and cloud the issue of what is evidental with alot of details and terminology, but logic will bring it back to its simplicity and demonstrate its not as complicate as it may seem.logic takes over where the DATA stopsIts that simple jar, its really that simple If your subtleies include the fact that these events are considered as factual even though unobserved, then i have spoken to quicklyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

DB writesJar writesAs i have tried to instruct you before, we are not talking about evo, design or the designer directly, we are talking about the rules of evidence. those are examples that illustrate how evidence is gathered to formulate a theory of evidenceOnce the theory is agreed upon about unobserved events and the same standards are applied to each, then ofcourse the designer matters as well as would the initiator of the evo processBut if you are satisfied with examining just data as only data and drawing even, restricted conclusions, I would still have to say your evidence was unobserved.So since you have failed in our lengthy debate to answer the question, I have put to you to many times to mention now., Ill ask it againIs it possible know a thing as factual, at present, observing only the present data, having not observed that event. ?. Yes or NoAs an example, Evolution or possibly design. what would be the difference in the evidence process, if the rules of evidence are applied equally to each situationif evolution is true and you are not worried about its source, or this is not an important point, then of course design could be design based upon its properties, laws and order, without worring about brining the designer in, correct?The rule of evidence ashould apply across the board, correct?
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No it isn't. That's the scientific method. Concise, yes, but it's all there. Demonstrable by evidence. No it isn't. Yes, well done. That doesn't seem to mean anything. The standard of evaluation is the scientific method.Whatever pun you didn't intend to make, you have successfully avoided making it. Quite so. That wasn't English. Yes they are. I've explained the method. I was hoping you'd at least try to apply it to creationism, but it seems that you found yourself unable or unwilling to make the attempt. The process is different.Suppose John Smith is shot.We find Fred Blogg's fingerprints on the gun at the scene of the crime, we find gunpowder residue on his hands, we find bloodspatter on his clothing that DNA tests shows to be the blood of John Smith ... and you have a dream in which an angel tells you that the murder was done by William Brown.The fact that neither man was observed to commit the crime does not mean that the same process was used to implicate both men. I can make nothing of your rhetoric. Certainly if I was to write a book on the scientific method, I should give examples of how science can provide us with evidence of things we haven't personally witnessed. But this is already evident from my description of the scientific method.And, after all, if our initial hypothesis was that something that we saw happening happened, we should hardly be in need of science.

You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct. You did not observe the event of evolution, you evidence is incomplete and the implication is obvious to design, that design is as factual as any rules applied to evo.As I stated before this is not an attack on evolution but the rules you apply to demonstrate it as factualif its all there then you must have witnessed the event first hand. otherwise both your evidence and your logic is silly beyond beief.If your conclusion is true concerning the evidence for evo, then all the evidence I need for desgn is there as well.As I suspected most people havent thought of the logical implications of their contrived scientific method. But I am certainly not saying its not useful only biased and illogical this is an idiotic illustration on how the evidence about how design is observed and evaluated and how it should be processed as evidenceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yes.Having managed to get that right, you should have quit while you were ahead. You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct? You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct? You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct? You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct? You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct? I suppose that might be your real name.

i do it is just that secularists want to determine what is or isn't science and that is not within their authority. they are biased, deceived and do not want the truth rendering their rules to be unqualified to determne what is or isn't science. et in the theory and practice of evolution, there is over-riding dogma from the evolutionists. you cannot have it both ways. oh and the process and theory are not scientific for the rules are altered to disallow objectivity and honesty and truth. there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.
people do not speak of certain things because they fear losing their academic standing, their careers, their homes and so much more.it is all bullying by the secularists. but they do have interest in science; they just do not have any interest in secular science or its lies and false methods. secular science's methods are not infallible nor of God thus they do not have to follow them. plus secular science's methods are not designed to lookin the right places for the right answers, coupled with the fact that secular science has no interest in the truth or answers making it an act of futility.no wonder christians do not want to do things the secular scientific way, they want the correct answers and not waste time in getting them.the secularists need to remember that they do ot won the field of science and do not have the authority to say what is or isn't scientific work.if you think you do own it, then please produce the valid and correct original bill of sale from God.