|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Omnivorous writes: Hi, Buz.It looks like your list is just a bunch of technical papers never published anywhere but the ICR site. Is that right? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Buz writes: Coyote, my point was intended to refer to things designed in the here and now. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Buz writes: Please cite evidence if you think I'm mistaken. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Omnivorous writes: Are you opposed to all accreditation of schools? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I expect some fairnes and balance. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
ICR's version of science should not be subject to what the government of Texas considers to be suitable for accreditation. 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
Tenets of Biblical Creationism
(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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
If they are so proud of this research why is it only found on their website? Why don't they publish in science journals? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Buz writes: The peer reviews have the same attitude towards what is considered science. None other need apply. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
(1) Formulate a hypothesis amenable to steps (2) and (3). (2) Derive predictions from the hypothesis (i.e. figure out the logical consequences of it being true). (3) Compare the predictions against observation to see if they match up. A hypothesis that passes this test can be elevated to the status of a theory, and must be taken as true unless and until sufficient observations have been made contrary to the predictions to require it to be revised or abandoned. There are some subtleties I have skipped over because I'm too busy to write a book on the scientific method tonight, but that gives you the general idea. 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 thing Without 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 EVIDENCE Now 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 source In 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 factual Thus 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 different Some 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 stops Its that simple jar, its really that simple
There are some subtleties I have skipped over because I'm too busy to write a book on the scientific method tonight, but that gives you the general idea. If your subtleies include the fact that these events are considered as factual even though unobserved, then i have spoken to quickly Dawn Bertot 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. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DB writes
the manipulation as you describe it is in its self sustaining, self supported, independent order that it adheres to in the first place. It carries out a preprogrammed set of laws and rules. Jar writesThen the designer is irrelevant and unimportant. Throw the designer away as unneeded. As 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 evidence Once 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 process But 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 again Is it possible know a thing as factual, at present, observing only the present data, having not observed that event. ?. Yes or No As 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 situation if 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 Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. No it isn't. That's the scientific method. Concise, yes, but it's all there.
Without 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 Demonstrable by evidence.
, assigns itself to incomplete evidence, hence its EVIDENCE is of a certain type, namley unobserved ... No it isn't.
Thus if evo can be demonstrated as factual, and proclaimed as factual, yet unobserved, it is relying SOLEY on the evidence at hand ... Yes, well done.
... and assumes its starting source or the fact that it needed a source to begin with. That doesn't seem to mean anything.
By doing this it sets a standard of evaluation, that has to apply across the board (no pun intended) The standard of evaluation is the scientific method. Whatever pun you didn't intend to make, you have successfully avoided making it.
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 source In 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. Quite so.
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 factual That wasn't English.
Thus 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. 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.
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 different 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.
Some 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 stops I can make nothing of your rhetoric.
If your subtleies include the fact that these events are considered as factual even though unobserved, then i have spoken to quickly 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
No it isn't. That's the scientific method. Concise, yes, but it's all there. 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 factual if 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
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. this is an idiotic illustration on how the evidence about how design is observed and evaluated and how it should be processed as evidence Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct. Yes. Having managed to get that right, you should have quit while you were ahead.
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. You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct?
if its all there then you must have witnessed the event first hand. otherwise both your evidence and your logic is silly beyond beief. You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct?
If your conclusion is true concerning the evidence for evo, then all the evidence I need for desgn is there as well. You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct?
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 You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct?
this is an idiotic illustration on how the evidence about how design is observed and evaluated and how it should be processed as evidence You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct?
Dawn Bertot I suppose that might be your real name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Now Buz, do you see any resemblance to science in this 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.
What I see is overriding dogma 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.
which will not permit any scientific evidence to the contrary 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.
They have no interest in science but they do have interest in science; they just do not have any interest in secular science or its lies and false methods.
nor are they willing to follow it's methods because it's findings contradict their beliefs. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024