ICR Sues Texas

you can't even replicate original changes done by your so-called process of evolution so why are you asking to replicate creationists' work? practice what you preach.for you to replicate your theory's claimed changes you must remove the scientists, remove the lab, remove the ideal conditions, remove any foreign material injected by the scientists into the test animals, remove the test animals and so on till the conditions are exactly like it was when those supposed changes took place. then you will have to sit there for a million years or so and see if the changes occur as was initially claimed by darwin.{keep in mind no evolutionist knows what those orignal conditions were, but you probably would have to remove all technology, cities, and so on to get to it.}if you cannot do that then your theory is false and a lie and you cannot demand of creationists to replicate their work.

The proper place to take problems with discussion is Report discussion problems here: No.2.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What you said in Message 133 that I was responding to was: "Secularist minded science elitists?" "Higher power?" Those are clear expressions of an anti-science attitude.Like I said, ICR would probably tend to agree with you, and this anti-science attitude combined with appeals to a higher power were probably significant contributors to Texas's decision to deny ICR accreditation.--Percy

Hi Dawn Bertot,"Unobserved evidence" seems like a contradiction in terms. Do you have any examples of science relying upon unobserved evidence in support of theory? Observations of course include those that are indirect or assisted by technology and/or instrumentation.--Percy

This is oddly phrased, but if I understand you correctly then yes, of course it is possible to establish facts about past events that left evidence behind.Could you clearly describe two things so that we could make an actual comparison:

1. The rules of science to which creation and ID are held.
   ​
2. The rules of science for everyone else.

--Percy

The above (abe: does not reflect non-science. ) It (abe: aludes to two science premises; the secularistic scientific interpretive mindset and the creationist "higher power" interpretive mindset; interpretive relating to how researched observations are interpreted.For example, in the Grand Canyon video which I acquired from ICR, floodist interpretations are expained as on site researchers show on site layering and explain their floodist interpretations of what those sediment layers tell us. Edited by Buzsaw, : clarify statements

---

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

Hi Archaeologist,I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to suspend you again. I've been trying to encourage you to make positive contributions to moving discussion constructively forward, but you instead continue to repeat the same assertions over and over again. For example, perhaps you have reasons for why you believe these things:

• "it is just that secularists want to determine what is or isn't science and that is not within their authority...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."
  ​
• "the process and theory are not scientific for the rules are altered to disallow objectivity and honesty and truth."
  ​
• "it is all bullying by the secularists."
  ​
• "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."

If you do have evidence and argument supporting these beliefs then it is time to begin including them in your responses. In the absence of such support, please do not repeat these any more. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Though I wouldn't agree to some of what you cited, I see it all as relative to from which science hypothetical premise one interprets scientific research.For one thing, the non-floodist premise assumes a more relatively recent uniformitarian planet and atmosphere than the floodist premise assumes in scientific research interpretations.

---

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

Hi Buz,You screwed up your edits, but I understand what you were trying to say. In your mind there are two kinds of science, secular science and creation science. The kind of science Texas is looking for when they provide accreditation is what you're calling secular science. Sticking with your terminology, ICR provides an anti-secular science curriculum, yet they want accreditation from Texas that they are providing an adequate secular science curriculum.In reality there's only one kind of science. It employs observations, experiment and the scientific method to develop an ever improving understanding of the natural universe. If ICR wants accreditation from Texas then they must begin teaching this kind of science.--Percy

Please read what you write and are responding to.You even quoted it.

quote:

---

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.

---

You talk about a set of laws and rules.Once those laws and rules are understood the designer becomes irrelevant, nothing more than a footnote, unimportant except is an accounting or historical sense.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'll take that as a no.Experiments don't try to replicate reality, they try to elucidate data and inferences that tell us something about reality. You can't replicate a Seven Day Creation, either, but you consider it real. If creationists claim to do science, they should perform experiments that can be done by others with the same results.The replicability of experimental results is crucial to science. Say a couple of fellows claim to have discovered a cold fusion process. That's pretty exciting--until everyone who follows their methodologies precisely fails to obtain the same results.So I do, indeed, follow what I preach: I don't accept the results of any experiment until it has been replicated by other experimenters. The experimenters' religion is irrelevant.My point, of course, is that "science" without replicable results isn't "science" at all. As far as I can tell, the ICR doesn't perform any experiments at all, let alone replicable ones.

---

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

I meant an unobserved event. I will pick up the discussion on evidence here, Adequate seems to add nothing of debating content or value to the arguments. No offence intendedDawn Bertot

Not in a discussion concerning whether design is evidence or not. The discussion concerns how to estblish evidence, not the rellevance othe designer. Those are illustrations. Im happy to discuss the examples and ilustrations in connection with that concept.Do you see what I am sayingDawn Bertot

So then what is evidence of design, not appearance of design, but actual design.

---

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

Obviously not. So far all I see is word salad.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!