ICR Sues Texas

It's alternative sciences that need be left alone and recognized as an alternative real science by definition, in that real accredited scientists subsribe to it, albeit that it is from the ID premise, ID having some supportive aspects.This IDist premise vs naturalistic premise debate has not been won yet by either side, though you non-IDists would like to think and act as if it was.

---

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

lOL. The many evidences supportive to ID and the Biblical record which have been cited over the years right here on this site are simply waived off as non-existent by the majority secularist constituency.Basic science premises vary according to how evidences are interpreted. Premises are hypothetical prerequisites to research.

---

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

There is no such thing as Alternative Science. The IDist premise is worthless and irrelevant even if true.ICR does not and cannot do Science. They can propagandize, market, promote or proselytize, but the cannot by definition, do Science.There are two main reasons that support those positions.First on why ID is irrelevant and unimportant.Design is an engineering subject. It is model, process and procedures.The end result is a product.Any product is open to reverse engineering. Just based on the product itself it is possible to figure out ways (often better ways then those used in the initial design) to duplicate the product.The only value of the original designer is in the areas of historical attribution and in accounting.Even if there was a Designer, the Designer is irrelevant outside those two narrow areas.Now as to why ICR cannot EVER do Science.ICR starts with a conclusion, that the Bible is historically and factually true.Because they have that inbuilt limitation, they cannot do real Science and waste time trying to find some miracle way to make long refuted Bible myths true.Some great examples are the Biblical Flood (the lack of a genetic bottleneck marker common to all living species totally refutes the Biblical Flood), the Age of the Earth (Uranium halos totally refute a young earth) and some weird Pre-Flood environment that was significantly different than today (Oetzi and the literally millions of samples of life dating back to before the alleged Flood date totally refute that nonsense).They begin with a conclusion.That alone means they cannot do Science.Until ICR is willing to Throw God and the Bible Myths Away, they will never do Science.

---

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

The "alternative" science you are referring to is the opposite of real science. It starts out with a conclusion and seeks only evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring, misrepresenting, or denying any evidence that contradicts it. This is called creation "science" and it differs from religious apologetics in name only. Some premises lead to discoveries, others seek only to support certain a priori beliefs.Face it, your ID premise leads nowhere. It was "designed" to promote a particular narrow view of religion. No discoveries are forthcoming, as discoveries are not it's purpose. Look at the Discovery Institute--what have they discovered over the years? They are promoting a particular religious view, dishonestly pretending that they are doing real science.So I ask again, if your "alternative" science is so good, why don't you guys found a discipline based on it and run with it? Surely if it provides such a superior outcome it will prove itself in short order, right?Why do you keep harassing science and trying to get science to change the way it functions? Just start your own discipline.(Actually, we all know the answer to this, now don't we? And this is the reason that ICR is being refused accreditation in Texas.)

---

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

Yet when asked you never produce links to any of that alleged evidence.

---

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

Again, ID supportive discoveries such as the Nuweiba Aqaba Exodus evidence is simply waived off by secularist members here and by secularist marine researchers like Robert Ballard who has yet, so far as I am aware, to even research the site.

---

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

Perhaps you can start a thread where you can present that alleged evidence.

---

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

Did Galileo need to know the origin of every rock in order to determine that a small rock and a large rock fall at the same rate?We don't need to know the origin of life in order to know that it evolves. That is my question to you. How do we test for this? If it is untestable then it is not science. I am not asking for the origin of the designer. I am not asking how the designer came about. I am asking for evidence that the designer exists. All evolution needs is for life to exist, and we have that evidence. We don't need to know where the first life came from in order to test the theory of evolution. DNA paternity tests work just fine without knowing where the first life came from, as one example. The show me how to test it. Describe and experiment that can be run to test this hypothesis. Also, describe the observations that would falsify this hypothesis, the things one should not see in the experimental results if design is true. IOW, take the step beyond rhetoric and show us the science. In order to have evidence you need hypotheses that make specific predictions. So what are these specific predictions and what are the experiments that can test these predictions? That is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. You seem to ignore a third option: both are wrong. However unlikely, it is still possible that life changes over time through a natural process that is different than that described by the theory of evolution.As an example, I could have set up the same dichotomy for Newtonian gravity and gravity fairies. Either Newton's laws were right or gravity fairies were right. Since the orbit of Mercury and other observations demonstrated that Newtonian gravity was wrong then it had to be gravity fairies, right? Of course, this ignores a third possibility, both are wrong, and in fact that is the case. As it turns out Relativity is the right answer. The problem here is that you get both logic and the scientific method wrong. You don't understand how the scientific method works, and you base arguments on logicla fallacies.

But there's one big difference: real science abandons those hypotheses that are contradicted by the evidence! Religious apologetics can't abandon it's beliefs no matter what the evidence to the contrary because they are beliefs.Good examples are the young earth belief and the belief that there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago. These are conclusions of religious belief that can't be abandoned no matter how much evidence is found that disproves them.So don't give me any more nonsense. It is clear from reading what you creationists write that scientists are the only ones who's research and methodology is science. You prove that with most every post. Both nonsense and a non sequitur. Isn't it ironic that you are trying to show how much ID resembles science, and the example you choose is some event straight out of the bible?Face it: ID is not science and while it's purpose is to push a particular religious belief there is no way it can ever be. And science is not going to change it's methods to accommodate creationists' religious beliefs no matter how much they whine about it.If you think you have the truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even the TRVTH, go ahead and found a discipline to pursue it and leave real science alone.

---

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

So how would you define the scientific method so that ID and Creationism could fit under the banner of science?

Perhaps the same way Dembski did --- by including astrology too.

quote:

---

Again, ID supportive discoveries such as the Nuweiba Aqaba Exodus evidence is simply waived off by secularist members here and by secularist marine researchers like Robert Ballard who has yet, so far as I am aware, to even research the site.

---

I doubt that you know anything about Ballard's attitude to the "evidence" beyond the fact that he hasn't investigated the site.As for the people here, you know perfectly well that the pathetic evidence on offer was examined and dismissed for cause.Amazingly this claim is even unfair to the ICR which does not buy into Ron Wyatt's nonsense either. Way to go Buz, trying to make creationism look even worse than it really is !

Wasn't that Behe?

You're quite right, thank you.

You are using a computer that was produced by science. You drive a car that was produced by science. We sent men to the moon using science. Millions of lives are saved by medicine that is a result of science. Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? (A University of Minnesota alum I might point out.) He used science to revolutionize farming and has saved tens of millions of lives.Even if the IDiot bullshit had ever produced one single discovery useful to humankind, (please, if you wish to claim that is has, provide a specific example) it would pale into nothingness in comparison to the countless myriad ways science has improved everyone's life, including even yours. The debate was won even before the first IDiot coined the term intelligent design. And you ignoring this message won't make it the least bit less accurate.

---

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