ICR Sues Texas

The important part from your link...

quote:

---

The ICR explains, "Due to the nature of ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics a predominantly religious education school it is exempt from licensing by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Likewise, ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics is legally exempt from being required to be accredited by any secular or ecumenical or other type of accrediting association."

---

So they knew all along that their effort had nothing to do with science and everything to do with their religious marketing. Note they also count on not even having to live up to Christian Education Accreditation standards.What chumps.

---

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

You're right, Dr Jones. Thanks. I stand corrected.

dawn bertot writesHooah writes:Uh oh, I was hoping you would be able to see the difference between and observation or statement and an argument.Mine is not an argument in that instance,its a staetmentits your obligation to point out what test I need to conduct besides the one that makes it obvious as VALID EVIDENCE, as much as evidence can be obtainedGamer and overcloker, what in the world is that and should I take you serious in an argumentation arena? ha haShreeks that is not what I said, go back and re-read it then come to me with an argument against it. Dont start debating using the Adequate method, Nanny nanny boo booDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Perhaps you could use spell check so I can understand what the fuck you are saying? Not only is it reprehensible to mis-spell a word that you quote, but even more-so to forgo all usage of punctuation AND fail to formulate a sentence properly. I said overclocker, not overlooker. I know full well what it is that you said. Maybe you should go take a nap and a juice box and wait until the adults are finished speaking.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Now that you have made an assertion go ahead and support a line that I have made that is not true, or atleast that which I cannot demonstrate to be valid as a commentMy suggestion is that you stop yapping and complaining and spend more time showing why the design, that operates in an orderly, cohernt, logical fashion, to produce a specific purpose, SHOULD NOT be considered design and why this is not evidence of design and why it should not be considered as evidenceMy guess is that you cannot demonstrate that in a counterfactual fashion, other that silly word games.I believe the ball is in your court, go ahead and demonstrate why it is not organization, coherent and logicalEven Anthony Flew finally saw this simple point. he could no longer deny the obvious. Im guessing he was a bit more educated than yourself, possibly.See, even intellectual giants can see such a simple point about designDawn Bertot

Because it can be explained without the need for a designer. One ought not introduce an extra element into an explanation where none is necessary.

---

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

Temper now, try and remain true to the sites rules and present evidence to the contrary, that it is NOT organization in the natural world.Lets see your argument, or should I assume you dont have one This from a man that openly admits to being a gamer. Ouch Ok, what is thatDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Explaining how a computer works is not the same as showing that it was not designedThe above is not an argument it is an observation, I said nothing of a designer. Secondly, you need to show evidence that it is not what it actually is, that is organized, coherent behavior to a purposeLets see you argument. if you have none then Ill consider that I use the same rules of observation to formulate data to make it evidenceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Let's try and take this in small steps, shall we? You claim that the orderly, coherent, logical way in which the natural world works is evidence of design. Design implies a designer. Thus, whether you said it or not, your claim imply it. If you are now claiming that the orderly, coherent, logical way the natural world works does not imply a designer, please say so, one way or another. Sorry, I cannot understand what you are saying. How could anyone show evidence that something is not what it is? Once again, I cannot make head nor tail of what you are saying.My position is that if you can explain the existence of something without including a designer, there's no reason to insert one. Do you agree with that or not?{AbE}While I was replying, you added this: True. But I didn't mean explaining how something works. I meant explaining how something came to be.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

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

You are inferring design, not observing it.Otherwise, you would be able to produce rules which would unambiguously differentiate between designed and not designed.Snowflake; quartz crystal; stalagmite and stalactite, etc. What are the rules that unambiguously separate these from items that are designed?

---

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

I created a topic that none of the resident creationists have shown an interest in: "Creation Science" experiments. I used your example as the first contestant: Message 7. Now, care to join me there as the current banter we have has absolutely shit to do with ICR and their abysmal attempt to sue the State of Texas? Don't actually try anything yourself, you might strain your brain muscle.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

I'm sorry. A Purpose? Get real.Were is there any indication that any pieces part has a purpose?What does that have to do with the topic?

---

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

*Edited by Percy, : Duplicate post.

Hi Buz,You've been telling us that what you call secular science is different from intelligent design science, and we agree. Texas provides accreditation for what you're calling secular science, not intelligent design science. ICR doesn't even teach intelligent design science, they teach creation science. Steve Austin does creation science. In the opinion of what you're calling secular science, neither intelligent design science nor creation science are science.Intelligent design and creation must present their evidence and arguments in the venues of mainstream science in order to have any chance at all at building a scientific consensus for their views. The tiny percentage of scientists who accept creationist and ID views either work in unrelated fields of science, or they avoid the venues of mainstream science.--Percy

Ah, you're talking about that book ghost written by Roy Abraham Varghese.I saw Flew on television after that poor man was persuaded to allow his name to be affixed to that nonsense. He could barely construct an intelligible sentence.Do you consider him "an intellectual giant" because of his life- long championing of atheism or his association with creationist hoaxters in his senescence?That whole episode is a canker on the face of creationism.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

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