ICR Sues Texas

As soon as you said "Star Trek" a deep hidden memory surfaced. I am not going to google it till we hear from subbie.

---

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

So you didn't go to a real college? By real I mean one that taught actual science.

---

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

Wrong

quote:

---

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers...
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

---

Please read
Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

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

Why cannot any IDer show any scientific evidence for design? Also, I see that you agree that ID is just creationism in a lighter, friendlier package.I posted this link earlier on another thread but it seems to be appropriate here too.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
I think you need to understand what a Theory is before you start throwing the word around.

---

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

It amazes me that in the almost 3 years since you started posting here that you still do not understand the very basics about the Theory of Evolution. The TOE is not about and says nothing about origins. Can you just learn the basics of what it is about before you make wild ass claims against it?

---

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

You really seem to be confused as to what a Scientific Theory is.
In case you decline to read the link I posted above I will quote it here.

quote:

---

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

​

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

​

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

​

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

​

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

​

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

​

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

​

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

​

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

​

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

---

Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comIt is not a guess. It is an explanation of facts.

---

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

Why don't you go for that Nobel prize and show us this theory of design. Is there any way to go through the denseness so you will learn that the TOE has nothing to do with how life began?

---

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

I see that if you read the link you didn't understand it.

quote:

---

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

---

If the evidence is as good for design as evolution, how come no one publishes papers about this "theory"? How about showing some of this evidence for design? I dont mean evidence against evolution, I mean evidence FOR design.

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

For example?

---

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

Is that what happens when you take to much Milk of Magnesia before court?

If this list is of people doing ID research how come none are publishing anything?

quote:

---

600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

---

Lets see the list of people and their credentials. Then I want to see the ID research they have done.

quote:

---

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

---

These are the yahoos that claimed they found Noah's Ark earlier this year. How come we haven't heard any more about that? If he invented alloys why don't they list the actual alloys. Everything I can find on him says he "worked" on high tech alloys, not invented.The rest is laughable. A number of these people are not even from withing the last 100 years. Of course Da Vinci believed in creationism. There was no other alternative. When you use arguments like this it really looks like you have no faith in your beliefs.I really don't think Charles Babbage did any research into ID. Either you don't understand or you are being deceptive. No where does it say any of the people on any of these lists are doing ID research.I love this line

quote:

---

Secular researcher Richard Milton

---

This guy is more of a nutball than you are.

quote:

---

According to Milton:[3]

​

* Cold fusion is a real phenomenon. Furthermore, the standard solar model is flawed, and the sun may in fact be powered by a cold fusion process.
* Alternative medical concepts, such as bioenergy, homeopathy and iridology are scientifically valid.
* Paranormal phenomena, such as psychokinesis and remote viewing are real.
* There is evidence for the luminiferous ether, but it is ignored because it contradicts the theory of relativity.

---

quote:

---

Milton also appeared on The Mysterious Origins of Man, a television documentary arguing that mankind has lived on the Earth for tens of millions of years, and that mainstream scientists have suppressed supporting evidence.

---

SourceThe link you provided isn't worth the click it took me to get to it. It says nothing and it means nothing. It does not say or imply what you said it does. Thanks for wasting 10 mins of my life that i will never get back.

---

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

This is a strawman and misrepresentation of the TOE. TOE has nothing to do with origins. I think this has been pointed out numerous times. I do not think anyone you are debating with has posited a theory of the origin of life, or the origin of anything.Remember the topic is evolution and design, not abiogenesis and/or special creation.Do I need to get simpler for you?You see your snippy, catty remarks bring nothing to the debate. Do you notice that no one is supporting you? If no one understands you, maybe you are the one with the comprehension issues.

---

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

All well and good, but what does this line of argument have to do with the subject. If neither design or TOE have anything to do with origins why bring it up. Other than to muddy the waters or you don't understand your argument either.I notice you did a major edit of post Message 455 after i responded, but it did nothing to improve it. They are just words that make no sense to anyone but yourself.

---

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

Can you clearly and concisely give us what these 'rules of evidence" are?Maybe some authority that accepts these "rules". Just someone that agrees with you about these "rules"Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

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