hezekiah jones

Oh?

ex-robot

This may or not apply to you hyzer, but invoking gravity in comparison to evolution is a strawman. Creationists do not dispute directly observable "evolution". The origin of gravity is another matter.

xr

ex-robot

I would bet big money that if you called ICR right now and said do you believe your tenets of biblical creationism should be considered scientific, they would say "No, never claimed that". If I am mistaken based on something you have read, please post it.

xr

hezekiah jones

Obviously. They're professional liars.

The distinction the ICR draws between these two concepts was compelled by "creation science" getting its fraudulent ass kicked in court for being blatantly unconstitutional and a "sham."

Either the ICR considers the Bible thoroughly supported by legitimate scientific inquiry or else the ICR is not a scientific organization. Which is it?

CodeMason

What on earth is this "evolutionary pattern" you speak of, and how can evidence be moulded to fit it? Peppered moths demonstrate a change in allele frequences over time as a result of selection pressures on the population. Whether or not melanism was a new trait or predefined in the exitant gene pool is irrelevent, it is a clear demonstration of the natural selective dynamics of populatons.
Creationists are so caugh up in their delusions that it's very hard for them to admit when they are wrong. And those are just the tip of the iceberg, for example there's the misapplication of Shannon information-theoretic entropy to thermodynamics, Gentry's polonium halos, "falsified" radiocarbon dates, and many, many more.
"Vestigial" means an evolutionary left-over, a sort of recapitulation, which does not imply it is completely useless. Let's just hope you don't get a creationist doctor if your appendix becomes infected, who insists that it is a perfect creation of God and should not be removed.
Please elaborate.
Oh, puh-leaze. Amusingly, whilst some creationist organizations insist that archaeopteryx is completely bird, others cry in similar vain that's it's completely a reptile.
Creation "science" is the worst deliberate abuse of the word "science" in history. One cannot establish a priori how and why the apple drops, they must first learn of the scientifically established principles of gravity. Do you think Newton knew beforehand how and why the apple dropped? But of course, creationists state that their "theory", by definition, cannot be wrong. If all the scientific evidence in the universe (hey, it already does) pointed against creationism, they'd still insist it happened. Ask a real scientist to do this for something like gravity or evolution, and they'd walk away in disgust.

Vorkosigan

Donotworry,

Prosyletizing is really not a good idea for two reasons:

(1) this is a secular philosophical discussion board. Prosyletizing is out of bounds here. You are welcome to post in the Rants & Raves forum.

(2) Nobody will respect you as a thinking person. In order to establish credibility, cease leaving us such gems as "he wants you."

Michael

bluefugue

It'd also change my life if I hammered a nail through my privates. So?

ex-robot

I could care less about these two matters right now. I am still skeptical that the ICR has ever considered its tenets of biblical creationism "scientific".

RufusAtticus

I’ve just about given up on BB’s shenanigans. I think they got tired of being embarrassed by the inadequacy of the creationists to formulate a coherent and honest argument. I wonder how objective the moderator is. Maybe he/she will learn to censor Helen’s lies. Check out her post on speciation. It is full of them. She has informed me that she was part of the editing process. Let’s hope that she doesn’t review the submissions too.
Am I the only one who wonders why the “correct” and “godly” side needs the deck stacked in its favor?

-RvFvS

hezekiah jones

I assume you mean couldn't care less.

Well, maybe you had better read its website, thereby casting aside your errant skepticism and becoming a True Believer™. (You might especially enjoy the ICR's official declaration, as propounded by one of its numerous in-house fruitcakes, Ken Cumming, that the September 11 bombings were motivated by the PBS series Evolution.)

Like I said, the only reason the ICR has separated its doctrines is to provide one steaming heap of unmitigated horseshit for propagation in public schools, and another steaming heap of unmitigated horseshit for propagation in private christian schools. This is because even the deep thinkers at the ICR have finally realized that their cheap fraud hasn't a chance in Sheol of passing constitutional muster.

If the ICR doesn't consider its tenets of Biblical creationism "scientific," then they're even bigger frauds than I mistook them for in the first place.

<a href="http://www.icr.org/bible/tbiatos.htm" target="_blank">The Bible is a Textbook of Science, by Henry M. Morris</a>

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>