ICR Sues Texas

i avoid using it if possible but if someone is going to quote an article, it is up to them to post the link. i am not going to do their work for them. no that is backwards and even many scientists have found this to be not true. read 'the slaughter of the dissidents' to get an idea of how many really do not accept this line of thinking or evolution. this is one thing that secularists need to understand about religion, they cannot go around lumping everyone into one category, to be part of the Bible one has to follow God's rules and instructions and if they deviate from and change them then they are not par tof God's kingdom nor christian.they are what are called false teachers, which brings me back to the rules i mentioned in another thread. it is either true or false, no inbetween. one has to be discerning and Paul laid out one of the main criteria to judge whatis true or false--'if anyone brings a different gospel than the one Jesus and His disciples brought...' that is one way how we know who is or isn't a christian. and that is why you cannot rely, depend, trust secular science--they are not looking for answers and many people die not knowing anything because they looked to science and they are lost. God is a God of answers and you get to choose that is why the Bible is better than wscience, we get answers and do not have to waste time, energy or money looking for them.yes we still can investigate how solar systems work, how plants grow, , how earthquakes and thunder are produced and so on but we do not have to question origins. i really wish you would quit tellingme things i already know. doesn't matter, that is the wrong way to do things because this workld and the universe did not come into existance via natural means, so open your mind instead of repeating the standard party line. no that i snot really true. most people credit the greeks but guess who they got it from--the babylonians and other more advanced ancient civilizations. as i said in another thread, the babylonians had the pythagorium theory 2,000 years before pythagorius. so if you want to credit someone, go to the egyptians the babylonians, the assyrians and the sumerians. i see you are describing yourself again, i am in line with God's word and that is the only thing i have to be in line with. the former: people have free choice an dif they do not like a doctrine or worship style, they get enough like-minded people and go off and start their own church.the latter: not true. there are many like the original or there would be no light left in the world to show the unbelievers the true way to go.

here is an update and analysis by a non-christian:http://www.texscience.org/...awsuit-analysis-2009April20.htmand another analysis:You Don’t Trust Creationists With Your Science Education… Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust Their Lawyers, Either | Evaluating Christianitythe california decision:The Skeptic Files - SkepticFiles Settingicrs website, i couldn't find anything about their lawsuit yetThe Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Researchone of the things that bothers me is that the christian university/college/seminary does not need to be recognized by the secular world nor does it need to put itself under secular rules. by looking for accreditation or recognition by the secualr world then their curriculums are overseen by those who do not believe and it causes problems, as we can see by the lawsuits.christians, and by extension their educational institutions, are to be the light to the world thus they should set their own rules, and strive to teach the best material possible in the best way that is glorifying to Christ. we do not need our degrees rexcognized by harvard or secualr institutions for that is not our goal. our goal is to teach the truth, teach it correctly andprepare our youth for the spiritual war that they will face.sadly, that is not done and we have a weakened church because of it.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Quite right, precious little of what the ICR (and other organisations like it) teaches is true.

So many Christian sects, so little time. Why don't you explain to us the difference in interpretation of God's rules that makes you right and, say, the Methodists wrong? If this were true then the best scientific answers would flow out of conservative Christian colleges and universities, but for the most part no scientific answers at all come from these institutions. Of the Christian institutions that you believe have the correct interpretation of God's rules, can you name any that have made a contribution to modern science? Why should science not ask questions about origins? Or about anything, for that matter? Where is this rule found in the Bible, and if you find it, how do you know it is a rule of God and not simply what some person wrote down?I presume you believe it's okay for science to ask questions about paternity. DNA tests do this pretty well. So you presumably agree DNA testing can go back one generation.How about two generations? Do you believe DNA testing can trace back two generations? If not, why not?How about three generations?You can see where I'm going here. At what point do you believe DNA testing is no longer valid for determining relatedness, and why? Yes, that's exactly what your people did.--Percy

Not really. The material you link to is prior to the judgment reported in post #31. That should be "any more", not "yet".They did have information on it on their website, but apparently they took it down --- the writer in the link suggests that they did so out of embarrassment, but this is not an emotion that one readily associates with YECs. Who knows why creationists do what they do? But one might speculate that since they never get even the tiniest sign of approval from their god, they are obliged to seek it from men.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That is called the tactic of avoidance and sadly the Christian Cult of Ignorance seems to be adopting it en masse.The problem is that the world actually exists and many kids can actually think and if you are not very, very careful those kids open their eyes and see that you have been teaching them nonsense. When that happens they no longer see as a child, think as a child, no longer see through a glass darkly. They realize that since you were wrong about the things that can be checked, not just some of the things that can be checked but all of the things that can be checked, you are likely wrong about everything else.The result is that the kids totally abandon Christianity.Too bad but I'm sure Satan really appreciates your efforts.

---

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

that is a matter of opinion but to get a dig in here------ evolution is not correct. i never said the methodists were wrong, nor the baptists, nor the nazerenes and many other like minded denominations. if the denomination holds to the basic doctrines that comprise christianity then their beliefs are not wrong. even some pentecostal ones. it is when they err in doctrine do they become wrong.say the united church or the episcopoal one where they are ordaining homosexuals--that is just wrong and against scripture. you ave to check their beliefs against scripture to make sure they belief the truth. that is subjective and depends upon what you consider scientific answers and what is the best? your way? at best, science canonly provide answers about tectonics, volcanoes, how bodies functions, and so on. it cannot discuss origins nor claim that evolution exists, fo the former is outside of its scope and the latter never existed. because the answer has already been provided. and we take it by faith partof the equation made by God. i do not see ow you will be able to replicate a one time supernatural act when science and scientists do not possess God's power. my felings on DNA are that it is good as far as the researchers are honest and that research is easily manipulated, subject to social, political, academic & legal pressures which influence the results {we have all heard of the forensic scientists who have altered their tests to convict criminals}so it is like the rest of science, done wrong, it is very wrong, done right, it can be ofhelp {and in the science thread I posted links to articles where DNA can be faked so i do not trust secular scientists, and some christian ones when they claim certain results}. it has little to do with how many genrations it goes back and more with WHOM is doing the research. sorry, i posted what i could find, though som ei knew were older. i wouldn't know that i think that ICR went too far. actually we do but too many want to do things their own way not God's. no, wrong again. no. the problem is that the secular world rejects the existence of the devil and think everything is okay and that no deception is going on. what is it that they say...'the first thing the devil did was convince people he did not exist...' people abandoned christianity for many reasons with some being they want what the world offers and do not want to suffer with Christ.you cannot have christianity and say you believe God then start adding in secular thinking to the mix. that is not christianity but disobedience to God who gave clear instructions not to follow the unbelieving world.for many the lure of secular science is too appealing for them to ignore it, thus they choose that over truth. Christianity is not about science, the truth is not about science nor completely found in it {it has some truth--not evoution--but...}in all the years i have been discussing science with atheists and evolutionists, there is one common thread or theme. they think all science is good and they never look onthe evil science has wrought.to start: dr. mengeles and other nazi scientists; pestilance, poisons; tools of war- tanks, napalm, mustard gas...; medicines which bring severe side effects, worse than the disease itself; and so much more.you cannot overlook the evil because the field is telling you what you want to hear about origins and crops and health. to do so is hypocritical and destroys your credibility/

And if this nonsense applied to real people rather than to imaginary people who live in your head, you'd have a point.Really, in your fantasy world I don't disapprove of Dr Mengele?That's even funnier than creationism.

Sure you did. Back in Message 40 about the clergy letter supporting evolution you said: In your next Message 46 you followed this by saying: The Methodists accept evolution, and a great many Methodist pastors are signatories to the clergy letter. What is the difference in interpretation of God's rules that makes you right and the Methodists not only wrong, but not even "part of God's kingdom nor Christian?" So you think that origins are outside of the scope of science, and that evolution has "never existed," but you don't appear to have thought this through. Science can study the evolutionary changes between you and your parents. And it can study the evolutionary changes between your parents and your grandparents, and so forth back through time. What criteria are you applying to decide where science has gone outside it's scope, since all it's doing is studying the natural world?Most creationists accept that evolution happens, and many creationists even insist on hyper-evolution having taken place after the flood in order to explain the huge amount of genetic diversity we see today arising in such a short time, just a few thousand years. They make this claim because if, for example, there were only 2 kangaroos on the ark then in the absence of evolution there could be at most 4 alleles for any kangaroo gene. But there are scores of alleles for some kangaroo genes, and the only way that could happen in just a few thousand years is hyper-evolution.We know evolution happens from the simple fact that reproduction is imperfect. On average each human being has about a hundred mutational differences from their parents. This means they have around a hundred places in their genes where the nucleotide sequence doesn't match any sequence from their mother or father. At heart evolution is just alleles changing over time, and each reproductive event changes some of the alleles due to mutations. Ah, yes, the great evolution conspiracy again, engaged in by scientists of all religions and no religion, and from all nations and all cultures.When you find evidence of what DNA research the researchers have not been honest about or that has been manipulated due to "social, political, academic & legal pressures" then you please let us know, but until then perhaps you could just answer the question, which I'll repeat:I presume you believe it's okay for science to ask questions about paternity. DNA tests do this pretty well. So you presumably agree DNA testing can go back one generation.How about two generations? Do you believe DNA testing can trace back two generations? If not, why not?How about three generations?You can see where I'm going here. At what point do you believe DNA testing is no longer valid for determining relatedness, and why?--Percy

and here is a good reason why there cannever be a good discussionbetween christians and secularists, thelatter refuses to acknowledge the evil side f science and the evil people who help populate it.shall we talk eugenics next? and the horrors the american government did to people in the name of science? this brings up another good reason why it is difficult to have a discussion with secularists--they over-generalize. the clergy do not make up all the methodists nor methodist denominations.this methodist denom. believes in God the creator:Home - Bethany United Methodist Church
and this one as wellFree Methodist Church - Wikipediaat least from their official positions. i am going to stop right there as you seem to be too closed minded to entertain opposing viewpoints. there are no evolutionary changes between generations, that is simple brainwashing to think otherwise. it doesn't matter how many people accept or agree to the false theory of evolution it is still not responsible nor has it ever existed. never said that, so don't read into my words what you want me to say. my statement merely meant the character, the ability and so on and had nothing to do with a conspiracy. you obviously do not listen to the news very much. there was a lady out in new jersey i believe who falsified DNA tests for years to put people behind bars. the evidence is out there and science is not as lily white as you want it to be.but that is another good reason why christians cannot have good discussions with unbelievers--they deny, deny deny and refuse to see the truth about their field and their false theory.the rest was asked and answered and that answer was generous enough.

But this is, of course, not true. I do acknowledge it --- I plainly acknowledge it. It is foolish and absurd for you to claim differently, and yet, being a creationist, and therefore no stranger to the foolish and absurd, this is in fact what you do.The reason, then, that there can be no "good discussion" between us is that when I clearly say one thing, you can always run away to the fantasy world in your head where I say the exact opposite.How am I meant to talk to someone who won't even admit that my opinions are my opinions?---P.S: Do not put quotations from, and answers to, other people in messages which appear as replies to my posts.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

well i doubt that and know you are wrong.anyways, with that said, i will be posting here a lot less as i do not see any real discussion happening anytime soon. this forum is designed to continue deceiving itself and it refuses to be open-minded.i would ask that you all stop talking about the Bible because unless you are a true Christian and lead by the Holy Spirit you will not understand it and you are basically wrong in your conclusions about it and what it says.i put the Bible ahead of all fields because that is where it is supposed to be, and it sheds light on all that is said about each and shows the right path to walk. secular science is the blind leading the blind and has no clue about what it speaks. the socalled 'objectivity' principle is again undermined by the bais and hatred of those who do not believe. you can't claim objectivity when you want or whenit benefits you. you either practice it or you don't and you cannot demand of others to practice it, especially when you don't.another good reason why there can never be good discussion between christians and unbelievers. the unbelievers demand it of the christian, who cannot practice it, and they refuse to practice it because they are afraid to find out how wrong they are. these are my posts, i will do it as i please. the problem with secularists is that they do not give credit where credit is due, it is not evolution nor science that has accomplished anything. a person with God given intelligence has done it, as gen. 1:30 says '...the universe and the earth were complete in all their vast array...' this closes the door on evolution in any form, even-micro and natural selection.God designed things to work in a certain way but because Adam sinned, death, sin, corruption entered the world and screwed it all up. mutations happen because of this corruption not because there is some unintelligent, unknowing process supposedly changing everything- i am not the one entering a fantasy world, secularists do when they run from the truth.as for this lawsuit, i think ICR was very wrong but texas is also wrong in forcing evolution upon all its students. we are not to teach lies and that is all evolution is.

I find myself strangely indifferent to the possibility of the door hitting your ass on the way out.

Hi Archaeologist,If you'd like to discuss any of these topics:

• Eugenics
  ​
• The horrors the American government did to people in the name of science
  ​
• Why it's difficult to have a discussion with secularists

Then please propose new threads for these topics over at Proposed New Topics.About the Methodists, they support evolution. Their Book of Discipline states: But you said that any church that accepted evolution had abandoned God, and that's why I am asking you by what criteria are you judging the Methodists wrong and yourself right. On the contrary, I'm entertaining your opposing viewpoint right now. What I'm asking you for is the supporting evidence for your viewpoint. For example, you go on to say this: Since nearly every instance of reproduction includes some number of mutations, which is micro-evolution, and since natural selection has been demonstrated over and over again (most obviously to everyone in the world with the evolution of new strains of flu virus annually), you need to explain the evidence that supports your views. How does somebody faking test results invalidate DNA analysis? I think you should a) stay on topic; b) look in the mirror.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix forum link.

As many here are aware, it is my considered opinion that religion is harmful to the human intellect. You have once again provided support for my opinion.You prefer to get your understanding about the natural world from an old book, written thousands of years ago by a bunch of ignorant savages, over quite simple and easy to understand observations made by very many people in the here and now, and backed by the enormous advances in knowledge since that old book was compiled. Really? You can admit that with a straight face? Or are you pulling our legs?