|
Author
|
Topic: ICR Sues Texas
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 133 of 549 (577638)
08-29-2010 9:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
08-29-2010 6:24 PM
|
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Jar writes: There is no Theory of Creation or Theory of Design .......
That's because it's so logical and matter of fact according to real life. What is designed and created does not require elitist complicated mathmatical and theoretical concocted assumptions to explain. It is how observed things complex in real life come to be; by planning and intelligently designed work. Most of what we observe in (abe: here and now) real life tends towards chaos, decay, corrosion, extermination, non-complexity and disorder when void of intelligent design and management. Secularist minded science elitists tend to theorize their way around realism so as to avoid accountability to a higher power. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in context
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 6:24 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Dr Adequate writes: Miracles are "matter of fact according to real life"? Complexity and order allegedly effected by chance implicates miracle more than complexity by intelligently planned design . That's an observed real here and now observation.
Dr Adequate writes: We have obviously lived very different lives. I find reproduction with variation a lot more matter of fact, 'cos of being able to observe it. If you're referring to matter of fact micro-evolution, the intelligent designer had that in mind when designing life forms.
Dr Adequate writes: From which we deduce that gravity was not designed and created, since it does. Yes, but the concocted theory involves the debatable topic of the properties of space. There's yet a lot of questionable mystery involved in the secularist explanation of gravity for which there is no empirical model.
Dr Adequate writes: Buzsaw writes: Most of what we observe in (abe: here and now) real life tends towards chaos, decay, corrosion, extermination, non-complexity and disorder when void of intelligent design and management. We have obviously been observing very different things. I've been observing the real world. You haven't observed that everything made in the here and now (I say here and now) world around us required intelligent planning and requires preservation management? Are you a blind deaf-mute, by any chance? 
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Dr Adequate writes: Actually it's barely an English sentence. When you have given some evidence that this "intelligent designer" exists and that you can read his mind, I shall take this assertion more seriously. Are you suggesting that a better understanding of it would involve no theory and no equations? Otherwise this waffle hardly answers my point. No, and I also haven't spotted any flying pigs. That's not actually why I don't suffer from audio-visual hallucinations, no. Dr Adequate, the only reason for bringing forth your responses to my pertinent points is to ask why you even bothered to respond and whether you have something besides substanceless yada to say supportive of your positions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 182 by Admin, posted 08-31-2010 8:15 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 161 of 549 (577889)
08-30-2010 10:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
08-29-2010 9:14 PM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
Percy writes: ICR would probably tend to agree with you, and this anti-science attitude combined with appeals to a higher power were probably significant contributors to Texas's decision to deny ICR accreditation But Intelligence Design science is not anti-science just because it is an alternative to secularistic science. Here are just a few examples of ICR Science Papers. The Religion-and-Science Connection Between Pseudonumos and Pseudomarturia Technical Papers | James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. | Mar 27, 2009 Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 3, 2008 A Proposed Mesoscale Simulation of Precipitation in Yosemite National Park with a Warm Ocean Technical Papers | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. | Aug 3, 2008 Mendel's Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 3, 2008 Ocean Circulation Velocities over the Continents during Noah's Flood Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 3, 2008 Radiohalos and Diamonds: Are Diamonds Really for Ever? Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 3, 2008 Simulation Analysis of Glacial Surging in the Des Moines Ice Lobe Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 3, 2008 Snake Hybridization: A Case for Intrabaraminic Diversity Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 3, 2008 The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields Technical Papers | D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. | Aug 3, 2008 The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 3, 2008 Shades of the Enlightenment! Technical Papers | James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. | Mar 24, 2007 Fission Tracks in Zircons: Evidence for Abundant Nuclear Decay Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay Technical Papers | D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 There are many more examples proving that ICR is not anti-science and does indead do science and teach science.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 9:14 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 163 of 549 (577892)
08-30-2010 10:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by Coyote
08-30-2010 9:24 PM
|
|
Re: Creation Science
Coyote, my point was intended to refer to things designed in the here and now. Your examples no more refute my point intended than if you gave examples of animals etc. New things made showing design which have not existed in the past are all indicative that complex things are designed, made and managed by intelligent design. They tend toward disorder and disintegration if not intelligently managed and maintained. ICR's version of science should not be subject to what the government of Texas considers to be suitable for accreditation.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by Coyote, posted 08-30-2010 9:24 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: ICR Science
Omnivorous writes: Hi, Buz. It looks like your list is just a bunch of technical papers never published anywhere but the ICR site. Is that right? My understanding is that all involve ICR research. They are examples of what ICR teaches in their graduate school as well. Not cited on my list of examples, if you access the link and read the whole list are papers on both Mt St Helens and the Grand Canyon. I have videos of both from ICR showing their on site scientific research. Please cite evidence if you think I'm mistaken.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: If ICR can't make it in Texas...
Omnivorous writes: Are you opposed to all accreditation of schools? I expect some fairnes and balance. As usual secularists insist on their majority bully pulpit science to be exclusively allowed for accreditation. The peer reviews have the same attitude towards what is considered science. None other need apply.
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 186 of 549 (577965)
08-31-2010 8:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
08-31-2010 8:19 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
"Secularist minded science elitists?" "Higher power?" Those are clear expressions of an anti-science attitude. The above (abe: does not reflect non-science. ) It (abe: aludes to two science premises; the secularistic scientific interpretive mindset and the creationist "higher power" interpretive mindset; interpretive relating to how researched observations are interpreted. For example, in the Grand Canyon video which I acquired from ICR, floodist interpretations are expained as on site researchers show on site layering and explain their floodist interpretations of what those sediment layers tell us. Edited by Buzsaw, : clarify statements
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 183 by Percy, posted 08-31-2010 8:19 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 189 by Percy, posted 08-31-2010 8:58 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 188 of 549 (577969)
08-31-2010 8:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by Coyote
08-30-2010 11:02 PM
|
|
Re: Creation Science
Coyote writes: Now Buz, do you see any resemblance to science in this? I don't. What I see is overriding dogma, which will not permit any scientific evidence to the contrary. They have no interest in science, nor are they willing to follow it's methods because it's findings contradict their beliefs. So don't pretend what the ICR, and those who follow in it's footsteps, does is science. Though I wouldn't agree to some of what you cited, I see it all as relative to from which science hypothetical premise one interprets scientific research. For one thing, the non-floodist premise assumes a more relatively recent uniformitarian planet and atmosphere than the floodist premise assumes in scientific research interpretations.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by Coyote, posted 08-30-2010 11:02 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 197 of 549 (578145)
08-31-2010 9:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by Percy
08-31-2010 8:58 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
Percy writes: In reality there's only one kind of science. It employs observations, experiment and the scientific method to develop an ever improving understanding of the natural universe. If ICR wants accreditation from Texas then they must begin teaching this kind of science. Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe? Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists conform to a naturalist only form of science in order to be considered for creditaion? Admittedly, accreditation to ID institutions will limit the graduates in finding jobs, but there are a number of employers who would rather hire ID scientists and educators over secularist evolutionist ones. Why can't Texas allow creditation based on the science premises of both naturalistic and ID science premises so long as they meet reasonable academic standards? Admittedly also, I would be very surprised if ICR wins the law suit. 
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by Percy, posted 08-31-2010 8:58 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 214 of 549 (578245)
09-01-2010 8:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
08-31-2010 9:50 PM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
jar writes: Buzsaw writes: Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe? Exactly. ICR cannot do science as long as the begin with an assumption that the Bible is factually correct. LOL. Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by jar, posted 08-31-2010 9:50 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 226 of 549 (578282)
09-01-2010 10:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 225 by Coyote
09-01-2010 10:14 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
Coyote writes: If you folks are so down on real science, and so enamored with your "alternative" sciences, why don't you just found your own discipline and leave real science alone? 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 225 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2010 10:14 AM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 227 of 549 (578287)
09-01-2010 10:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by jar
09-01-2010 9:27 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
jar writes: The basic premise of Science is that you must go where the evidence leads, not where you want to go. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 9:27 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 230 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 11:10 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 231 of 549 (578309)
09-01-2010 11:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 229 by Coyote
09-01-2010 11:09 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
Coyote writes: 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.
Coyote writes: Some premises lead to discoveries, others seek only to support certain a priori beliefs. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 229 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2010 11:09 AM | | Coyote has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 232 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 12:01 PM | | Buzsaw has replied | | | Message 234 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2010 12:08 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied | | | Message 237 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2010 12:30 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 242 of 549 (578544)
09-01-2010 11:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 232 by jar
09-01-2010 12:01 PM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
jar writes: Perhaps you can start a thread where you can present that alleged evidence. Perhaps you could simply read it in the EvC archives where the evidence has already been presented and debated.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 232 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 12:01 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 243 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 11:07 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2