Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICR Sues Texas
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 33 of 549 (573922)
08-13-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:17 AM


then on the other hand, since the secular world does not own the field of science they have no authority to say what is or isn't scientific.
But the judge recognises this. The ICR are quite welcome to continue to teach whatever creationist nonsense they wish as science. What the secular world is quite within its right to do is to decline to offer its own support and accreditation of what the ICR considers to be science.
The secular authorities don't get to define what constitutes science for everyone, but they can define what their own criteria for science are to be eligible for their accreditation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:17 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 3:49 AM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 258 of 549 (578676)
09-02-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Buzsaw
09-02-2010 9:12 AM


Re: ICR Science
I don't understand how anyone can justify claims that ICR scientists who have an impressive record of scientific research like this
Like what? Like creationwiki claims it is? The actual publications section lists primarily articles from the ICR's own journals.
It only lists 3 secular 'articles' which are all simply abstracts from conference proceedings.
I'm quite prepared to believe that Dr. Austin does have all those technical publications, but the creationwiki doesn't give us any help finding out what they are.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. I think it is a bit dubious using 'Wiki writes' when you are talking about something from the Creationwiki site. I think people would naturally assume you meant wikipedia.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 9:12 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 09-02-2010 10:20 AM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied
 Message 260 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 10:23 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 266 of 549 (578724)
09-02-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Buzsaw
09-02-2010 10:23 AM


Re: ICR Science
not which wiki or other source of information
Really Buz, when you are attributing something is does make quite a difference because some sources just are more reliable than others, it just so happens that wikipedia isn't always in the reliable category either, but the idea that the source of a claim is irrelevant is only true if there is other evidence supporting the claim.
If not, it's your job to falsify the data cited.
OK, it is falsified by the fact that the article doesn't go on to enumerate any of his technical publications. I don't see how it is my job to go out and fact check an Creationwiki with absolutely no guide as to where these publications are supposed to be.
Going by that page almost all of his publications are in the ICR's own journal or other creationist journals, hardly independent validation of his scientific credentials. I can find one other paper in the International Geology Review but after that I can't find anything.
So do you know where all his non-creationist journal published technical papers are? Because Creationwiki won't tell me, nor will the ICR's own site.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 10:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 305 of 549 (579018)
09-03-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by bluescat48
09-03-2010 10:58 AM


The wrong conformation
Just to nitpick I think you mean confirmation. Conformation is to do with the shape or arrangement of something, such as a folded protein.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2010 10:58 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024