Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Institute for Creation Research is a private, not-for-profit corporation, chartered by the State of California for the purposes of research, writing, and education in both the standard curriculum of each scientific discipline and the Institute's supplemental framework of scientific creationism and Biblical authority in all disciplines.
ADMINISTRATION
Officers
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. President
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Vice President
Donald H. Rohrer, B.S. Chief Financial Officer
John D. Morris, Ph.D. Administrative Vice President
The PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES of the Graduate School
The purpose of the ICR Graduate School is to discover truth about the universe by scientific research, to correlate and apply such scientific data within the supplemental integrating framework of Biblical creationism, and to implement them effectively in traditional graduate degree programs with standard core curriculum in science and education.Moderator cut: Adherence to copyright rule
Gish has been caught on numerous occasions spouting lies, yet he never offers retractions and his own religion tells him that he should be honest.
One example is Gish's "bullfrog proteins." In 1983, in a PBS show on creationism, Gish claimed that while humans and chimpanzees have many proteins which are identical or differ by only a few amino acids, there are also human proteins which are more similar to a bullfrog or a chicken than to chimpanzees. Gish was repeatedly pressed to produce his evidence. Two years later, Philip Kitcher challenged Gish to produce his evidence or retract his claim in a debate at the University of Minnesota. Gish refused to respond. Kevin Wirth of Students for Origins Research (a pro-creationist organization) begged Gish to respond in the pages of Origins Research regarding the claim. He refused. (See Robert Schadewald, "Scientific Creationism and Error," Creation/Evolution XVII (vol. 6, no. 1, 1986).)
Another example involving numerous creationists is the claim that Donald Johanson discovered "Lucy's" knee joint 2 km away from the rest of the skeleton. This claim was first made in the Bible-Science Newsletter by Tom Willis in 1987, and has since been repeated by Walter Brown, John Morris, Paul Taylor, Russell Arndts, and Michael Girouard. But it's false, apparently based on a misunderstanding at a Q&A session at the University of Missouri attended by Willis. Johanson did find a knee joint 2 km away from "Lucy," but he never claimed that this knee joint was "Lucy"'s. I gave a copy of a letter from Johanson describing the facts of the matter to Girouard in person at an ICR seminar, and he claimed he would read it carefully and respond to any letters I wrote him. I wrote him in December of 1989 and never received a reply. Brown was also informed of the facts of the matter, in both the pages of Creation/Evolution and of Origins Research. In both cases he responded with new claims about "Lucy" which had nothing to do with the knee joint--he just ignored the issue at hand. (Origins Research didn't print my followup.) My letter to Tom Willis received no reply. My letter to the Bible-Science Newsletter (in response to Arndts' more recent repetition of the false claim) went unpublished and I received no reply...
[/i]And a P.s. I was astonished to see the claim that the ICR was Chartered' as a research body by the state of California. I find it hard to believe that is anything but a fiddling of California allowing them to use the donations of their believers to fake up "evidence" to disprove evilooshun.
Now I am all verklempt. I'll give you a topic, The Institute for Creation Research, and how it is neither an Institute, nor Creation, nor Research. Discuss...
So then. How many days has this thread been going and still not one of our illustrious creationist brothers have stepped up to present the unquestionable 'evidence' that they claim exists in abundance. Disappointing.
So then. How many days has this thread been going and still not one of our illustrious creationist brothers have stepped up to present the unquestionable 'evidence' that they claim exists in abundance. Disappointing.
Yes it is disappointing. I'm beginning to suspect they never had any evidence to begin with. It's just been a denial of science thing with no substance.
Yes it is disappointing. I'm beginning to suspect they never had any evidence to begin with. It's just been a denial of science thing with no substance.
Certainly seems that way bro....as if we didn't know!
The Conservation of Information issue becomes clear when you see the smuggling of the critical difference information into the evolutionary paradigm by the use of the "fitness space" in Dawkin's supposed use of evolutionary principles to evolve the phrase "Methinks it is a weasel."
Dawkins' program is just a simple model that demonstrates the role of a fitness landscape in cutting down the possibilities so that the "search mechanism" (I like Dempski's way of characterizing this) is not purely random, and the odds of finding viable structures are not so astronomically overwhelming. The actual fitness landscape, of course, is composed of atoms and the physical laws that govern their behavior (aka Mother Nature).
Given the laws of nature, it follows logically that, if you have self-replicating systems, then some self-replicating systems will succeed better than others (hence, the search for increasingly more successful organisms will almost inevitably succeed - or, at least, the odds won't be astronomically stacked against success).
Clearly the "given" and the "if" are the key points that creationists will want to pick at. But this, as I said, ultimately boils down to the "fine-tuning" problem. How do the laws of physics happen to be so finely-tuned so as to allow something like a "fitness landscape" to exist in the first place? This is a deep question that science might never be able to answer, although the anthropic principle and/or the notion of a multiverse might get us in the ballpark. And, in any case, any brute-fact intelligence assigned to God for the purposes of doing design work could just as logically be brute-fact assigned to the landscape of natural possibilities and/or to the actualized low-entropy of the Big Bang singularity. As I've continually said: An ID is a metaphysically plausible option that science will probably never rule out, but as an explanation for "life, the universe, and everything" God is not a necessary explanatory element. And, for various reasons I've explained in other threads, I don't see ID as the most plausible option.
BTW: I started a thread in the Philosophy forum that examines a third alternative. There I encourage discussion of the idea that possibilities (as such) are real, and they might interact with each other and/or interact in a causal way with actualized systems. I think this could provide a naturalistic way to address the fine-tuning problem. The basic question is this: Could the possibilities of qualia have causally interacted with actualized physical systems prior to abiogenesis? If so, then we have a whole new avenue for theory-building.) I wish some of you folks would look at my proposal there, and offer some of your thoughts. Here is a link: Can "possibilities" affect the actual world?
In any case, given the laws of nature as we know them, I still don't see why you, or Dempski, or anyone, would think that the fitness landscape wouldn't constitute, in effect, a fairly efficient "search engine" for increasingly complex organisms. This was the point that Dawkins was trying to make with his "weasel" program, and I think he did a good job of making this point.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-12-2016 at 07:57 AM..
So then. How many days has this thread been going and still not one of our illustrious creationist brothers have stepped up to present the unquestionable 'evidence' that they claim exists in abundance. Disappointing.
Why are you disappointed? Your mind is already made up on the matter.
...because for week after week you keep claiming that there is a mountain of evidence to disprove evolution...yet when you are given the opportunity to produce it, you run and hide like a scared rabbit.
Quote:
Your mind is already made up on the matter.
...and that's your excuse for not producing the evidence that you say abounds is it? Well be like us Jeff. We know that the minds of you theists are made up too and no matter what we say, you will ignore it but we still post our evidence knowing that it exposes you fundies as wilfully ignorant and close-minded.
So come on Jeff. Now is your chance to try to do the same to us...unless you're 'chicken' that is. You say you have the evidence...well lets see it. or just admit that you've been.... BUSTED!
Well you have no facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt I originated from a primate. Case closed.
Dude, you are a primate! Case closed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
