[Credendovidis]

Before I start this topic I request all those who like to react here : please keep communication accordingly to the board's rules to prevent having the topic closed, something one of the frequent participants here seems to deliberately provoke and intend with his many aggressive fundamentalist religious-based entries.

---

This post refers to another article by the ICR that shows their religious biased illogical thinking and resulting incorrect conclusion !

The article I refer to is called "Earth Was Created for Life" - LINK

What they actually say is that all other planets of our solar system do (can) not carry any life, and that earth was purposely "created" by the "God" entity in it's current orbit and with all physical conditions to carry life on it.

The reality is quite different. BECAUSE planet earth orbits where it does, and our star is of a certain size, it was possible for life to form, and develop through evolution to what we see today.

The ICR suggestion shows a basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science.

Any comments ?

.

.

[Tj3]

The reality is quite different. BECAUSE planet earth orbits where it does, and our star is of a certain size, it was possible for life to form, and develop through evolution to what we see today.

Presumably to make the accusations that you do, you have some proof that they are wrong. Where is it? I would be interested in seeing it.

[Credendovidis]

Your quote stated me saying :
The reality is quite different. BECAUSE planet earth orbits where it does, and our star is of a certain size, it was possible for life to form, and develop through evolution to what we see today.

Presumably to make the accusations that you do, you have some proof that they are wrong. Where is it? I would be interested in seeing it.

I see no ACCUSATIONS here : what ACCUSATIONS do you refer to??
Do you perhaps call anything other people state that does not agree with your rather closed-minded religious views an ACCUSATION??
That looks to me a good example of paranoia!!

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

I see no ACCUSATIONS here : what ACCUSATIONS do you refer to ???

You accused ICR of:

"The ICR suggestion shows a basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science."

Presumably to make the accusations that you do, you have some proof that they are wrong. Where is it? I would be interested in seeing it.

[Credendovidis]

You accused ICR of: "The ICR suggestion shows a basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science."
Presumably to make the accusations that you do, you have some proof that they are wrong. Where is it? I would be interested in seeing it.

Please see my starters post again :

"This post refers to another article by the ICR that shows their religious biased illogical thinking and resulting incorrect conclusion !

The article I refer to is called "Earth Was Created for Life" - Link provided in topic question.
What they actually say is that all other planets of our solar system do (can) not carry any life, and that earth was purposely "created" by the "God" entity in it's current orbit and with all physical conditions to carry life on it.

The reality is quite different. BECAUSE planet earth orbits where it does, and our star is of a certain size, it was possible for life to form, and develop through evolution to what we see today.

The ICR suggestion shows a basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science."

===

The ICR is not wellknown for it's tolerance towards other non-christian views.
The ICR is also extremely selective in it's argumentation and references.
So far I have never seen any ICR "scientific-based" statement that showed a fair and scientific approach, and in most cases their ideas of "science" seems to be taking a religion-based conclusion and search for supporting data on that, disregarding any other views.

My conclusion towards the ICR stands : "The ICR shows basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science."

You may BELIEVE that my conclusion on the ICR is an accusation.
Or you can show me where the ICR did indeed serious and real scientific research for any of it's articles, including the use of the scientific method for all possible inputs and references for it's paper.

:rolleyes: :D :) :p :D :rolleyes:

.

.

[inthebox]

Before I start this topic I request all those who like to react here : please keep communication accordingly to the board's rules to prevent having the topic closed, something one of the frequent participants here seems to deliberately provoke and intend with his many aggressive fundamentalist religious-based entries.

---

This post refers to another article by the ICR that shows their religious biased illogical thinking and resulting incorrect conclusion !

The article I refer to is called "Earth Was Created for Life" - LINK

What they actually say is that all other planets of our solar system do (can) not carry any life, and that earth was purposely "created" by the "God" entity in it's current orbit and with all physical conditions to carry life on it.

The reality is quite different. BECAUSE planet earth orbits where it does, and our star is of a certain size, it was possible for life to form, and develop through evolution to what we see today.

The ICR suggestion shows a basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science.

Any comments ?

.

.

What they state is all fact.


That the earth was CREATED specifically for life, is a matter of interpretation.

It is true that there is life on earth and no where else in the solar system.

It is true that evolution, which has no answer for origin of life, let alone origin of earth is unproven.

So the hypothesis that the earth was CREATED is more logical.

Show me repeatable, observable OSE that evolution can go from inorganic chemicals to multicellular organism from scratch.





G&P

[Tj3]

The ICR suggestion shows a basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science.[/I]"

Another accusation against ICR - still looking for your evidence to substantiate these accusations.

[Credendovidis]

The ICR suggestion shows a basic (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, and shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis. The ICR view is nothing more than a fundamental religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science.

Another accusation against ICR - still looking for your evidence to substantiate these accusations.

ICR stands for Institute for Creation Research.
Creation = a religious concept, based on "God" being at the basis of the universe and life.
The main chapter on the ICR website is : get the evidence for : Creation , God , Truth , Nature , Science , Scripture.
The majority of these subjects are either religious or philosophic. Certainly not real scientific, as the acclaimed supporting evidence is one-sided and highly selected , loaded with half-truths and unsupported religios claims.

The main line of the ICR religious "science" is : if there is no full OSE for something , than "God" must have done it.

That is a (deliberate) misinterpretation of the facts, shows that the ICR lacks any real scientific basis, and supports my statement that the ICR view is nothing more than a fundamentalist religious concept dressed up as (pseudo) science.

:)

.

.