Intelligent Design Theory Solution

real life wrote:

Why can't evolutionists fund their research?

Or do you believe that evolutionists are the owners of the public universities, etc where research takes place, so they ARE funding their own research?

........The reality of course is that Universities hire the people who they believe best represent their academic standards, and those people choose what research to do, and most of them choose to spend their money on scientific study (including evolution).

But you have managed to imply that "evolutionists" own the public universities and control which thing is researched, thus implying a conspiracy to promote evolution.............

real life. Try to stay focused.

BAck a ways. did you ask whyI invoked Duane Gish's name or are you not sure about Duane Gish.If youre not sure, he can be found at the ICR as one of its stellar deniers of science by inserting "Creation" in front of SCience

You stated, I assumed in jest , that Creationists were not scientists. Most of the world would agree. However , Gish has been lecturing for years on the validity of their science , even though hes been reminded that his "science" has no evidence in its support.
I believe it was Rude (the Philosopher) who stated that
"Creationists find problems with the evidence produced in support of Evolution, yet quietly ignore the fact that their own views have no evidence at all"

Thre is evidence of ID which can be interpreted?

farmerman wrote:

You stated, I assumed in jest , that Creationists were not scientists. Most of the world would agree. However , Gish has been lecturing for years on the validity of their science , even though hes been reminded that his "science" has no evidence in its support.
I believe it was Rude (the Philosopher) who stated that
"Creationists find problems with the evidence produced in support of Evolution, yet quietly ignore the fact that their own views have no evidence at all"

Hi Farmerman,

Creationists have the same evidence that evolutionists have.

One group does not have ownership of the evidence and thus that evidence can only be used to support that group's view. That is not how it is. All evidence is available to anyone to consider and interpret.

Creationists differ with evolutionists on the interpretation[/b], not the existence of the same evidence that is available to both.

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

You stated, I assumed in jest , that Creationists were not scientists. Most of the world would agree. However , Gish has been lecturing for years on the validity of their science , even though hes been reminded that his "science" has no evidence in its support.
I believe it was Rude (the Philosopher) who stated that
"Creationists find problems with the evidence produced in support of Evolution, yet quietly ignore the fact that their own views have no evidence at all"

Hi Farmerman,

Creationists have the same evidence that evolutionists have.

One group does not have ownership of the evidence and thus that evidence can only be used to support that group's view. That is not how it is. All evidence is available to anyone to consider and interpret.

Creationists differ with evolutionists on the interpretation[/b], not the existence of the same evidence that is available to both.

The following are held by members of the board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture.
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole Creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of Creation.
The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The Gap Theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ?'secular' and ?'religious' is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


All of which means they start with a belief and work their way backwards. Not exactly science. The Creation Research Society has a similar statement of belief.
P

The following are held by members of the board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture.
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole Creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of Creation. . .etc.

According to the bible, the earth is no more than 7,000 years old. There are no current geological, anthropological, palaeontological, proof that this world is less than 10,000 years old. Even carbon dating shows this planet to be much older. . . etc.

Well, try 'ID is responsible for all living things,' and stop all research.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, try 'ID is responsible for all living things,' and stop all research.

What in the world are you talking about?

Your posts often have no context and I, for one, usually haven't a clue which aspect of a discussion you are trying to address.

Darwin started with his grandfather's view of evolution and 'worked his way backwards'.