"SJAB1958" <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1181070024.124005.295670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Here's a little gem for you to consider, if you find your way to the
ICR website (www.icr.org), click on the label marked 'Articles', then
on the link called 'Impact'.

This takes you to a page with a whole load of articles on it under the
following statement:

"It is often heard in classes or in the media, that there is no
evidence for creation and that evolution is the obvious choice of the
intellectual. These articles were written to help show the strength of
the creation model while revealing the weakness of the model of
evolution. (These articles are from ICR's monthly Acts & Facts News
Booklet.)"

Next click on any article title, and when the page opens up, click on
the link marked 'Print this article', cancel the print routine and
then scroll down to the very end of the article and read what it says
there.

I wont tell you right now what it says (and it says it at the end of
every article) I want you to find out for yourselves.

I would love to know however if anyone can prove the veracity of the
statement you will find there.

I don't know what I did wrong; I didn't see the statement. But I found this:
" A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by Duane Gish
and just have to say Wow! I really am sorry for the poor souls who buy this
crap.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181070024.124005.295670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Here's a little gem for you to consider, if you find your way to the
ICR website (www.icr.org), click on the label marked 'Articles', then
on the link called 'Impact'.

This takes you to a page with a whole load of articles on it under the
following statement:

"It is often heard in classes or in the media, that there is no
evidence for creation and that evolution is the obvious choice of the
intellectual. These articles were written to help show the strength of
the creation model while revealing the weakness of the model of
evolution. (These articles are from ICR's monthly Acts & Facts News
Booklet.)"

Next click on any article title, and when the page opens up, click on
the link marked 'Print this article', cancel the print routine and
then scroll down to the very end of the article and read what it says
there.

I wont tell you right now what it says (and it says it at the end of
every article) I want you to find out for yourselves.

I would love to know however if anyone can prove the veracity of the
statement you will find there.

I don't know what I did wrong; I didn't see the statement. But I found this:
" A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by Duane Gish
and just have to say Wow! I really am sorry for the poor souls who buy this
crap.

In article <1181070024.124005.295670
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com>
declared...

Here's a little gem for you to consider, if you find your way to the
ICR website (www.icr.org), click on the label marked 'Articles', then
on the link called 'Impact'.

This takes you to a page with a whole load of articles on it under the
following statement:

"It is often heard in classes or in the media, that there is no
evidence for creation and that evolution is the obvious choice of the
intellectual. These articles were written to help show the strength of
the creation model while revealing the weakness of the model of
evolution. (These articles are from ICR's monthly Acts & Facts News
Booklet.)"

Next click on any article title, and when the page opens up, click on
the link marked 'Print this article', cancel the print routine and
then scroll down to the very end of the article and read what it says
there.

I wont tell you right now what it says (and it says it at the end of
every article) I want you to find out for yourselves.

I would love to know however if anyone can prove the veracity of the
statement you will find there.

Here's what I see at the bottom of each page:

The Bible is Scientifically Accurate. Get the Evidence @ icr.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
1806 Royal Lane * Dallas, Texas 75229 * (800) 337-0375 *www.icr.org

I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

I was surprised to see that their address is in Dallas. I'll have
to drive by their offices sometime to see what they look like.

--
Greg
----http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

According to the HHS, the term "scientifically accurate"
is undefined.

On Jun 5, 12:00 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Here's a little gem for you to consider, if you find your way to the
ICR website (www.icr.org), click on the label marked 'Articles', then
on the link called 'Impact'.

This takes you to a page with a whole load of articles on it under the
following statement:

"It is often heard in classes or in the media, that there is no
evidence for creation and that evolution is the obvious choice of the
intellectual. These articles were written to help show the strength of
the creation model while revealing the weakness of the model of
evolution. (These articles are from ICR's monthly Acts & Facts News
Booklet.)"

Next click on any article title, and when the page opens up, click on
the link marked 'Print this article', cancel the print routine and
then scroll down to the very end of the article and read what it says
there.

I wont tell you right now what it says (and it says it at the end of
every article) I want you to find out for yourselves.

I would love to know however if anyone can prove the veracity of the
statement you will find there.

"The Bible is Scientifically Accurate"... I assume this is the
statement in question!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002004.php

According to the HHS, the term "scientifically accurate" is undefined.
As a government agency overseen by the GAO, when it determines that a
term is undefined, it is undefined until Congress or the courts choose
to define it. Until then, it's usage is literally "up for grabs" and
anyone can use it in any context, they choose (since it has no
meaning). For instance, "My left toe is scientifically accurate" is an
absolutely meaningless and true statement, whether it's a normal left
toe or mutant left toe or dismembered left toe. The actual reality of
my left toe carries no significance to the term, "scientifically
accurate". In the same exact way, "The Bible" is not actually modified
by the term, "scientifically accurate", because the term has no
defined meaning.

JTG 6/5/07- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 5, 3:00 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

The one titled "Evidence for a Young World" by D. Russell Humphreys,
Ph.D. has some pretty amusing stuff.

First:
"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic
center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the
outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our
galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a
featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet
our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old.
Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have
known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to
explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The
same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."

I believe this is the same guy who wrote a book where he tried to
explain how we can see light from galaxies millions of light years
away when the universe is only 6,000 years old. In it he uses a gross
distortion of Einstein's relativity theory to explain that while the
earth is < 10,000 years old, those other galaxies actually are
billions of years old due to some kind of perverse time dilation. Oh
well, self contradiction doesn't seem to be a problem for
creationists.

Going on:
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own
experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25
years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab
Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a
million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could
observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova
remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth
of supernovas."

One supernova every 25 years? I'm 57 and there hasn't been a supernova
in the Milky Way in my lifetime. When was the last one? According tohttp://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/more/mw_sn.htmlit was over 300
years ago.

How stupid do you have to be to believe this stuff?