ICR Analysis

[Jet Black]

This is a fairly old article. but it is copyrighted this year, so I assume they are still using it as evidence. If not, then I have to ask why they are still using it. The ICR thoughtfully has a disclaimer stopping me from posting their articles, so I will just give a link:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

The opening to the article I think is pretty poor. The description of the big bang makes it sound rather like something exploding into a vacuum... also the references to "egg" further support this implication. There are continual referenced to the atoms moving in a "radial" direction... this is not the case, and then they make it look like the collapse to form stars and so on was mysterious. perhaps they haven't heard of Gravity.

I notice they say the Big Bang Theory predicts a homogemneous universe... it does not.
They also say that COBE showed that there was no evidence of inhomogeneity... it did not. It showed inhomogeneities, but the resolution was pretty poor so it looked smoother than it is.

All in all the physics in this is pretty poor, and I could have pointed most of that out as a firt year undergradate.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

This is a fairly old article. but it is copyrighted this year, so I assume they are still using it as evidence. If not, then I have to ask why they are still using it. The ICR thoughtfully has a disclaimer stopping me from posting their articles, so I will just give a link:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

The opening to the article I think is pretty poor. The description of the big bang makes it sound rather like something exploding into a vacuum... also the references to "egg" further support this implication. There are continual referenced to the atoms moving in a "radial" direction... this is not the case, and then they make it look like the collapse to form stars and so on was mysterious. perhaps they haven't heard of Gravity.

I notice they say the Big Bang Theory predicts a homogemneous universe... it does not.
They also say that COBE showed that there was no evidence of inhomogeneity... it did not. It showed inhomogeneities, but the resolution was pretty poor so it looked smoother than it is.

All in all the physics in this is pretty poor, and I could have pointed most of that out as a firt year undergradate.

Their understanding of science is pretty poor. They keep banging on about "evolutionary scientists" but the people who study these things are astrophysicists or cosmologists, not evolutionary biologists.

There is a reason for this. What ICR is really against is mainstream science - geology, cosmology, physics, biology, palaeontology - the lot really. Rather than admit this - and thereby admit to being anti-science, which in reality they are - they lump all the bits they don't like together as "evolution".

Wool - meet eyes. Over you go.

 

[Jet Black]

Their understanding of science is pretty poor. They keep banging on about "evolutionary scientists" but the people who study these things are astrophysicists or cosmologists, not evolutionary biologists.

yeap, that's why I look at the physics bits. It suprises me (actually I'm not suprised anymore) that their only reference to WMAP goes on about some cosmic axis model, and still refers to Gentry's starlight and Time book, which was discredited ages ago...

 

[Arikay]

You mean you actually expected a creationist group to give a correct definition of what they are argueing against.

 

[Jet Black]

You mean you actually expected a creationist group to give a correct definition of what they are argueing against.

good point, I don't believe in miracles.