The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Lupricona
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Institute for Creation Research is not a reliable source of accurate information

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,624 times Debate No: 44436
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Lupricona

Con

I accept, and I hope for no insults towards the Institute for Creation Research, only valid arguments against why it is not a reliable source of information.

The No True Scotsmas fallacy cannot be used (i.e. Scientists believe in Evolution. "But here are some examples of scientists that don't believe in evolution." Well, no real scientist believes in evolution.)

Finding a few articles that may have displayed wrong information or have shown innacurate information is not enough to support the claim, as even Evolutionary organizations sometimes accidentally produce faulty information. The institution, as a whole, must be proved as providing overwhelmingly deceptive and false information.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

They incorrectly claim all over their site that the earth is thousands of years old.
They incorrectly claim that radioactive decay was accelerated in early earth.
They incorrectly define macro-evolution and then use their incorrect definition to make many other claims.
They incorrectly claim that Evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
They incorrectly claim that no transition fossils have ever been found.
They incorrectly claim that the Cambrian explosion is proof of creation.
They incorrectly claim that the Earth's magnetic field decays by half it's strength every 1400 years.
They incorrectly claim that Neanderthals were modern humans.
They incorrectly claim that life needed a creator because life cannot come from non-life.
They incorrectly calculate the odds of life forming.
They incorrectly claim that a bacteria's flagellum irreducible complex.

And the list goes on and on and on.


Finding a few articles that may have displayed wrong information or have shown innacurate information is not enough to support the claim, as even Evolutionary organizations sometimes accidentally produce faulty information.

Some of these may be from specific articles but these aren't mistakes someone would accidentally make. These are completely ignoring science; for example the Neanderthal being a modern human; scientists have sequenced the genes of both and have found major differences in the DNA. These mistakes are too large for anyone to make by accident.
Lupricona

Con

I disagree with my opponent:

They correctly claim all over their site that the earth is thousands of years old.
They correctly claim that radioactive decay was accelerated in early earth.
They correctly define macro-evolution and then use their incorrect definition to make many other claims.
They correctly claim that Evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
They correctly claim that no transition fossils have ever been found.
They correctly claim that the Cambrian explosion is proof of creation.
They correctly claim that the Earth's magnetic field decays by half it's strength every 1400 years.
They correctly claim that Neanderthals were modern humans.
They correctly claim that life needed a creator because life cannot come from non-life.
They correctly calculate the odds of life forming.
They correctly claim that a bacteria's flagellum irreducible complex.

And the list goes on and on and on.



I think my opponent does not understand the objective of the ICR website. They believe that God exists, and then they make logical deductions from that standpoint. Evolutionary Scientists start with the presupposition that God does not exist, and make logical deductions from that standpoint. These are two different models explaining the same phenomena- How did we get here?

An example of different models to explain the same phenomena are the different theories for the formation of the moon (1). There are five models. It is correct to say that 4 of these may be incorrect, because they cannot all be incorrect, but we would not say that scientists who are further developing the different models are not reliable and trustworthy scientists.


You can disagree with the ICR website. That doesn't make the website a reliable source of information. Their title admits to holding a Creationist perspective, and their website gives out all of their information from the Creationist perspective.

My opponent seems not to understand how science and scientific models work. Because of this, he has no case against ICR website.


(1) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

Con claims all my accusations are false so I will now show that my accusations are true.

They incorrectly claim all over their site that the earth is thousands of years old.

My Evidence: Radioactive Uranium Dating.

They incorrectly claim that radioactive decay was accelerated in early earth.

Numerous experiments have been done on radioactive substances to try and increase their decay rate and all have failed. Also dates obtained through radiometric dating have been compared with dates obtained from non radiometric dating methods: Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

  • The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

  • Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

  • Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

  • Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

They incorrectly define macro-evolution and then use their incorrect definition to make many other claims.

The term macro-evolution in biology means change at or above the species level in other words; speciation. They claim that macro-evolution is a major taxonomic change (ie. an animal evolving from one genus to another.)

They incorrectly claim that Evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy will alway increase in a CLOSED system(one where no energy is being added.) The problem with their argument is that the biosphere is an open system. The light from the sun is a constant supply of energy meaning that animals can evolve because energy is being added to the system.

They incorrectly claim that no transition fossils have ever been found.

Transition fossils have been found such as archaeopteryx. However there is no way I can prove that to them since no matter what fossil they see they will still say it's not a transition so I won't go into anymore detail.

They incorrectly claim that the Cambrian explosion is proof of creation.

It's not proof of creation because other animals from before the Cambrian have been found. If the Cambrian explosion is proof of creation we shouldn't see any animals before that; especially not complex life. http://en.wikipedia.org...

They incorrectly claim that the Earth's magnetic field decays by half it's strength every 1400 years.

This claim is based on work that is both 40 years old and discredited; flaws in the research have also been pointed out many times. It also is based on 130 years of data; newer research based on thousands of years of data shows fluctuations over thousands of years periods. http://infidels.org...

They incorrectly claim that Neanderthals were modern humans.

The genome of Neanderthals and humans have been sequenced. When they are compared we find that there are differences in the DNA that make it impossible for Neanderthals to be modern humans.

They incorrectly claim that life needed a creator because life cannot come from non-life.

When they refer to this they are talking about Louis Pasteur's spontaneous generation. That proved that complex life such as maggots and mice can't come from non-life but it didn't prove that very primitive life cannot come from non-life.

They incorrectly calculate the odds of life forming.

When they calculate the odds they are assuming the protein formed by chance but biochemistry is not chance; it's not random.

They incorrectly claim that a bacteria's flagellum irreducible complex.

This one is too hard for me to explain so here's a link that explains it pretty well: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Again these are not the kind of mistakes you make by accident these mistakes are the kind you make if you:

1. Didn't actually do research.

2. Pay no attention to other research.

Or 3. You're intentionally tring to decieve someone.









Lupricona

Con

My opponent ignored the arguments that I made.

He goes on to try and turn this debate into an argument over Evolution vs Creation. This debate is about whether a particlular website is a source of accurate information.

My opponent presupposes that Evolution is true, so any argument that I would use against Evolution, he will just say my arguments are from an unreliable source of information. This is circular reasoning.

If a website claims to be Creationist website, he will immediately declare them as a false source of information, and conclude that it is run by liars. Even if they produce accurate information that refutes Evolutionary claims, he will still declare them fraudulent. This is invincible ignorance.

The ICR is not dishonest about anything. In every article it produces, it sources all of it's data accurately. If it references Evolutionary scientists, it also adequately sources them. They are open and honest about everything. It is a website that presupposes God exists, and from that point, makes all of their arguments from there.

Imagine if I were to say that the sources that my opponent used in this debate are not reliable sources of accurate information? What if I further stated than ANY evolutionary website was not a source of accurate information? He would then have to use evolutionary websites to try and argue that they do provide accurate information, but since I've already decided they are false, his sources would have no affect on me.


My opponent is doing this: Creationism is not true. Also, no Creationist websites are true. So, I cannot use any information from any creation website to prove him false. My opponent wins by default.

It is not ICR that it is dishonest- it is my opponent. If he wants to debate Evolution vs Creation in a separate debate, allowing both of us to use sources from both our respective sites, and then debate over the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, then we can do that. However, my opponent cannot claim that ICR is not a source of accurate information, as they do provide accurate information based on a CREATIONIST perspective, which is what they claim to do.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

My opponent ignored the arguments that I made.

He goes on to try and turn this debate into an argument over Evolution vs Creation. This debate is about whether a particlular website is a source of accurate information.

My opponent presupposes that Evolution is true, so any argument that I would use against Evolution, he will just say my arguments are from an unreliable source of information. This is circular reasoning.

My opponent seems to misunderstand my reasoning. My reasoning is that it is not a reliable source of information not because it disagrees with evolution but because it provides false information. The information again is not false simply because it is not evolution but because we have empirical evidence that disproves their information.

If a website claims to be Creationist website, he will immediately declare them as a false source of information, and conclude that it is run by liars. Even if they produce accurate information that refutes Evolutionary claims, he will still declare them fraudulent. This is invincible ignorance.

If they provide accurate information that refutes evolution than I wouldn't declare them fraudulent. Unfortunately for the ICR they have no accurate information that disproves evolution. Everything they throw at evolution has been explained.

The ICR is not dishonest about anything. In every article it produces, it sources all of it's data accurately. If it references Evolutionary scientists, it also adequately sources them.

But they are also well known for quote mining. They can write down the quote out of context on their site, properly reference the quote, and hope no one looks at the source and finds out it was a quote of of context(which is a fallacy)

They are open and honest about everything. It is a website that presupposes God exists, and from that point, makes all of their arguments from there.

Then you can't accuse "evolutionists" of being dishonest either because they start with the assumption that God doesn't exist.


Imagine if I were to say that the sources that my opponent used in this debate are not reliable sources of accurate information? What if I further stated than ANY evolutionary website was not a source of accurate information? He would then have to use evolutionary websites to try and argue that they do provide accurate information, but since I've already decided they are false, his sources would have no affect on me.

I only say that creationist sources aren't accurate, reliable sources of information because the information they provide is disproved by empirical evidence.


My opponent is doing this: Creationism is not true. Also, no Creationist websites are true. So, I cannot use any information from any creation website to prove him false. My opponent wins by default.

I am doing this: Creationist sites provide information that has been discredited by empirical evidence. Therefore creationist sites are not reliable or accurate.

It is not ICR that it is dishonest- it is my opponent. If he wants to debate Evolution vs Creation in a separate debate, allowing both of us to use sources from both our respective sites, and then debate over the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, then we can do that. However, my opponent cannot claim that ICR is not a source of accurate information, as they do provide accurate information based on a CREATIONIST perspective, which is what they claim to do.


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
R13; Neil deGrasse Tyson
I tink that about sums it up. The thing is there is no such thing as information accurate from a certain perspective. The information is either accurate or it isn't; perspective has nothing to do with it.

ACCURATE:
conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a standard--Merriam Webster dictionary.

Perspective is subjective; fact is objective soperspective has no place in accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Con tries to argue that to be a reliable accurate source of information it just has to be accurate from a certain perspective which I have shown to be false; perspectives have no place in determining accuracy. I have also shown that the ICR makes VERY BIG ERRORS when relaying information. Therefore the ICR is not a reliable source of information.
Lupricona

Con

Pro never responded to my arguments. He kept wanting to turn this into a Creation/Evolution debate. He then merely asserted that the ICR website denies empirical evidence, but then does not provide any examples of empirical evidence that ICR denies. For one, he never once sourced ICR, so all of his arguments are mere assertions, which do not need to be proved or disproved. Now, go ahead, voters, and see if you can find evidence of the website denying emprical evidence (1)

Evolutionists and Creationists AGREE on the empirical evidence. The arguments exists between the interpretation of what that evidence means. As I showed with the different models for the moon, there can be different possibilites for what the emprical evidence means.

Even though my opponent never sourced any of his accusations, I will show why my opponent did not prove that ICR denies emprical evidence (even though I need not argue his mere assertions)

He states that dating methods prove that the earth is old. However, Creationists argue that something caused the rates to be faster in the past. (He asserted that all attempts to increase the decay rate have failed but provides no source).

He provides his own definition for macroevolution then argues that ICR disagrees with his own definition. Irrelevant.

Evolution does defy the 2nd law of thermodyamics. Unless there is a mechanism to turn the raw energy into something productive (like plants with photosynthesis), then even in an open system, entropy will still increase.

ICR does not state that no transitional fossils have ever been found. They argue that, even though Darwin predicted there should be millions of transitional fossils, there have only been found a handful of disputable ones (disputable meaning evolutionary scientists disagree with each other over the transitional fossils)

The Cambrian explosion shows a sudden explosion of fully formed organism, which, honestly, is a subjective argument for Creationism.

The earth's magnetic field does decay every 1400 years. A model by Russell Humphreys was presented which explained magnetic fields for planets. His predictions have been proven true, while the evolutionary models failed. This is a very good argument for a young earth (2)

They argue that Neanderthals were like modern humans. The same is true that a chihuaha and a bulldog are both modern dogs, but they look very different. You can get variation within a species, so it's not wrong to assume that neanderthals could be the same species.

Life cannot come from non-life. There is no evidence that it ever has, only the Miller-Urey expermiment which only produced some of the building blocks for life, which was later debunked anyway.

Evolution is by chance, no matter how upset this may cause my opponent to be.

The irreducible complexity argument is really a subjective argument.


It should be noted, again, that none of my opponent's arguments were examples of ICR denying empirical evidence (evidence that we see in a lab and can repeat), he is mostly arguing for things that happened in the past that Creationists deny happening, which is NOT denying empirical evidence.


My opponent only argued out of irrelevant assertions and ignored my arguments for how scientific models work. ICR is an accurate source for information on the basis that God does exist. Vote for Con if you agree that irrelevant assertions do not make for good arguments.





(1) http://www.icr.org...
(2) http://www.creationresearch.org...
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by danzchen7 2 years ago
danzchen7
This vote is so biased"
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
@Lupricorna:

"He only made ad hominem assertions." is NOT THE SAME as "He made an ad hominem". You see that there's a clear and obvious difference between those two statements, correct? That you can show 1 ad hominem doesn't in the slightest mean that " He only made ad hominem assertions. " Claiming that is absurd--were you purposefully lying? Was it an attempt at rhetorical exaggeration that now you're complaining has been pointed out? The fact is that it is simply not true that " He only made ad hominem assertions. " I keep quoting you, because I feel like you have a problem with your own words.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Lupricona when I wrote the list of things they deny and justified it with empirical evidence you didn't respond to any of them; you just claimed that I would say any creationist website is false; that's an ad hominem attack.
Posted by Lupricona 3 years ago
Lupricona
He asserted that the website is full of liars. This is ad hominem. Don't tell me I don't understand it, and arguing that my opponent didnt have it clearly shows the bias in the voters choices. I addressed all of my opponents issues- which he didnt source anyway, so anyone voting against me is only on bias, which is dishonest.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Sorry about the typos, it's late.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
It's not insane when you never claimed the website didn't say the things he mentioned. In fact, you specifically granted them. You don't get to complain NOW, when you didn't say it wasn't what the website says--and of course, you couldn't, becasue the things attributed to the website are accurate, so you're be lying.

There are honorable people on this website--that you presented a poor case is not justification for you to impugn them.

You also aren't familiar with what "ad hominem" actually means, btw.
Posted by Lupricona 3 years ago
Lupricona
My opponent never once sourced the website during debate. He only made ad hominem assertions. Yet the voters, still favor him. This is insane- are they any honourable people left on this website?
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
As always, happy to clarify anything in my RFD.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
This debate would have been better with some actual specifically cited examples for consideration, Pro. I'm familiar with the claims you make and yes, they are of teh general character of the website, so it's not as though you were being dishonest, but it would have been easier to make your case with specific citations.

However, Con fed into your victory, by admitting and addressing some of the ICR's claims which, unfortunately, ARE belied by empirical evidence. For the ICR to claim that "something" (to use Con's word) could affect radioactive decay rates, without giving any evidence for what could do so (and no, the sun doesn't affect decay rates, that has been investigated), is dishonest and makes the ICR unreliable.

I also highly recomment Con learn more about the laws of thermodynamics, preferably not from the ICR website if that's where he got his ideas from. I will say, that he demands a mechanism for processing the input of energy, then provides one that is present, which seems to make his argument immediately fail, even if I didn't already know it wasn't valid criticism.

Also, Con's comments on transitional fossils are rather obviously false.

I'm tempted to award, as a previous voter did, Conduct for Con's refrain regarding his arguments being "ignored" but, while I didn't QUITE see it enough to award conduct (and may change my mind on a reread, frankly), it certainly hurt Con's case.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Ok I think (thanks for the link con) that website is bat crazy, yet if I had a little more time on my hands I can see a flawless argument that would defeat pro's resolution.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
theta_pinchLupriconaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
theta_pinchLupriconaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In response to various quotes taken by con being refuted, pro claimed "My opponent ignored the arguments that I made." And next round again "Pro never responded to my arguments." ... Directly lying so blatantly about the other sides argument is unacceptable from a conduct standpoint. ... Was going to actually leave arguments tied, but " Now, go ahead, voters, and see if you can find evidence of the website denying emprical evidence (1)" found it on the very first article I clicked within that link " But what empirical foundation supports a ?least derived? designation? It is purely subjective since another research group could just as easily assert?" Anyway they outright deny empirical evidence, based on the hypothetical that some scientists could find variation on said evidence (without wanting to be too scientific by repeating the experiments themselves). By providing the link that costs argument, that is also a strike to sources which pro was dominating.