And what you read into the tenets, even if accurate, really has naught to do with premises of the article which you have not really said much about. Or how stone and minerals can be sequenced (erroneous but not crackpot either).
The credibility of the article is easily checked but if that is the complaint point to where the article is wrong not what you say the ICR believes, the ICR did not write the article, one person did.
What have you done to support your statements?
“The credibility of the article is easily checked but if that is the complaint point to where the article is wrong not what you say the ICR believes, the ICR did not write the article, one person did.”
The article author misrepresented the quoted research per previous posts. However, that sort of article is fully in line with most ICR “research”.
It is completely reasonable to point to the ICR, it’s complete lack of scientific credibility and state with confidence that any conclusions reached by it or it’s “researchers” is erroneous.
Do you wish to defend the ICR?