[EBUCK]

You mean like the aforementioned nebraska man...err pigs tooth. Or maybe circular reasoning used for dating or perhaps the ontogeny recapitalization hoax.

The real difference is that science polices itself and exposes errors/hoaxes/lies through peer review. ICR has a diferent system...if it can create doubt, counter evolutionist theory, or garner support is will be used without regard to fact, evidence, or peer review. ICR is not a scientific institution as it claims. Its staff is chock full of frauds and liars whose sole purpose are to spread unfounded propoganda.

EBUCK

[balrog666]

The real difference is that science polices itself and exposes errors/hoaxes/lies through peer review. ICR has a diferent system...if it can create doubt, counter evolutionist theory, or garner support is will be used without regard to fact, evidence, or peer review. ICR is not a scientific institution as it claims. Its staff is chock full of frauds and liars whose sole purpose are to spread unfounded propoganda.

Yes! It's the devil's work!!

[RobRoy]

RE: your post 184. I agree with your analysis of much of the CR folk. Where we part ways is that I think the other side is rife with the same sort of folk - with better credentials.

At the end of the day, they're all just people, many of whom have an agenda.

[DaveyB]

Its staff is chock full of frauds and liars whose sole purpose are to spread unfounded propoganda.

Well it's a good thing we have you, the truth detector, why with that kind of logic the debate is over -- who dare argue with an ex cathedra statement of omniscience like that.