Quote
I gave an example a while ago of a creationist scientist who says on AiG that he is struggling to find a YEC explanation of the life cycle of a star. Instead of considering that there might not actually be one because stars have been around for billions of years, he continues to look for ways to show that his predetermined ideas must be right. This is not how science works -- scientists do research and base their ideas on observations. Yet AiG openly says that people need to form their ideas first and then find the evidence to support them. Any person calling themselves a scientist, who works in this way, is nothing of the kind and I have no sympathy if they lose their job.
Science works like this: observe, then form an hypothesis, then test the hypothesis. Your version goes observe, then fantasize, than brag about how your fantasy fits the observation. I'll take the first method any day.

The straw man you seek to employ against AIG has almost no merit. How can we believe anyone forms their hypothesis without any observations? I mean it just doesn't happen very much. Einstein's about the only one I can think of who had any success - he imagined a fourth spacial dimension & sold the idea. It still hasn't been observed. Others have imagined up to 25 dimensions I'm told, but I don't care enough to get into pseudoscience like that.

Oh! How could I forget Öort! Okay, you guys have at least 2, although Öort was inspired by observations of comets. Maybe that's why I forgot him. Does he count?

Quote
Quote
If the book teaches science it's a science book.

You have so far been unable to give evidence that what it teaches is science.
Show me the book.

Quote
Quote
You claim it teaches religion? How come none of the dozens (minimum) of evolutionists who've gone over it with a fine-toothed comb haven't been able to find even one single reference to religion

ID=creationism=religion.
Lame response. Pure evobabble; not even close to true. Circular as a matter of fact.

Is there religion in this ID textbook?
ID textbook = religion

Marvelous!

Now how about answering my question? Why can't evolutionists find even one reference to religion in the book? Hmmmm?
Quote
I repeat my invitation to you to present a single example of an IDer who is not also a fundamentalist Christian.
I don't suppose the name Behe rings a bell with you, does it?
Quote
Quote
any empirical test is compatible with creation science
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty simple sentence. Which term is giving you trouble?


I'd like to know what test is compatible with creation "science."
Creation science is compatible with all legitimate observations and experiments. It's not compatible with assumptions or conclusions which exclude a creator.

Quote
How do you test for a creator?
Usually indirectly, if the results are to be displayed to others. In the past, some very direct tests were performed. Care to view some of the results?

Quote
Quote
Based upon the observation that a helium balloon rises, I don't think gravity works. That's an example of an argument which isn't based upon incredulity.

You claimed that "this X is too complex, based upon a, b, c" is not incredulity." This is still just an argument from incredulity which explains why someone is incredulous. I think you've illustrated the whole point well with your example above, which illustrates why the argument from incredulity is not scientific.
We're not interested in watching you twist words in an attempt to justify your private definition. When you accuse people of arguing from incredulity, you need to use the same terms everyone else uses.

Arguing from data is not arguing from incredulity. The proper refutation of the argument I presented is to demonstrate that the balloon is lighter than air. It must rise just as a bubble must rise in water. Thus the balloon is indeed complying with gravity when it rises.Mislabling the argument accomplishes nothing. Or is that the objective?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson