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

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.