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

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 TysonI 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.CONCLUSIONCon 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.