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

Pro never responded to my arguments. He kept wanting to turn this into a Creation/Evolution debate. He then merely asserted that the ICR website denies empirical evidence, but then does not provide any examples of empirical evidence that ICR denies. For one, he never once sourced ICR, so all of his arguments are mere assertions, which do not need to be proved or disproved. Now, go ahead, voters, and see if you can find evidence of the website denying emprical evidence (1)Evolutionists and Creationists AGREE on the empirical evidence. The arguments exists between the interpretation of what that evidence means. As I showed with the different models for the moon, there can be different possibilites for what the emprical evidence means. Even though my opponent never sourced any of his accusations, I will show why my opponent did not prove that ICR denies emprical evidence (even though I need not argue his mere assertions)He states that dating methods prove that the earth is old. However, Creationists argue that something caused the rates to be faster in the past. (He asserted that all attempts to increase the decay rate have failed but provides no source).He provides his own definition for macroevolution then argues that ICR disagrees with his own definition. Irrelevant.Evolution does defy the 2nd law of thermodyamics. Unless there is a mechanism to turn the raw energy into something productive (like plants with photosynthesis), then even in an open system, entropy will still increase. ICR does not state that no transitional fossils have ever been found. They argue that, even though Darwin predicted there should be millions of transitional fossils, there have only been found a handful of disputable ones (disputable meaning evolutionary scientists disagree with each other over the transitional fossils)The Cambrian explosion shows a sudden explosion of fully formed organism, which, honestly, is a subjective argument for Creationism.The earth's magnetic field does decay every 1400 years. A model by Russell Humphreys was presented which explained magnetic fields for planets. His predictions have been proven true, while the evolutionary models failed. This is a very good argument for a young earth (2)They argue that Neanderthals were like modern humans. The same is true that a chihuaha and a bulldog are both modern dogs, but they look very different. You can get variation within a species, so it's not wrong to assume that neanderthals could be the same species.Life cannot come from non-life. There is no evidence that it ever has, only the Miller-Urey expermiment which only produced some of the building blocks for life, which was later debunked anyway. Evolution is by chance, no matter how upset this may cause my opponent to be.The irreducible complexity argument is really a subjective argument.It should be noted, again, that none of my opponent's arguments were examples of ICR denying empirical evidence (evidence that we see in a lab and can repeat), he is mostly arguing for things that happened in the past that Creationists deny happening, which is NOT denying empirical evidence.My opponent only argued out of irrelevant assertions and ignored my arguments for how scientific models work. ICR is an accurate source for information on the basis that God does exist. Vote for Con if you agree that irrelevant assertions do not make for good arguments.(1) http://www.icr.org...(2) http://www.creationresearch.org...