Creation science II

Thank you for that much Evolutionists do the same thing. It is the nature of the beast, really, since none of us were there in the begining. I am not sure who you mean by this? Evolution scientists? They certainly do. The nature of operational science is the only kind of science where we do not need to use any kind of guesswork. Let me give you an example. I'll go back to the fossil record. If evolutionists and creationists are honest, we all know that the whole record is sparse at best and that transitional fossils do not exist. Creationists acknowledge this and are happy to conclude that this agrees with their model. Evolutionists also agree that there are missing links, but instead of dealing with the fossil record, they have had to basically abandon their dependence upon it. They now say, in order to override the painful truth about missing links, that evolution occurs in quick sudden bursts and therefore there shouldn't be transitional fossils at all. Now...whose allowing their worldview to get in the way of the obvious results of their findings?Also, radiometric dating does not always reveal the same exact results--even when testing the same evidence with the same method. It is unreliable. When we can see that the tests can't even acuratelly determine the age of things that we actually do know the age of, like rocks formed at Mt. St. Helen, why would we trust these same tests on rocks we don't know the age of? Ideally, yes, that would be great. However, in historical or origins science, we really can't help it. Guesswork is a criteria. I do not believe that you have shown me how evolution is different from creation in the study of origins. Both sciences are based on their particular worldviews of what might have occured in the begining. Actually, creation scientists study in all different scientific fields and when it comes to things observable, there is little disagreement. The argument will usually stem not from what is observed, but what it means--the interpretation? I think that this example would better fall under the operational sciences.
As for the rest of your post, it is all speculative.

Actually, that's a bit at the heart of the debate between evolution and creation, isn't it?In answer to your question, let's go with billions of years...

I guess you can make that become whatever you want to, hm?LINKhere's the actual link: What’s Happened to the Horse? | Answers in Genesis Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

It doesn't prove a thing, though. There is no proof that these fossils are stages from one to another. Just placing them as so is not proof. These are not [necessarily] transitional forms. Sorry.To me, a transitional fossil must contain incipient developing or transitional structures--such as half-scales,/half-feathers, or half-legs/half-wings..etc. No such fossils are known.The reason given?Established species are developing so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occuring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record.

I added AIG credit to the end of my post. So I don't believe there was any copyright infringement. I creditied Answers in Genesis for the article. The only reason I didn't link you directly was because this article was copy and pasted in my folder and I didn't feel like searching it out. I thought writing AIG was fine.The second thing is that you found the wrong link.Here it is: What’s Happened to the Horse? | Answers in Genesis

All I had to do was check on one: Australopithecus afarensis, remembering that from some time ago and also knowing that at best, you have an ape. Lucy’s Child, Selam, from Ethiopia | Answers in Genesis And the walking fish: Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2 | Answers in Genesis This is the problem, because we can play volley ball about all these claims back and forth. But all I really wanted to acheive was a better understanding of just what creation science is. I think I have done that because of the eagerness by all here to debate or debunk creationist findings. In fact, I sense a huge level of intolerance and anger over it. That's not very spirited in the way that would encourage anyone to want to engage any of you.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I wasn't aware of all these technicalities. I am so glad that you took the time to investigate this for me I have been copying and pasting excerpts from AIG--usually linking them, but not always directly, for many many years. I never thought of it as anything wrong since I am not actually publishing anything or taking credit for anything or making any money, Sheesh.Now that we have straightened all this out, I wonder if anyone will seriously consider the content of the article? Probably not.

No one can claim to be doing real science in the operational sense and both are guilty of being influenced by their worldviews. Pretending that evolutionists are different is just too silly!Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation.