Summations Only

Did you know that there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God? They simply recognize that the earth and all living things cannot be explained solely in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes. They recognize that life must be explained, at least in part, by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created. These scientists are not interested in the bible or in proving God, but rather, proving that there is created order in our world.The Evolution Model is seen as an atheistic model (even though not all evolutionists are atheists) because it purports to explain everything without God. The Creation Model is seen a theistic model (even though not all creationists believe in a personal God) because it requires a God or Designer/Creator able to create the whole cosmos

Really? Does the Bible really teach contrary to truth? Where does the Bible deny that the earth revolves and rotates around the sun? I have said this already, but the Bible is also a poetic work. People today write about beautiful sunrises--full well knowing that the sun does not literally rise.

Creationists do not deny evolution in the micro-sense. This kind of evolution is in complete harmony with creationists because it is predicted by their model and it is observable. There is a great diversity and variation *within* all species of life. We can see a great variety of different kinds of dogs, cats, and even people have evoloved over time, for example.Creationists draw the line with Darwinian evolution-that is-macroevolution, where the claim is made that one kind has morphed into an entirely different kind or species. That kind of evolution has never been observed by anyone because it requires an emmense span of time to supposedly occur. Ironically, macroevolution cannot be seen in anyone's life time due to the fact that it happens slowly over very long periods of time--yet, it cannot be seen in the fossil record either because it supposedly happens too quickly--in short bursts...and has been refered to as morphing. An example would be the supposed evolution of a dinosaur into bird. It is simply a creative idea with absolutely no proof.

How can my comments not be in keeping with these threads since I am merely responding to claims made in these threads? I am new to this forum and already I get the feeling it isn't going to be a place to enjoy. Some of these threads are ridiculously long and confusing. I am having a hard time fining my way around.

Why do you assume that a creationist believes in a creation myth? Creation Science can be studied independently of any religion or religious writings. There is a difference between biblical creationism and creation science.

But I believe that this is a forum for debate between both evolution and creation sciences. You are the one making unproven statements claiming that evolution is a science and creation is not. The jury is still out on that matter. You may not understand that, but don't lecture me, thank you. In reality, both the creation and evolution (macro) models are more of a philosophy. Neither theory can be considered a true science since we cannot repeat how life began. All we can do is describe models--or theories and then test the evidence to see which model the results better support. Remember that creationists are not in conflict over the issue of microevolution, which is observable, testable and predictable.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

Hi Granny Magda,Thankyou for the welcome.I have a funny feeling that most people really do not understand just what Creation Science really is. There is such a thing as Biblical Creationism. That is not what I am refering to. I am not so sure though, that even biblical creationists are putting the cart before the horse any more than evolutionists are.In truth, neither creation or evolution (in the vertical sense) that is, "macroevolution," which is a transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism--can be observed even if it is true.Macroevolution is an assumption made, and then the scientists set out to prove their theory. This is really no different than what a creationist does, whether he is using the Bible as his guide or whether he is simply detecting and looking for evidence of design in our world.

But I am passionate about this topic and actually know quite a bit about what Creation Science really is. I am only interested in setting people's misunderstanding about what it is and what it isn't, straight. If this is threatening to you and you don't think your forum members can deal with me, then I won't post here. It's up to you.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I am not talking about origins, either. Both the creation model and the macroevolutionary model presuppose how origins might have begun, but neither scientific study is actually studying origins.Creation Science is not a study of God or of how life began. These scientists are not setting out to prove that God did it--anymore than evolutionists are trying to prove that God didn't do it. Both sciences are studying the evidence of the earth looking for proof and support of their hypothesis.Science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order.

Creation Science is a study of the same evidence that evolutionists study, using the same scientific methods of making observations, establishing a hypothesis to explain those observations, and then testing said hypothesis. My purpose is to explain that most people do not really know or understand what Creation Science is.The simple truth is that the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man, and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory. They are entirely beyond the reach of the scientific method in the proper sense.This does not mean, however, that the "origin results" the evidence in the world.., cannot be observed and tested. That is, we can define two "models" of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things which we then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition.I recommend reading a book titled "What is Creation Science?" By Morris/ParkerEdited by Kelly, : No reason given.

You said that "we have directly observed the rise of new species from existing ones."How is that possible given the emmense spans of time needed for such a hypothesis to be true? There are missing links therefore the fossil record supports sudden creation better than long slow evolution from one species to another.

While Creation might discredit the theory of evolution, so too evolution discredits the theory of creation. Those are natural consequences and should certainly not be a reason to dismis studying and comparing both theories to try and come to a better understanding of our world and life itself.Either life happened by accident (chance) as the road to evolutionary science leads..or it didn't (design) which leads us down the road to life with purpose.Putting it differently, life either can be explained in terms of natural processes which are continuing to operate today, or they cannot. If not, then non-natural processes must have operated in the past to originate and develope at least some of the components of the universe.Trying to mix these ideas and conclude that life both happened by chance through natural processes still occuring today but that God did it-is an unecessary compromise. Evolutionary science in the Darwinian sense makes it possible that no God is necessary.The fossil record is a great example of how the evidence supports the hypothesis of sudden creation. The missing links support the creation model and refute the macroevolution model.The Law of Decay is supported by the creation model which implies two universal principles. One is the conservation of quantity and the other one of decaying quality. Horizontal changes are predicted as a conservative device, enabling the entire entity to be conserved even though enviromental effects cause it to change in form. Vertical changes, however, are predicted to have a net downward impact. Any apparent vertically upward change requires an excessive input of energy, matter, or information into the system, and can be maintained only temporarily, and at the cost of decay of the overall system outside.These predictions from the creation model have been precisely and universally confirmed. The two most universal laws of science are the laws of conservation and decay. In the physical realm they are called the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The evolution model not only cannot predict the decay law; but it actually excludes it. Roger Lewin wrote:"One big problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more order."Lewin and others may have talked vacuously about "open systems" hoping somehow to enable the universal laws to somehow coexist, but such arguments are purely metaphysical and are never seen working in real life. This leaves the entire discussion outside the realm of real science.As far as I am concerned, the reason present processes do not show evolution in action and the fossil record does not show any evidence of past processes of evolution (in the macro sense) is because the fundamental law of science governing all processes effectively preclude it. Al of this is predicted by the creation model and specifically contra-predicted by the evolution model. See "What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker for more details if you are really interested.Both of these models, creation and evolution, can be properly called scientific since they can each be used to explain or predict scientific facts.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.Page not found – Exchanged Life Discipleship

How can I know that I am not on topic when I am simply responding to these threads the only way I know how. I read them and I respond to what is written. I can't find my way around here easily and I am not even sure how to start a new thread. My interests are all over this topic of "creation verses evolution." It would be a pain to have to search out specific threads for every remark I have or point I want to make. It seems too complicated.

ThanksI'll try to comply if I decide to stick around. In my opinion, if it is that serious an issue to not stray off topic, then the original author of his own topic shouldn't make remarks that would lead others to stray. That is what has happened with respect to me. For the most part, I read the original post and then I go to the end and read the most current replies to see what is being discussed. After 200 some odd replies, naturally the topic is going to be off a little.