People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

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.

Who are these non-theist creation scientists? If they exist, they would go some way toward proving that creation science is not merely religion in disguise. If there are "many" they should be easy to find; so who are they?

I have requested evidence from Kelly, to back up his assertions and comments, a few times already today. Still waiting for a shred of evidence. I don't think any will be forthcoming.

I really think you missed my point with this. I wasn't saying that i had a list of people who believed that the earth showed creation or inteeligent design but that absolutely did not believe in a God. The point was that just as not every evolutionist is an atheist, so too, not every creationist is a religionist.

"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." (Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 161, emphasis added)Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

Your remark:
"I know what CS really is. Just what I thought it was: Much ado about nothing."
That remark shows me that you do "not" know what Creation Science is--and worse, that you are too closedminded to ever be able to see what it is.

Creation Science has a completely different and opposing hypothesis. Creation suggests that everything in the world was created at one point in time through processes that are no longer continuing today. This means that everything on the earth, for example--with the exception of things that have gone extinct and of course all the variations we see within a species--have been here from the beginning. Mutations and natural selection have changed things within their own kinds so that we see a variety of different kinds of dogs, cats, people etc... but each species is a separately created thing. Species have not evolved from other species. With this in mind, what should we find in the fossil record? Should we find that things show up suddenly and fully formed with no apparent link to or from anything else? Yes. And that is precisely what we do find. We can study the fossil record to find support for sudden creation and moreso, to disprove the idea of long slow evolution in the macrosense. The fossil record also shows signs of sudden burial in a catastrophic event of some type...rather than long slow burial with the layers supposedly representing different time frames. This is just a quick answer because I really am not looking to debate actual scientific studies that can get very detailed and complicated. I just want people to understand that creation science is not a study of God or religion. It is a study of the created earth, universe etc..

Coyote writes:This, that, and the other thing; or close enough to it.

What should we see if everything was initially created and is no longer being supported by a continuing natural and upward development?Creationists are convinced that there is a universal law of degeneration.The creation model predicts that there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature. Since the total quantity of matter and energy, as well as the highest degree of organization were created preternally in the begining, we could not expect to see naturalistic processes of innovation and integration operating today.From the creation model, in fact, one quickly predicts two universal natural laws: (1) the law of conservation, tending to preserve the basic categories created in the begining (laws of nature, matter, energy, basic types of organisms,etc..) in order to enable them to accomplish that function for which they were created: (2) a law of decay, tending to reduce the useful matter, energy, types, etc., as the original organization of the created cosmos runs down to chaos. As far as changes are concerned, one would expect from the creation model that there would be "horizontal" changes within limits (that is, energy conservation, variation within biological types, etc), and even "vertically-downward" changes in accordance with the law of decay (for example, mutations, wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net "vertically-upward" changes.Either life happened spontaneously and by chance through eons of time--or it was created instantaneously. I don't know of any other possibility.Evolution, in the microsense, is a part of creation science. Discussing Creation Science without being able to mention the aspects of evolution that directly confirm creation is nonsense. the first and second laws of thermodynamics is what limits evolution to microevolution or variation and mutations within a type or species...but never beyond. That is macroevolution in the vertical sense; transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism.Mutations according to the creationist are almost always harmful and they could never lead to an improvement or an increase in genetic information. They are limited.But just to summerize, the first Law of Thermodynamics states that there can be no creation or annihilation of Mass/Energy. One form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter into another, and there can even be Matter'Energy interconversions, but the totality of Mass'Energy in the universe remains constant.
The Second Law is a little more detailed and can be expressed in several ways, all of which can be shown equivilent. There's Classical Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics and Informational Thermodynamics.
In each case, entropy is a measure of the lost usefulness of the system. In classical it measures the useful energy which must be converted to nonusable heat energy. In statistical it measures the probability of the structured arrangement of the system--with the state of disorganization being most probable and in informational it measures the amount of garbled information, or noise, that accompanies the transmission of information by the system.
These Laws apply to the whole universe. These Laws predict a gloomy future for the cosmos.
The Second Law point back to creation. Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order. The entropy law is a universal principle of downward change.
The Second Law has been confirmed by all sorts of scientific tests.

I only wanted to get people to stop claiming that creation science is religion or a study of God or the Bible.

Obviously I have at least done the job of showing how it might actually be a debatable science--even if they disagree with the findings.

But it seems that although everyone here denies it is a science, they want to argue the findings anyway.

That ought to tell them something.

I wonder what the dinosaur evolved from? We have their fossilized bones which appear suddenly in the fossil record with no apparent linking backwards. What say you? Are there any proposed dinosaur missing links?