People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

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"?

But don't get too far ahead of yourself. You are already refuting the book and convinced it can't be right. That doesn't sound very open-minded to me.Also, keep in mind that the point of the book is to dispell the silly notion that creation science is not a science. You will quickly discover that even though you may not agree with the findings, it is still a science.It is very hard to have a serious discussion with people who actually disregard Creation Science based on the false belief that Creation Science is religion in disguise. I mean, I am the one who is ROTFLMAO! That notion is absolutely ignorant.

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 begining. 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..

It is not a study of origins and the cause anymore than evolution is. Your premise suggests that life created itself out of nothing. Am I asking you to show me how this is so and am I suggesting that that is not very logical and requires faith and therefore must be a religion? No. Evolutionists are trying to understand how life works, not what got it started and creationists are doing the same thing. We are trying to find out what is true and what is false about this world in which we live. Studying the evidence and looking for signs of created order is a perfectly legitimate scientific endeavor even if it refutes evolution and points to a creator.

Unless you are going to address the how/who or what of the origins behind evolutionary theory. Of course, you can't do that without admitting that evolution is about origins--which evolutionists completely deny.

After everyone can get on the same page with that much, then I am perfectly willing to dig deeper. Can't we get past this first? Otherwise, the only thing you will ever understand about Creation Science is the slogans.

We can see design in every aspect of life. Creation Science seeks to show this design. Obviously if there is design, there must be a designer. But that is something that every individual can address on their own in their lives whether they would choose to believe that this creator is a God or an alien. This is not the issue at hand for Creation Science. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

The truth or otherwise of creation doesn't depend on knowing the answer to that question either. It would work whatever the origin of life.

How did life just pop-up out of nothing? What was the starting cause? Where did all the elements needed come from? Who pulled the trigger, so-to-speak?

It attempts to answer these questions by studying the evidence left behind. It is an entire field of study. I would say that the more there is a purpose for something, the more evident the design would be. One of the most interesting aspect of design for me is the instinct for survival and the varying mechanisms of different species to protect themselves. Camouflage design is particularly interesting to me.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I am simply studying the created objects and order of life. I don't need to prove the origin moment and how it happened any more than the evolutionist does. It is the evolutionist who is insisting that I address it, and I am simply pointing out that if the evolutionist doesn't have to explain how life can pop up out of nothing in order to study the evidence, why does the creationist have to explain how life was created rather than popped out of nothing in order to study the evidence? Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I just want everyone to understand what creation science actually is. I am not saying that evolutionists are claiming that life popped up out of nothing. In fact, I said that evolutionary science does not address origins. I think there is good reason for that. The obvious conclusion in evolutionary theory-if there is no creator--is that life created itself. Personally i find that harder to believe than to believe that God created life. But this is besides the point also.My point is that if evolutionists are not required to address the how of origins, then why should creationists have to address it in order to study the evidence. It is a double standard.Anyway, I feel bombarded and I can see that I am all alone here. I can't possibly respond to everyone. I have decided to leave this forum. I hope people will at least try and learn about what is Creation Science so that the next time a Creationist seeks debate here you will be able to deal with them honestly and fairly--and maybe they would even be interested in sticking around a bit. Preaching to the choir must get really boring.Take care.

What led people to deny the obvious signs of creation that was an accepted teaching for hundreds of years and assumed by most early scientists?It wasn't until Darwin that this popular notion of evolution became a topic and eventually dogmatic teaching.You really can't say that it was observation. The laws of thermodynamics, the complex structures if living organisms and the universal gaps between types in both the living world and the fossil record support creation.Going from recognizing the processes of mutation, selection and sexual recombination that produce variation within type--which is really nothing short of great design (microevolution), to extrapolating that these processes can explain presumed evolutionary changes from simpler to more complex types (macroevolution) is not any sort of logical inference from observation--but a fantastic faith in the future of a theory that the facts are certainly failing.No one can logically extrapolate from mutation and natural selection to evolution in the Darwinian sense or even in the neo Darwinian sense by claiming they have observed any such event.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

onfire asked me what caused people to study creation, as if to imply that it isn't observed first. My answer addresses the point that creation was observed first, and assumed long before evolution. I also showed that the process of evolution in the vertical sense (macroevolution) a theory that claims life evolved from disorder to order--from simpler to more complex--from molecules to man--has never been observed by any human being because it requires emmense spans of time to occur. No one lives long enough to claim they have observed such a thing. So in this respect, I can ask onfire the same question--what causes someone to look for signs of macroevolution? It is an extrpolation at best.Mutations and special selection are the processes of microevolution, which the creation model can predict and this process does no harm to the model. However, these same mutations and selection cannot support evolution in the vertical sense because they do more harm than good.Disproving evolution does prove creation, but I recognize that that is not a science itself. I just wanted people to read the book so that they could see that there is more to creation science than disproving evolution. There really is.I am not really interested in posting in all sorts of different threads because i will just get lost and forget where I was and who I was talking with. In fact, I really can't put the kind of time into this that you all seem to be able to do. I would love to spend all day at this, but I just can't. I was hoping to at least get past the fact that we do not have a shared understanding of what creation science really is. I know that recommending a book is taking the easy way out for me. I just cannot sit here and type out all sorts of studies and findings from this book or any other book. It is too much work. I am sorry : (I will check in from time to time, but I am not able to participate in the way you want me to.

Lithodid-Man,I'll check back in when you have finished the book.