People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

But you seem to miss the point that no one can observe or test evolution in the vertical sense, that is macroevolution which claims that natural process within a species proves that these same processes can lead to new and completely different species over time. That aspect cannot be observed, tested or shown to be true. It is a theory. Microevolution reveals great design *within* species and types. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I think that design is observed.Drawing conclusions based on observation is exactly what creationists and evolutionists do. There is an obvious disagreement on interpretation of this evidence.In my opinion, creation explains the "crap load of things we observe" as well-or better-than macroevolution can. Similarity between species can be as easily explained under a design concept as it can be under an evolution in the vertical sense concept. Just because there is similar design between humans and apes--does not "prove" that we evolved from a common ancestor.You say: "And yet Darwin went a step further, that no creation model predicted: selection can occur by the constraints of the natural world. So called natural selection, without conscious thought or preplanning this can lead to biological change in populations over time."The idea of natural selection came first from a creation scientist named Edward Blyth who, 24 years before Darwin, described it in the context of creation. Natural selection has been observed only to produce variation within type. But evolution in the vertical sense means more than change from moth to moth or fly to fly. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

It's very funny that it is being used to support the idea that one species can evolve into another through time and chance:The best-documented "creations of new species" in the laboratory were "performed" in the late 1980s.The fruit flies remained fruit flies, by-the-way and were only able to be manipulated within the framework of DNA already present.Need I say more?Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

can best predict what the evidence should reveal is most likely the true model.Yes, the creation model makes plenty of verifiable predictions that the evidence then supports.

Off topic material hidden.
Kelly, creation science is the topic here. Please explain it.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

An important and obvious test of these two models--evolution and creation, is to compare them in terms of the types of changes that they would predict for the various systems and processes of the universe. What should we see if everything is evolving in an upward and improving fashion and what should we see if everything was initially created and is no longer being supported by a continuing natural and upward development? This is the essence of conflict between evolution and creation.Creationists are convinced that there is a universal law of degeneration that defies the very notion of evolution in the vertical sense.If evolution were true in this sense, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops structure out of randomness and higher organization from lower. Since, by uniformitarianism, this principle is still in effect, scientists should be able to observe and measure it.The creation model, on-the-other-hand, 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, as required by evolution, 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, as required by evolution.See "What is Creation Science" Morris/ParkerEdited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

But the original question posed to me was asking "why" a scientist would suddenly start considering creation? I think people like to insinuate that it must be bacause of the Bible. They will argue that that is not scientific and not a good reason to study the evidence for created patterns and order. But obvious design is a good reason and in fact may even be the first cause of religion, and not vice-versa.Neither creationists or evolutionists can repeat the origins moment and are left with the evidence or results of that moment. We can each study and test this evidence according to our "models" or hypothesis to see which model better predicts what we should then find to be true.Either life happened spontaneously and by chance through eons of time--or it was created instantaneously. I don't know of any other possibility.We agree when it comes to microevolution...which can be observed and tested. Mutational changes, natural selection--all within its species are confirmed.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

Real evolution (macroevolution) requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is suppose to move from simple beginings to ever more varied and complex forms (molecules to man..fish to philosopher)You seem to think that these species inability to breed anylonger is a sign of evolution, but I think the opposite is true. Each variety now has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability. The long term results is likely extinction because these new variations which you call new species are now weaker.

"micro" and "macro" evolution. The first does not necessarily prove the second.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 evolutionists observe in science that creationists or Christians disagree with.The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems between the two models that interpret what is being observed.

Creationists work with the same evidence.

As I pointed out to Rahvin in a post up above:Real evolution (macroevolution)...Real evolution (macroevolution) requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is suppose to move from simple beginings to ever more varied and complex forms (molecules to man..fish to philosopher)You seem to think that these species' inability to breed anylonger is a sign of evolution, but I think the opposite is true. Each variety now has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability. The long term results is likely extinction because these new variations which you call new species are now weaker.
__________________________Evolutionists might classify cats into 28 species wheras creationists would classify them as one species. But cats are still cats no matter what their breeding turns out. When you can prove that you observed a cat evolve from something other than a cat, then I'll listen.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

How can you do that when the two topics run hand in hand?These discussions are going to look awfully silly after you sabatosh them like that.If the mention of evolution is pertinent to the discussion you should allow the flow of free discussion rather than censoring things like this. It kills the spirit and the ability to really debate anything.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

But I never got to see your reply because it was censored out.

I think you mean variations...of fruit flies. There is no added DNA information in all these fruit flies..rather, there is less information.

is that 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.