People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

And as I've already mentioned to you, twice, we have directly observed the formation of new species both in nature and in the lab. That would be "evolution in the vertical sense" as you put it.We have observed variation within species.
We have observed those variations cumulatively producing new species.
We have observed both, in both the laboratory and in the wild.Your position is falsified by direct observation, Kelly. Many examples are shown here.So-called "macroevolution" happens, Kelly. You can't prove it any better than directly observing it as it happens. Continued denial is identical to insisting that the Sun does not exist.Of course, we have more beyond direct observation as well.If you've ever seen CSI (or any TV talk show), you know that DNA can tell us how one individual is related to another; a simple blood test can tell if two individuals are brothers, or parent/child, or related more distantly.We can do the same thing across multiple species. Genetic tests can show us how closely related two individual organisms are. Oddly enough, we see that genetically, various species (humans and chimpanzees, for example) share a common ancestor - we're very distant cousins, in effect.You're claiming something has not happened, and yet we have mountains of evidence including direct observation showing us that it has. Why? Further, if you believe these claims to be wrong, why do you not attempt to refute them but instead ignore them?It would seem that you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and dismissing solid scientific evidence that does not fit your pre-established conclusions. That's a poor method for debate, Kelly.

What it means to you is irrelevant.Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.We have directly observed new species emerging from pre-existing species, as the term "species" is defined and used by scientists. This is not up for debate - it's fact. You can fel free to dispute the definition of teh word "species" if you like, but I find teh definition that scientists actually use to be most relevant to these sorts of debates, and I would categorize attempting to re-define "species" so that your claim remains true as shifting the goalposts. Further, you'd have to re-categorize all of biology to match your new Kelly-categorization system, since apparently the categories of species, family, genus, etc as used by scientists are not good enough for you.How arrogant of you.Species are typically defined in biology as distinct populations that are capable of producing viable offspring. All cows, for example, can interbreed and produce offspring that can also reproduce - they are the same species. Cats and dogs cannot produce viable offspring, and so a different species.In the examples I gave with my link, we have observed several populations that are no longer able to produce viable offspring with their ancestor populations. By the definition of "species," a new species formed as a direct descendant of an ancestor species. This refutes by direct observation your claim that we have never observed new species forming.

Off topic material hidden.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

No worries - I copied the contents to the other thread. You can reply there, where it will be on-topic.The reason we're so strict about maintaining topic cohesion is twofold:1) allowing constant tangent discussions removes the entire purpose of a thread title, and significantly reduces the chance of coming to any sort of resolution to the initial post in a given thread2) we have limited posts for each thread before the board starts to have trouble. Because of this, we typically cut off threads at around 300 posts or so (with unusually interesting/heated debates sometimes being pushed to 400). Limited posts means each post needs to be directly tied to the actual argument going on in the thread - offtopic posts just waste limited space.I understand that it feels more "natural" to simply carry the discussion however it leads, but the rules of this site are specifically set up to discourage that in favor of actually addressing the topics of each thread to the greatest degree possible. It's actually quite helpful once you get used to it, as you can target your arguments and refutations and evidence far more clearly when you do so in light of the topic. Both you and your opponent are less likely to become distracted by some new, barely-related argument.In any case, let's not risk the wrath of the admins any further - as I said, I've copied my reply to the other thread, and you can see it easily if you clock the "All Topics" link at the top of the page (this is my preferred method of navigating the site, as I can see the most recently active topics on top). Feel free to reply to me there.

Kelly, in your own words, what is Creation Science?Give some examples of Creation scientists.Give some examples of Creation Science articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.Describe how Creation Science differs from just plain "science," if at all.I assume that one of the explanatory models proposed by Creation Science is an alternative to the Theory of Evolution that biologists consider to be highly accurate. What evidence does the Creation Science model that explains the diversity of life on Earth explain better than the Theory of Evolution? What predictions are made that are more accurate than those made by "normal" biologists?Let's not talk about what the Theory of Evolution does nor does not say - that's for the other thread. Let's just talk about what Creation Science says. You've told us that we're ignorant of the subject - please, educate us, in your own words.

This isn't really a statement of anything, Kelly. You're trying to support by disproving the theory of Evolution; it doesn't work that way. This is called a false dilemma - just because my car is not a Toyota does not mean it's a Honda. Similarly, even if the Theory of Evolution is completely incorrect, your as-yet undefined "Creation Science" does not "win" by default. Without evolution, the diversity of life on Earth could be the result of divine Creation, or alien genetic engineering, or some sort of cyclical time where given organisms arise at certain points in the cycle, or some as-yet unimagined natural process.So let's ignore evolution for the moment. A scientific theory is an explanatory model that accounts for relevant observations; the Theory of gravity, for example, explains the observation that objects tend to move towards the Earth when dropped (among other things).What evidence does Creation Science explain? What is the explanation of that evidence that Creation Science offers? How did Creation Scientists arrive at this conclusion? What predictions does Creation Science make, and which have been verified? Have any been falsified?Pretend we all know absolutely nothing about the subject. How would you explain Creation Science to someone who had never before heard of Creationism, or God, or biology?So far, it's difficult to even get a clear view of what you're talking about. If you can educate us in the simplest terms possible as to what your actual position is, we can actually debate that position instead of meandering about on various tangents and generally angering the mods.

And yet this is blatantly false, and it has been pointed out to you several times already. You haven't argued the refutations, you've simply ignored them.I'm not even going to talk about evolution here, since it's off-topic in this thread. Suffice it to say that you are misrepresenting what evolution says.As to thermodynamics - assuming this is on-topic - you're flatly wrong. Order can and does spontaneously form from chaos. One of the simplest examples is a snowflake - an organized, patterned crystal that forms without intelligent interaction and with a net gain in entropy. The form all the time, by the billions - saying that order cannot rise naturally from chaos is clearly factually wrong.Further, if your Creation Science claims Creation, then it does violate teh 1st Law of Thermodynamics - in your own words, matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Unless "Creation Science" refers more to "intelligent assembly from pre-existing matter." I'm not certain, of course, because you haven't told us what Creation Science says yet. We're almost 150 posts deep here, Kelly - would you please tell us what you mean by Creation Science?

Now we have something to go on! Does this "creation" involve manifestation ex nihilo? As in, are you talking about literally causing something to appear where nothign was before, or are you talking about restructuring already-existing matter into the living things observed today? And so you postulate that all of the transitionals typically referred to (like Archeopteryx) are variations within a "type?"What "type" is Archeopteryx? Is it a bird? Is it a reptile? Is it a dinosaur? Is it a mammal?It has teeth, but birds don't have teeth. It has feathers, but reptiles don't have feathers. You see how Archeopteryx is difficult to really classify - that's one of teh reasons it's typically called a transitional. "Obvious to all" isn't a good line of reasoning; clearly, its not obvious to me, or most people in this thread. It is, in fact, extremely difficult at times to classify organisms, due to the fact that the lines are blurred. Again, how would you classify Archeopteryx? There are examples of "half-evolved" (I hate using such terminology, but it's the best way to describe what I;m getting at despite its technical inaccuracy) features throughout the fossil record. How do you classify organisms that seem to straddle the "line" between one classification and another? How does Creation Science address the genetic evidence that the living world is, in fact, conencted by an unbroken chain of common descent? How does Creation Science address the fact that all features of every organism now existing or found int he fossil record is not unique, but rather seems to be a slightly modified or re-purposed iteration of the same feature found in a pre-existing species? How does Creation Science address vestigial features, such as the vestigial leg/hip bones in whales, or the atrophied cecum that is the human appendix? Indeed. How so? From what I can tell, genetic relationships, the fossil record that clearly shows a gradual change in organisms with various features rising in sequence, the apparent descent-with-modification of all individual features, the directly observed change over generations resulting in new species with no mechanism preventing larger cumulative differences, vestigial features, and apparent unguided, random trial-and-error approach with which species seem to form, appears to far better fit a model of gradual change over time as opposed to special Creation. If you disagree, please explain why.In fact, were special creation to be valid, I would expect that almost no features at all would be related to one another; wholly distinct species would be found with no apparent relationship or similarity to other species should be found in the fossil record. Genetics should show no relationship between species. Vestigial organs should not exist. Obviously, none of this is true - and so it would seem that special creation is falsified. Would it not? If you disagree, please explain why.

Kelly, I'm afraid that thus far you haven't shown that Creation Science has any validity. You've made unsupported assertions and claimed that they are "obvious," when clearly (by simple disagreement) that is not the case.Your primary points (such as your usage of thermodynamics) betray the fact that you don't actually have a competent grasp of the subject matter. You have no concept of what the Theory of Evolution actually states, you don't understand the foundational evidence behind it, and you don't respond when people correct you, instead continuing to re-use previously refuted points without challenging the refutations. Quite seriously, you don't know enough about science to comprehend your incompetence. I'm not saying this as an insult - I'm honestly trying to convey that you simply don't know enough to realize how much you don't know, or how much you think you know is inaccurate at best or outright fabrication from a Creationist source at worst.You don't even have a grasp of basic logic, and so your arguments are riddled with fallacies ranging from ever-present strawmen to the false dichotomy that if you disprove evolution somehow Creationism somehow wins by default.Most of your arguments seem to be paraphrased or even outright copied directly from a single Creationist book. You've mentioned not a single published paper in a scientific journal supporting so-called Creation Science, nor have you provided an example of a Creation Scientist. You've been unable or unwilling to tell us of a single discovery made by Creation Science, and you haven't even been able to coherently describe what Creation Science is despite being asked to do so for the entirety of this thread.Honestly Kelly, your lack of real response to other people, particularly your absolute refusal to respond when one or more of your points is refuted and your pattern of re-using refuted arguments, leads me to believe that you are either incapable or unwilling to participate in an actual debate in good faith. I'm disengaging in debate with you until such time as you prove that conclusion to be inaccurate. You can do so by either conceding points that have been refuted, or actually challenging the refutations with some sort of evidence to back you up beyond the assumed authority of your favorite book.

Not a single person has made an ad hominem attack on you, Kelly.An ad hominem fallacy takes the form of ", ergo you are wrong."For example, "because Kelly is a dumb Creationist, Kelly's points are all invalidated" is an ad hominem.However, "Kelly, you don't comprehend the Second Law of Thermodynamics; here is what it actually says, and why you are wrong" is not an ad hominem despite the insinuation that you're ignorant, because you are refuted not by an insult but by the actual reasoning that explains why you are wrong.In fact, "Kelly, you moron, you don't even comprehend thermodynamics at the High School level. Go read a physics book written by a physicist and come back to us. Thermodynamics has no such "law of decay," and it says nothing about complexity being impossible with increasing entropy!" is not an ad hominem, despite the insults - the insults are not used as the refutation, but are side comments independent of the refutation of your understanding of thermodynamics. It would certainly be an example of poor manners and excessive hostility, but it still wouldn't be an ad hominem.Again, you don't have sufficient competency in the fields of logic or science to even recognize your own lack of competence. Your concepts of virtually every facet of science you've presented in your time on this forum have been so far from what is recognized by actual scientists that you may as well bring up Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles asan example of "mutations" or "transitional forms." It would have the same relevancy to actual science as your own claims.

Projection is fun, isn't it?