People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

One good way to demonstrate the difference between creation science and religious creationism would be to provide some evidence for this claim; From here.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?Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

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.

---

I just wanted to know who these non-religionist creationists were that's all. You said there were lots. Then you post a page by a Christian which quotes two other Christians. Hmm...Nonetheless, lyx2no has said that this isn't what he wants to talk about, so how about this; if creation science is valid, why don't you tell us about it?

• Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
• Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
• What have creation scientists discovered?
• Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
• What practical benefits has creation science provided?

Answering these questions would go some way toward making a case for the validity of creation science.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Kelly,

quote:

---

This is just a quick answer because I really am not looking to debate actual scientific studies that can get very detailed and complicated.

---

Oh dear. If this is the case, you're going to have a hard time understanding what evolutionary theory really says and why the evidence in its favour is so strong.Science is hard. It requires work. Reality is complicated. It too requires work to even begin to understand the smallest portion of it. If creation science is such a good method, it should be easy to point us to useful scientific work being done by creation scientists. Where is it?If you are not willing to get in to specifics, you are going to end up just mindlessly repeating creation science slogans.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

With respect Kelly, all you have provided us with is slogans. Until you actually bite that bullet and show us some creation science, we're going to be left in the dark, or more likely, left with our previous low opinions of creationism.I'll ask you again;

• Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
• Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
• What have creation scientists discovered?
• Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
• What practical benefits has creation science provided?

Without some kind of answers to at least some of the above, I hope you can appreciate why some folks still need convincing.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Yeah, that would be nice. Personally, I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions;

• Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
• Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
• What have creation scientists discovered?
• Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
• What practical benefits has creation science provided?

I can't tell you how much it would help your case, Kelly, if you were to answer some or all of these questions. So far, you have ignored them. If creation science is sooooo great, why the reticence? Why not just answer the questions?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

The creation model postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve from other types at all.

---

That is not a prediction. It is, at the most generous assessment, a hypothesis, which creation science makes no attempt to test.

quote:

---

Consequently the creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.

---

This has already been falsified. Darwin suggested that great apes and men shared common ancestry. The obvious prediction of this was that ape-men style fossils would be found in the fossil record. They were found. They are called hominids. Evolution's prediction was upheld. Your "prediction" was falsified. it was falsified over a hundred years ago.

quote:

---

This prediction is borne out in the present assemblage of plants and animals and is obvious to all.

---

If it were this obvious, we would not be having this discussion, now would we? The fossil record shows a slow process of gradual change. the snapshots provided by the fossil record are entirely consistent with the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

If it were not so, it would be impossible to have a taxonomic system--one could never determine the dividing lines between similar organisms

---

You seem to have misunderstood how taxonomy works. A taxonomic label is not an absolute description of any life form. It is merely an arbitrary label, used to help us understand the diversity of life. Each taxon describes a portion of the spectrum of variation. The genomes of living things on the other hand, are not arbitrary and they can be directly compared to each other. These comparisons reveal a complex picture of millions of interrelated life. And gosh! That picture is entirely consistent with evolution and little else.

quote:

---

The living world is not connected by unbroken series of intergrades but rather by distinctly separate arrays in which intermediates are basically absent.

---

No they're not. Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus have already been mentioned. Perhaps you have heard f Tiktaalik? A more perfect example of a transitional fossil would be hard to imagine. What's more, it was found as a result of a prediction made by evolutionary science. The prediction was that if rocks of the right type (those related to shallow waters) and of the right age (about 375 mya, the time when fish were believed to have been in transition to amphibians) were examined, there would be the potential to find fish/amphibian transitional fossils. Guess what they found...

quote:

---

If all varients were connected by unbroken series of intergrades Creationists would be hard-pressed to explain such a thing. However, the present array of organisms fits precisely with the expectations of the creation model and the fossil record supports this as well.

---

Yeah, I heard you the first time. Do you have any examples of actual predictions, not mere post hoc reasoning? Do you have any examples of predictions made, tested and confirmed that can be compared to the Tiktaalik example?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

There is only one way for you to win a debate such as this; provide compelling answers to the question that everyone has been asking since the get-go. Tell us about creation science's predictions, discoveries and practical accomplishments. It's that simple.Or at least it would be, if creation science had ever accomplished anything. As it happens though, all it has to offer is a stock of bad arguments against evolution and a Bible hidden in its back pocket.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

But for Creation Scientists, their study is done apart from the Bible or God--it isn't looking to prove religion, just creation, isn't isn't looking to confirm biblcal stories, just created order.

---

Are you kidding? Did you read that AiG statement of faith that Modulous linked to? They also have a video on their site entitled "Creation: Science Confirms the Bible Is True, Part 1".Since you provided your little list of creationists from AiG, I don't see how you can claim that they are not creation science enthusiasts, yet they are explicitely religious. The damn site is called Answers in Genesis for FSM's sake!Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

AIG can do and say and believe what it wants to. So can I and so can you. This still has nothing to do with what the actual study in creation science is about. It is a study of the evidence, not of God. The fact that creation points to a creator is actually besides the point.

---

Exactly how dishonest do you intend to get? You claim that CS has nothing to do with religion, yet, when you are shown that one of the best known CS organisations has religion as its number one priority, you say it is irrelevant.If CS studies the evidence and not God, why does AiG say that science is secondary to the Gospels?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

So I take it you won't be quoting any more AiG sources to back up CS?Instead, how about you provide us with that creationist scientific study that I've been asking for.Mutate and SurviveAdded by Edit; You do realise don't you, that Gary Parker, co-author of the Morris/Parker book that you've been plugging was SourceEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Because an organisation that has openly admitted that it places the Gospels before science is not a credible scientific source?Because an organisation that has openly admitted that it places the Gospels before science whilst espousing CS somewhat undermines your claim that the two are unrelated?You have just said that AiG is not a scientific organisation, yet you cite What Is Creation Science as a good source for info on CS. Its co-author is a former senior lecturer with AiG and held that position when he wrote the book.Are you sure they're unconnected? If so, why are there so many references to creation science at AiG?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I have been trying to get answers to these questions;

• Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
• Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
• What have creation scientists discovered?
• Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
• What practical benefits has creation science provided?

Let's take a look at the answers I got.Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?Now Kelly did post a list of scientists, that's true. Unfortunately, it was a list provided by AiG, an explicitely religious organisation (as well as a very dishonest one), which makes me doubt its value somewhat. Many of those on the list have been dead for a very long time. Lists like this are just silly. We can't evaluate the scientific credentials of every person on such a list, its just another form of the Gish Gallop. Besides, creation science can't win the numbers game. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution.Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?Apparently not. Kelly has made no attempt to provide us with a CS paper. Why not? Is she just too lazy or does she realise that CS output is not up to scratch?What have creation scientists discovered?Nothing it seems. Kelly has made no attempt to answer this question.Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?Kelly has tried to answer this, albeit not directly. These are examples of the kind of answer she has provided. That is not a prediction. Now that is a prediction, but it was falsified before any of us were even born. I would say that the answer to my question is that CS tries its best to avoid making predictions, for fear of embarrassing itself even further than usual.What practical benefits has creation science provided?
None. Nada. Zilch. It's a shame.Two questions answered poorly and three ignored. If creation science were actually science, these questions should be easy to answer, but instead all we get is sloganeering and preaching.In short, there is no such thing as creation science. There is only a big lie, perpetrated by religious fundamentalists, in order to sneak their holy books into the schools. It's shabby and dishonest and anyone with a conscience ought to have nothing to do with it.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi ICANT,

quote:

---

I know I am on your ignore list, so I don't expect a reply, but I thought I would bring this up anyway.

---

It's not like that. I just felt that you weren't contributing anything of value to the "Bible's Flat earth" thread and that you were leading it up a blind alley that was only of interest to you. I'm quite happy to respond to you on other threads and vice-versa.I'm not going to respond to this post either though, because you're not supposed to respond to closing summations!Ah dammit, go on then...Newton's dead dude. He's like, way dead. If the best example of an creation scientist you can come up with is an alchemist who's been dead for nearly two centuries, you'll have to colour me unimpressed.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade