People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

and evolution are so intimately interwoven that trying to separate them is like trying to discuss what a magnet is without being able to mention the word repell.

So it looks like I am not going to fare well here..Evolution in the microsense..that is mutations and special selection are part of the creation model. You really cannot take evolution in that sense out of the discussion. Just because there is a science that names itself evolution doesn't mean evolution is explicit only to that particular study.

That was a little difficult to follow. I feel very stupid now : (The only thing I could gather from that whole thing was that you think that creation science must study the how of creation--rather than study the creation itself. I am trying to tell you that creation science is a study of life and how it works *since* origins.

I mean, anything is possible i guess. Maybe this is all an illusion or something. But I think this sort of thing is really nothing more than speculative philosophy, yes?

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. Those laws actually preclude the notion that evolution in the macrosense is even possible. That is macroevolution in the vertical sense; transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism.I meant to say natural selection, not special selection--I am not sure why I said special.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. Evolutionary biology does not explain how microevolution leads to macroevolution--at least, not in a way that proves it. The theory is an extrapolation, nothing more.Just because everything i bring up may be something that has been brought up doesn't mean anything to me. I think there is always a chance that you could suddenly see what I am saying--rather than what you *think* I am saying. You exhibit alot of preconceived notions and ideas against creation science and I think that it blinds you at times.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

But I haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about.

Archaeopteryx is a bird, so?
Australopithecus is an ape, so?This doesn't prove that birds evolved fron dinosaurs or that human beings evolved from apes. We can see similar design, but so what.

But then I would have to ask, what separates evolutionary theory from your list?

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 and indeed if evolution were true, this would be a gloom and doom situation for sure.Not only does the Second Law point back to creation; it also directly contradicts evolution. Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order. Evolution requires a universal principle of upward change; the entropy law is a universal principle of downward change.If language is meaningful, evolution in the vertical sense and the Second Law cannot both be true. The Second Law has been confirmed by all sorts of scientific tests, while macroevolution is a model not even capable of being tested scientifically. If one must make a choice, it would seem wiser to believe the testable evidence that precludes the extrapolation.

But with all their gymnastics and pat rejoinders to this obvious conflict between evolution and entropy, can they really argue even with the two most internationally acknowledged authorities on Thermodynamics--Sonntag and Van Wylen? In their widely used two-volume textbook, these experts write:.."the authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man's description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe." (Sonntag and Van Wylen, Vol. 1, 1973.)See "What is creation Science?" Morris/Parker

I have posted plenty about what the creation Model predicts, though i think I have been mostly ignored.Here is more.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. 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 prediction is borne out in the present assemblage of plants and animals and is obvious to all. If it were not so, it would be impossible to have a taxonomic system--one could never determine the dividing lines between similar organisms. The living world is not connected by unbroken series of intergrades but rather by distinctly separate arrays in which intermediates are basically absent.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.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

The response by evolutionists to this obvious conflict between evolution and entropy that the earth is an open system and that there is enough energy from the sun to energize the evolutionary process throughout geologic time ignores the elemental fact that an influx of heat energy into an open system directly corresponds to an increase in entropy (and therefore a decrease in "functional information") in that system. There must, therefore, be certain other constraints applied to an open systen before the information or organization of that system can be increased. Creationists have maintained that the necessary additional constraints include at least a directing program and a conversion mechanism. These are available in such cases as a growing plant or the errection of a building--but not in the supposed billion year evolution of the biosphere.Without some kind of biochemical predestinating code to direct the hypothetical evolutionary growth of the biosphere, it would become a heterogeneous blob if it grows at all. And without some kind of complex global energy conversion mechanism to store and transform the incoming solar energy, the sun's heat would destroy, not build-up, any organized systems that might exist on the earth. Without a code and such a mechanism, the naturally increasing entropy simply precludes a naturalistic increase of complexity on the earth, even though the earth is, indeed, an "open system" and even though there is, indeed, enough energy coming in from the sun to initiate and sustain evolution."What is Creation Science?" Morris/ParkerEdited by Kelly, : No reason given.

How could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory (evolution) that proclaims ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature? For you, why should there be species or "types" at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small begining gene pool, organisms should really just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. You cannot take comfort in the fossil record since it is used so well at classifying species and types. Living things were created to multiply after type, and that these created types could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations of the designer was well understood by pre-Darwinian scientists such as Karl Von Linne'.

And I am sure you know exactly what I think. The only thing truly evolving from one type into another is the the theory of evolution itself! Post Neo-Darwinians are now turning to hopeful monsters instead of simple mutations and "survival of the luckiest" rather than selection. Creationists are making more use of mutations and selection than evolutionists because these things support the creation model.

if it makes you feel better. But I know that an honest look around at my posts reveals otherwise.http://blogs.townonline.com/...oads/2008/03/head-in-sand.JPG