People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

You'll have to find it for yourself.

First I am not giving enough information or answering enough questions, and now I have too many posts. Well, I have said all that there is to say. No need to keep pressing my points. If you want to know more, then read the book I recommended. I can see that I am really wasting my time anyway.

as it could be. Read it again to see what I think about evolutionary scientists. I also don't like to call people liars. That seems to be something you all easily do in speaking about creationists, though.

I don't know who cares, but I am just responding to questions asked of me.

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television docudramas insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call subspeciation (variation within kind), never transspeciation (change from one kind to others).Also, I am not sure what you mean about not being able to use the fossil record to confirm what the creation model predicts. The creation model predicts--by its very nature of what creation is--that life appeared suddenly and fully formed and that there would be no linking fossils from one thing to another if creation is true. Upon studying the eviidence such as the fossil record, this is exactly what we find. I don't think the fossil record cannot be used to help us sort out the evidence into categories or species. I am not sure why you say the creation scientist cannot use this record to do so???

and even when I post substantive arguments, the most i get is simply denial if I am not ignored completely. Taking the time to really get into it has proven to be a huge waste of time on a forum like this one where your messages are quickly lost under a barrage of posting or responded to with ad hominem posts.Consider my message #92 which basically went unanswered.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

According to the creation model, birds have always been birds.
The discovery of Archaeopteryx, which is a bird, should dispell the notion that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. Some specimens of this bird are so perfectly fossilized that even the microscopic detail of its feathers is clearly visible. So, having alleged missing links of dinosaurs changing into birds from a time when birds already exist doesn’t help the case for evolution.

Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes macroevolution impossible. Stop tooting your own horn so much. You all do this and I am unimpressed, really.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

There are no real transitional fossils in the fossil record. In fact, if evolution were true, it would seem that all forms ought to be transitional forms. But they are not. The fact is that the same gaps that exist in the living world, also exist in the fossil record. This is why scientists have had to tweak their theory..from Darwinism, to neo Darwinisn to post neo Darwinism. What you have had to do at this point is rely on hopeful monsters... the fossil record is in complete harmony with what creationists expect and we have not had to alter our model to fit the evidence.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I believe that the models of evolution and creation come with 'Predictions" inherent in the theory itself and the evidence is about what already took place in the past. Evolution looks for signs of life slowly and gradually developing over time, transmutating from one type or species into a newer (and bigger/better) form while creation posits that all things were created at one point in time and there is no change except that between created types or species.
I am not sure if creationists are still looking for anything else needed to confirm their model. They are satisfied thus far.

You ask: "What is it about the creation model that specifically predicts there should be a 'disintegrative principle' operating in the world?"The answer is because the creation model says that life was created initially and that it was "not" by a naturalistic process that is still continuing today. The creation model does not expect "upward change" or improvement. The expectation of disintegration is inherent in the model and experienced in real life.

Scientifically, neither model can actually determine that. All we can do is study the evidence left behind. Creationists believe that the evidence reveals that life cannot be explianed in terms of continuing natural processes but that some things must be attributed to completed processes that are no longer continuing. In this respect, both models simply need to address life as it continues under their respective models. In this regard, the laws of thermodynamics are only a problem for the evolutionists.

I am refering to the predictions already made and confirmed. I don't really know if Creationists are working on new predictions or if they even need to. I am not a scientist myself. I suppose you could study that for yourself if you really want to know. I haven't got the interest.

Mutations are only changes in already existing genes. All you get when radiation mutates a gene is just a varied form of what already existed.This process cannot change anything into something fundamentally different. I am not even sure that I would classify the ability to tan as a mutation. Rather, it seems quite good a design. It actually protects the skin. But this occurs within the framework of the type--and does not lend to evolution in the macrosense.

Scientists cannot explain the first and second laws..they do not know why they are there and where they come from. It is quite frustrating because for all intent and purposes we should be able to live forever. Without those laws, life would continue to regenerate. There is no apparent reason for decay and that is why scientists and people in general have always sought that fountain of youth. They recognize that if they could just stop that pesky old law of entropy--we might find life everlasting : )