People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

You keep saying that people don't know what creation science is, but when pushed to describe it all you can come up with is invalid criticisms of evolution. You're just validating what people have been telling you about creation science: it has no coherent theory of its own and consists primarily of fallacious criticisms of evolution.--Percy

Kelly put together a pretty good post in Message 92. Things could change, but right now it doesn't look like I'll have time today, so maybe someone else can take a look at it. It hasn't drawn any responses yet.--Ted

To Everyone,There have been some concerns about topic. In Message 154 Lyx2no gathered Kelly's arguments that are on topic and that attempt to describe creation science. I suggest we focus on those. She claims that creation science's basic points are:

1. There's a universal law of conservation which preserves natural physical laws across all time and space.
   ​
2. There's a universal law of degeneration or decay.
   ​
3. Microevolution is a reality and is always degenerative.
   ​
4. Macroevolution beyond a "type or species" is impossible.

Kelly, a good place to register your criticisms of evolution is over at Evolutionary Biology as a Science where the last message is Message 28, hint, hint.You never replied to my message suggesting that you can click on your name to get a list of the threads your participating in, but I hope it was helpful and that you're having an easier time now navigating around the site.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix message link.

Kelly, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this discussion board. It's for debate. It's a venue for you to muster your most forceful arguments and your most persuasive evidence and see how they play out in the arena of ideas.So please stop handing out reading assignments and denigrating your opponents. These are from the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to follow when you joined:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

​

10. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

--Percy

Arrogance and insults tend to attract a lot of attention. I already called attention to that post, and both I and Lyx2no have provided summaries of your descriptions of creation science.--Percy

Since macroevolution is just the sum of lots of microevolution, if microevolution is possible, which you've already conceded, then so is macroevolution.--Percy

Hi Kelly,You're not thinking this through. You say: But your logic contains a contradiction, as illustrated here:

1. Creation science accepts microevolution within "types or species". Microevolution is consistent with 2LOT.
   ​
2. Creation science rejects macroevolution between "types or species". Macroevolution is ruled out by 2LOT.
   ​
3. Macroevolution is the sum of many microevolutionary events.
   ​
4. But macroevolution is ruled out by 2LOT, so microevolution must also be ruled out by 2LOT, otherwise many consecutive microevolutionary events would cause macroevolution.

I was trying to get you to recognize the contradiction so we could go to the next step, which is where you assert that microevolution does not violate 2LOT (the creation science version of 2LOT) because microevolution always occurs through an increase in entropy and a decrease in information.But we know this isn't true because we've observed mutations occurring both in the laboratory and in the field that result in increased complexity and information. Let me know if you'd like some examples.Even if you were correct about microevolution always being associated with an increase in entropy, macroevolution would still be possible, it would just be the accumulation of many microevolutionary events that increase entropy. In other words, whether you're right or wrong about microevolution and entropy, your logic is still bad.This thread is picking up posts at a rapid rate because you keep issuing poorly thought through messages that just beg to be rebutted. You're going to burn yourself out. There's no hurry, take a step back and think things through a bit.--Percy

Kelly's right, creation science is not religion.In reality, creation science represents the efforts of the fundamentalist community to dress up Genesis as science by removing all religious references. Their goal is to make Genesis concepts like a young Earth, unchangeable species, and a relatively recent global flood, acceptable in public school science classrooms where they can be taught alongside modern scientific understandings of cosmology, geology and biology.But despite the "creation science" name, there is no science in it. As Kelly has confirmed for us here, it consists primarily of criticisms of evolution and of long-ago refuted claims of miraculous events like global floods.Some advice for Kelly: people keep giving you good advice and you've managed to follow none of it. You're going to end up unhappy and frustrated if you keep up as you are. Take a step back and reflect on your experience here in this thread. Relax and take your time. Do a little reading outside your favorite book. Oh, and one more thing. The next time you feel like calling people close-minded or other names, look in the mirror.--Percy

To everyone still carrying on the discussion:PLEASE SEE Message 309.This thread is in summation mode. That means no more discussion, no more replies. Just post your summation, then stop.If anyone would like to propose a successor thread they can do so at [forum=-25].--Percy