People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

quote:

---

But you seem to miss the point that no one can observe or test evolution in the vertical sense, that is macroevolution which claims that natural process within a species proves that these same processes can lead to new and completely different species over time. That aspect cannot be observed, tested or shown to be true. It is a theory. Microevolution reveals great design *within* species and types.

---

Right, but speiciation has been observed and documented.From Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether speciation is achieved normally via genetic drift or natural selection is the subject of much ongoing discussion.

---

They have done this sort of thing with fruit flies.From the same link as above:

quote:

---

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas. [12] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).

---

The above experiment was done over 35 generations. Now imagine that on an even grander scale. What's to stop "macroevolution" from happening?This is a question that "creation scientists" need to answer, since microevolution implies macroevolution, but have apparently come up short.Over great periods of time, there is no barrier to stop new genetic information from being added. If there was, the scientist who discovered it would be 1 million dollars richer and hold a Nobel prize.You seem to be misinformed, and have brought a knife to a gun fight.

quote:

---

The best-documented "creations of new species" in the laboratory were "performed" in the late 1980s.

---

Attacking the source of evidence instead of challenging it, is not a good way to earn credibility.

quote:

---

The fruit flies remained fruit flies, by-the-way and were only able to be manipulated within the framework of DNA already present.

---

Will you ever see the forest from the trees?First off, there are 3,000 or more described species of fruit flies. So saying "the fruit flies remained fruit flies" covers a pretty wide range. Also, what you seem to be not understanding, is that with the experiment I posted the comparison is within 35 generations. The speciation "kept on rollin" with the experiment stopping at 35 generations.And about "manipulated within the framework of DNA already present". Surely you do realize that the new species that emerged would have slightly different DNA structure than its immediate "ancestor" species. So in effect you could trace back from the 35th generation to the original which was first in line. But why would it stop there? Was that the original fruit fly, first created? I'm sure you would say no and probably say that there was an original fruit fly created that was the ancestor to all current fruit flies. But why does this "first fruit fly" not have an ancestor? Why does logic stop there?Tracing back to an original replicator, is completely more logical then the sudden appearance of all species as we know them.

quote:

---

But obvious design is a good reason and in fact may even be the first cause of religion, and not vice-versa.

---

What makes a species designed? And why is it scientifically obvious?

quote:

---

We can each study and test this evidence according to our "models" or hypothesis to see which model better predicts what we should then find to be true.

---

What are the predictions of creation science?

quote:

---

Either life happened spontaneously and by chance through eons of time--or it was created instantaneously. I don't know of any other possibility.

---

You seem to be talking about the origins of life here. Evolution mentions nothing about that in its theory. Evolution can coexist with a creator.

quote:

---

We agree when it comes to microevolution...which can be observed and tested. Mutational changes, natural selection--all within its species are confirmed.

---

You seem again to be confused. There are species, and then there are names for a group of species. The fruit fly, again, is a good example as there are different species of fruit flies, all under the convenient name "fruit fly".Edited by Dman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

evolution in the microsense is a part of creation science.

---

Please, please, please elaborate. I am genuinely curious.

quote:

---

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.

---

How does CS explain the reptilian features of the Archaeopteryx?Also, Ambulocetus, how does CS categorize this?As a side note, I find it funny when evolutionists were predicting that a mammal such as Ambulocetus should have existed, creationists made fun of such a notion. Then the fossil was found and there was a hush in their community. Edited by Dman, : A side though after I posted

quote:

---

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.

---

See but a prediction in science is information that is not yet found, and predicted from the implications of its theory, and then found to be true.All I have seen of your CS predictions are things that are already present, and fitted to the CS "model".Also, I know you are being bombarded here, but could you please take a stab at answering how CS "categorizes" Ambulocetus and how CS explains the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx. This might help clear some things up.Edited by Dman, : No reason given.Edited by Dman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

You missed my point. Can you show me an instance where certain information was not known at the time, but was predicted by CS, and proven true?So you have no idea in regards to my other two questions?

quote:

---

with reasons and theories from the creation model, confirmed with actual agreed upon universal laws such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You can disagree with me, but please don't claim that I didn't state and support my claims.

---

It was not just a disagreement, you were shown to be wrong, and you just kept claiming the same BS.

quote:

---

I just wanted to show *why* creation science is a science.

---

Well, you failed. And here is why. When confronted with hard questions you ducked and dodged or just stuck with your argument no matter how bad it was logically broken down.I think you chose the wrong boards to try and convince anyone with these tired old arguments. Like I said earlier, you brought a knife to a gun fight.

quote:

---

I find it comical, actually. This claim that I have failed to make my point or that I am ducking questions is too funny for words considering the amount of posting I have done and continue to do to explain my position. The truth is that you disagree. But that is a far cry from proving me wrong.

---

I find it comical that you actually think you giving answers, and not just blind assertions, or strawman versions of evolution to push down.My quote:

quote:

---

Also, I know you are being bombarded here, but could you please take a stab at answering how CS "categorizes" Ambulocetus and how CS explains the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx. This might help clear some things up.

---

Your answer:
...

quote:

---

I feel sorry for those who claim to have faith, yet have no foundation for that. You disregard and reject the one thing that reveals God when you deny creation as revealed in life and in His Word.

---

I am sure Catholic Scientist appreciates your condescension and pity.So because he believes in a god (I am only guessing), it makes CS more valuable to him personally? What a strange science. Does it also apply to me if I believe in Zeus?

quote:

---

But hey, evolution certainly is valuable to you and must strengthen your faith in nothing. Yes?

---

I do not "pick" a science based on my presuppositions of there being a god or not. If there was concrete evidence of a god I would be mad not to accept it. There just simply is not.I also do not appreciate what you are insinuating here. You know nothing about me. George Michaels was wrong, you don't "got to have faith". I live my life to the fullest, god or not.And the ToE is valuable to all scientific fields. Do yourself a favor and read some scientific literature.

quote:

---

Dman the topic here is not God or anything about religion. Please do not further that discussion.

---

Sorry, that was not my intention. I was merely defending myself.With that out of the way I will simply re ask my unanswered questions regarding CS.

Can you show me an instance where certain information was not known at the time, but was predicted by CS, and proven true?

How does CS explain the reptilian features of the Archaeopteryx that you claim is only a bird?

Also, Ambulocetus, how does CS categorize this?