People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

"and you failed to tell us anything we didn't already know"I think the fact that you all seem to think that creation science has to do with religion or God proves that you don't "already know" just what creation science really is. The continued ad hominem posts avoiding discussing the actual scientific aspect of creation science is blatant.

It surprises me when a man of faith has really no faith at all.Although creation science itself can and is studied apart from God's Word...a person of faith actually has an extra tool at his disposal. It is a wonderful thing to discover just how trustworthy God's Word really is. It's a faith builder.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.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I recommended the very source needed to see the difference. "What is Creation Science?" Morris/ParkerJust because many religious groups adhere to Creation Science doesn't mean that the study is about them or their religion.

And it can be as simple as addressing the source of my argument, rather than the argument itself.

But to spend the time only to watch you totally disregard it and act as though your disgreement proves that what I am saying is not derived by scientific study is just so false that I can hardly bare to spend any time at it at all. Why not simply consider taking a look at the book I recommended. I think everything I have posted so far would become more clear to you. I just can't keep up with this board. So sorry : (

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

You are parroting a common claim that has no truth to. If you were really familiar with the book, you would know this and you would know what creation science really is too.

AIG is not a Creation Science study..it is a biblical creation organization that can point to creation science to support itself.

When it comes to the scientific aspect, there is no reason not to.

Are you saying that extinction would not be in keeping with the creation model?

it has nothing to do with an inability to respond to most of what is said here. Creationists likely recognize the futility of it in a place where they are outnumbered by a herd of people totally indoctrinated deep down to the core of their very being.

Christian colleges, creation websites, etc.

I would not enjoy a creationist site and I certainly do not like heavily moderated boards. I get bored preaching to the choir or having the choir preach to me. I like finding people who don't agree with me, but this place is just a little too one-sided. If there were more creationists chiming in it might be more enjoyable.I am sure i'll keep checking in now that I have found this place, but I really am not able to follow through with anything due to the fact that I am overwhelmed by the amount of responses. Maybe I am lazy, not sure what it is, but it seems to huge a job for little ole me : (

They do not support macroevolution. But I assure you that the students learn about the theory and the debate between the two models.

From what I can tell, extinction is something that the creation model would predict. In fact, creation science says that the dinosaurs likely went extinct due to natural reasons such as a climate change--but also think that due to the way they were fossilized they may have been victim to a flood catastrophe first and that if there were any survivors after that--they simply died off eventually anyway. The idea is that water dinosaurs and the flying reptiles could have initially survived a catastrophe like the fossil record suggests had occured.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.