Creation science II

Creationists have no problem with most sciences, and in fact are the first initiators of much in science. It was a creationist who first pointed to natural selection for example. Creationists deal with all the sciences.. physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, genetics, physiology, embryology etc. Where we differ is in the interpretation. Evolutionists believe that these studies all point to a world that has slowly evolved from simpler to more complex over a long span of time. Creationists believe these studies support that life is a marvel of created laws and order. Creationists accept microevolution as a process seen through mutations and natural selection within types.It is only when scientists branch out with the extrapolation that micro means macro evolution that we disagree.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

But regardless of what a person's religion is, creation science is a study of the evidence or data left behind from the origins moment--whatever that is, whether creation or slow evolution in the vertical sense.Before Darwin, most scientists were creationists studying their particular field of interest. Today, just because evolutionary theory has grippied us by the throat doesn't mean that scientists can't still look for the created order and design of our world as opposed to looking for evidence of long slow evolutionary processes.

to just one half of the equation. As long as the overall topic is creation, we ought to be allowed to say the buzz word, evolution.I don't know what you mean by asking what are these studies?--since I gave you quite the long list of what these studies are. The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is not in the actual studies of the evidence itself, but it comes in the interpretations. The methods of science are the same. The difference is in the models and the interpretation of the results of these studies.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I don't know what else I can say to make you see that creationists are studying the same evidence and using the same scientific methods and data as any evolutionist is. We don't oppose any science and in fact agree with everything that is observable.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I have given many examples of how creationists interpret the evidence differently and why. People here just disagree with our interpretation, but that is a different story. Stop saying that I haven't offered anything because I certainly have.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I have more than once used that term in conjunction with "species." There are many different types of cats, for example. But a cat is a cat is a cat.

Please be more specific.We always agree on what is observable.

Well that doesn't work for me because I like to respond to everyone who bothered to reply to me and then- I'm off. I can't sit at my computer and wait fifteen minutes between every reply; I do have a life, ya know. Tell me how I can condense one response to many into one reply and I would gladly do it that way. I am not too sure that I like the sort of censorship that goes on here. I am used to posting at forums that just move along as conversation does, no need to look back and count the replies. That just seems so silly to me. I never saw a forum where threads got closed, and gosh, how many moderators are here?? We can't say certain words or make relevant points if the word needed to do so is evolution in a creation thread and conversely, creation in an evolution thread? That is too much to put up with. I am not sure that I can handle myself well, here. This isn't because I don't like to follow rules, but because it breaks the natural flow of conversation and makes this board feel more like a "resource center" or something.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

Was not to prove that these were all creation scientists per sey, but to show that real science existed long before evolutionary scientists were in practice.Even today, there are many scientists who perform the so-called real science using all of our scientific methods and data who do not accept evolution in the vertical sense as a good explanation of what we find through these studies.The scientic method, its appraoch, equipment and data do not belong exclusively to those who seek to find evidence of slow evolution.Creationists have every right to these things and have every right to disagree with evolutionists without having to hear that they are just practicing religion.Science is science no matter who is performing it, no matter what they are hoping to prove or find.You might think you can justify shunning creationists work on the basis that it is religion in disguise, but that is simply not the case. The sooner people finally grasp what Creation Science really is, the sooner we can all move on from this tired old song and dance.Creation Science isn't going anywhere. The sooner evolutionists accept that and get used to it, the better for everyone. Maybe once evolution finally embraces the challenges it faces from oppsing viewpoints some real scientific study/comparison can begin.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

I think it makes sense that those who adhere to creation science would be Christians by the majority. That does not mean that the science is a study of religion or of the Bible.I am trying to show that creationists use the same scientific methods and study the same data in the same way as evolutionists do. Creationistrs are involved in every aspect of science as scientists.Creation Science has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. The book I am recommending was written by two scientists who happen to be Christians. In fact, Gary Parker was a staunch evolutionist, with a doctorate in biology, who eventually abandoned those views on evolution later on in his life. Henry Morris has a doctorate from the University of Minnesota where he majored in hydraulics and hydrology and minored in geology and mathmatics.
They practice real science. There is nothing about true science, by-the-way, that excludes the study of created objects and order as opposed to evolved objects and order--if order is even possible under that theory.

...the "how" of creation anymore than evolutionists are trying to prove or figure out the "how" of evolution in the vertical sense. I am talking origins, that is.Neither the evolutionist or creationist can go back in time to that moment or recreate it in a lab. In this respect, the scientific method is impossible and I really think that the origins question is more of a philosophy on life.But this doesn't mean that we can't each test the evidence or data left from that origins moment to see if we can figure out what might have happened. In this respect, creationists' are using the same evidence and scientific methods to test their hypothesis or model of what they think may have happened and what is happening presently.Evolutionists claim they aren't addressing origins, yet their theory in the Darwinian sense(macroevolution) does raise the how question and also insinuates an answer by its very nature. This is no different from the creationist model which will also raise the but "how?" question.How could something be created? How can something create itself? Those would be the two opposing questions.The two opposing models simply state that either theuniverse itself is self-contained and that the origin and development of all its complex systems (the universe, living organisms, man, etc) can be explained solely by time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy....or...that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are not continuing as natural processes in the present.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

You say:"Science follows the scientific method. That means it works from evidence to theory (explanation). It doesn't start with a conclusion (biblical inerrancy) and force the data to conform to that conclusion. As an example, science doesn't calibrate the radiocarbon curve by use of the "global flood" to force radiocarbon dates to support a young earth. Creation "science" does, and I have seen this on several creationist websites."In the case of macroevolution--which cannot be observed and is an extrapolation--this is a theory based on starting with a conclusion first and then trying to force the evidence to agree. You can deny this all you want, but it would be a waste of your time.Also, radiocarbon dating is shown to be unreliable.I could as easily point out that evolutionists need an old age theory to be true because without the necessary eons of time required for evolutionary processes to occur, the theory collapses. Again , I am speaking about macroevolution and not the easily observed microevolution that creationists and evolutionists agree about.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implicationsbut without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.That’s why creationists have had to develop their own peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Some creationist scientists are world leaders in their field, like geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratories, in the field of plate tectonics [see interview Creation 19(3):40—43, 1997].For a more detailed answer see "Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?" Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? | Answers in Genesis For details on some creationist scientists and their publication records, check out the Biographies section of the website. Bios | Answers in Genesis Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

that creation science is a science. Whether you agree with the scientific findings and conclusions of creationists on any particular study is not the point.I am not interested in debating the findings until you first concede that we are discussing "different" scientific findings and not whether or not one group's studies can be considered scientific.Disproving the findings of an opposing viewpoint does not prove that the scientific method was not followed or that theirs' is not a science. Two evolutionary scientists can come to different conclusions based on their studies yet one would never tell the other that he wasn't practicing science, would he?Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

You say: In truth, Dr. Adequate..each group has made their prediction and has used scientific methods of dating to determine if their theory is correct. No matter which group is right, it doesn't mean the other group did not follow proper scientific protocol. It merely means that there is disagreement in the findings. Even if creationists were to be proven wrong, which they have not been, wouldn't mean that they were not practicing science.My argument thus far is not about any one particulr study or findings for or against creation or evolution. It is just to show that creationists are indeed practicing real science.When it comes to dating, creationists have concluded that, for example, radiocarbon dating is unreliable. Different methods yield different ages on the same specimen and there are also variations even when the same method is used.How can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth with this in mind? Steven Austin, PhD geology, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The ages of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.When radioisotope dating fails to give us an accurate date on rocks of known age, why would we trust these methods to date rocks of unknown age?Recent studies have provided evidence that radioactive decay supports a young earth. One of their studies involved the amount of helium found in granite rocks, for example. Gathered evidence has suggested that at some time in history nuclear decay was greatly accelerated. But again, not to argue the data or study itself (I am not really qualified) but just want to show that creationists are performing scientific studies even if you don't like what the obvious implications might be.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.