People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

Hi. I think i may be a transitional form.

I don't know much about science myself and i can hardly understand mathematic language, even less pages full of equations. But i have the sense that following your advices to get informed about what second law of thermodynamics really says would have been a smart move for Kelly, because each time the "2nd-law-shows-that-evolution-is-impossible" argument is on, on every forum i've been visiting and participating in, it's quite quickly turned off by people who have the honesty and the kindness to recall it's not a viable tool of refutal. By the way i guess Kelly might feel like there is some kind of league of evolutionists picking on her on this thread, but it's clearly not the case.I also would like to know what is creation science, if not what people call a straw man, and besides Ken Ham and his non-sense. Because even if i find the theory of evolution the most plausible, i like to hear intelligent and intelligible things from "the other side".

In the same sentence you say that the ones you are discussing with are "self-assured" and that you "know" they are wrong.Ain't it a little contradictory?I generally admire people who has enough stamina to make an argument or a discussion last that long, but at the same time, we all become circular when we refuse to read or listen objectively valuable arguments. This applies to me also, i can be quite hardheaded sometimes, i know it. What matters is that at one stage, i realize i have missed something. Anyway i don't want to bother you with this kind of details, because it has nothing to do with the topic itself.So what are the principles of creation science, besides having very old texts as a background?Edited by olivortex, : spelling

You're right, being old is not disqualifying.
I think is hould have said un-scientific texts.Kelly, Darwin is the background and did not use allegories to tell any truth or predictions in the sense that you mean it, unlike the Bible is said to do. He just opened a door, a perspective. Unlike many other people, he fought his inner self because of what he has observed and concluded. He was a christian; a believer. He could have become a pastor. By the way as many scientists say, you have the right to believe in a creator and still keep on looking for explanations through observation.Darwin ignored some things, in a time when there was no genetics, not the fossil record we have today, etc. His theory has been completed by different kinds of evidence that all tend to confirm it. The Bible does not ask us to confirm anything, but just to believe in what it tells us.

There is a thing i have never had the opportunity to hear or read. I wonder how creation science could explain the disappearance of some species, that actually disappeared. I'm not talking about dinosaurs here, cause i've been fed strange numerous things about them.
Of course, obviously endangered species are not receivable exemples to start talking about this, because ID supporters/creationnist inevitably and "legitimately "answer: "this specie has not disappeared. How do you know it will?"So i've been looking for some exemples; the one i focused on and that i had been discussing with other ID supporters/creationists is the Thylacine, aka the tasmanian wolf, or tasmanian tiger, according to wikipedia. It has officially disappeared. Rumours of sighting are heard. But rumours of dinosaurs sightings also stem from africa, and from the Loch Ness region.Here is a link for an introduction to the thylacine:
The Thylacine Museum - A Natural History of the Tasmanian Tiger

quote:

---

Cohort: Marsupialia () - (Illiger, 1811) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997 - Marsupials
Magnorder: Australidelphia () - (Szalay, in Archer, Ed., 1982) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997
Superorder: Eometatheria () - (Simpson, 1970) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997
Grandorder: Dasyuromorphia () - (Gill, 1872) M.c. Mckenna & S.k. Bell, 1997
Order: Notoryctemorphia () - (Gill, 1872) Aplin & Archer, in Archer, Ed., 1987
Family: Thylacinidae ()
Genus: Thylacinus () - Temminck, 1824
Specific name: Thylacinus - (Harris, 1808)
Scientific name: - Thylacinus cynocephalus (Harris, 1808)

---

"Exctinct species" implies that we agree on what is a specie. And this in itself is a topic that can generate multiple threads here. Taxonomy is one field where ID supporters/creationists like to make things blurry. But it seems that an agreement has been found on the taxonomy of the Thylacine. (if i'm wrong, i will accept a correction).So maybe creation science has an answer for this kind of interrogation: how and why species can disappear if they're immutable? If one disappears, why wouldn't all the others?Has creation science made scientific research in that sense?

quote:

---

If by place you mean Earth then, yes, you are out numbered against the people who accept evolution.

​

If by place you mean science then, yes, you are out numbered.

​

If by place you mean colleges and universities then, yes, you are out numbered.

​

If by place you mean this forum then, yes, you are out numbered.

​

Do you know of any other places where evolution is either studied or discussed where you are NOT out numbered...?

---

Let me see... on answersingenesis?Edited by olivortex, : missing letterEdited by olivortex, : fixed.

Sorry, wrong place. It's getting late here. I mean, early.

Yes, at least that's what i have been told several times by creationists/ID supporters.The logic goes like this: since species can disappear, and since they're immutable (according to the creationist view), i figure the earth will wind up empty of all animal form one day.On other occasions i could find an agreement with an ID supporter on the fact that yes, species can disappear, and do. But i failed to obtain a satisfying answer to my interrogation. Has a creator designed the earth to be without animals, including humans?

This is not to discuss anymore since we've been told not to go on.But Once again, not even a glimpse of an answer, even if no one is forced to provide some. What is problematic is the strange custom some people have, that consists in changing subjects, or sneak into a particular useless point not to discuss another, that has been recommended in the most diplomatic way.I don't know how it's called in english, but in french it's "un dialogue de sourd" - "a deaf dialogue". As usual.I guess admins and long-time members of this forum are used to this case, the classical useless 200 or 300 posts thread. Modulous told me when i came here for the first time that the percentage of positive experiences through discussion with creationists/ID supporters is very LOW. But if it's not ZERO, let's try again. Seems that it develops our patience and other qualities, like openness. But for now, i'm still convinced that there is no such thing as creation science.