Creation as Science

Hopefully this will fit n the non-science forum on creatism and ID, since I will need to defend myself if it comes to that.I am presenting creation as qualified to be considered science andit i snot an exhaustive work, but a simple analysis of the facts using the rules of secular science.I am only going to post a link here first because it is 2,300 words long and I will wait till I get approval from the admins. before making 2-3 posts containing the body of the text.{a note: the contents of that article are mine, my own research and my own words. i wrote it especially for here but because of the size i did not want to post the whole thing unless i got approval.}Here is the link and hopefully it will fit hin that forum:http://www.archiesarena.com/subpage77.htmland the introduction:I. Introduction:Notice I did not say Creation Science. The little word ‘as’ is vital to this discussion for I have my problems with both creation science and intelligent design. This paper is about the act of creation as science.In the modern world today, there is an general acceptance of what science really is. Unfortunately, even Christians accept the general definitions for the field of science, sowing confusion in their ranks. BUT this acceptance is based upon two major assumptions:A). That the secular world has got the field defined correctly, andB). That science is actually limited to the secular definitions and practice. In other words, there are no other viable options.This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science. This will be done step by step going through some of the major principles of the secular field and showing that the act does qualify even under secular definitions. It should be noted that the definitions and principles will be footnoted at the end and are not made up by me and this does not represent an exhaustive study on all points.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

From the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
   ​
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

Please do not post the entire contents of that webpage here. You've posted the link and that is sufficient. Quoting pertinent excerpts is the preferred approach.Could you edit your opening post to summarize the arguments from that webpage in your own words? Would you please remove these paragraphs? EvC Forum already has a set of Forum Guidelines that are enforced by moderators. Members are not permitted to impose and/or enforce their own rules.Post a note to this thread when you're done editing your opening post and I'll take another look.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

is that what you want. make sure you read 'the note'.

Thread copied here from the Creation as Science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

OK, let's have a look. Petitio principii. The Genesis account of creation has actually been proven inaccurate and untruthful via other fields of research. In fact, all fields of research that could possibly have a bearing on them.If you can think of a counterexample, let us know. Mythologies world-wide also agree on attributing lightning and earthquakes to their gods. This represents a universal tendency to anthropomorphize hidden causes, not that they're all right. Petitio principii.And those are all the "observations" you've got?Real scientists have rather more.The rest of your screed appears to be a windy mish-mash of words strung together in what seems like an (unsuccessful) attempt to disguise the fact that you have no evidence for your favorite myth, and that your belief in mythological stories is essentially based only on the mere existence of myths.---One question occurs to me --- you must be dimly aware that there are creationists who are more literate and more cunning than you, and who have been, and will always be, much more successful into duping their flocks into thinking that creationism has something to do with science. So why did you suppose the world needed your markedly inferior version of creationist apologetics?

Hello archaeologist,in your conclusion, you write: I will not make any comment at this time regarding the validity of "creation" as an explanation for origins, but in one thing you are absolutely correct. The Theory of Evolution doesn't explain origins in the slightest. The thing is, however, that evolution was never meant to explain the origins of life. It describes the development of life after it arises.

blind blanket statements offering no proof or evidence to support your point of view. anyone can make these. pony up. so? what is your point? scientists thought that piltdown man was a real species until it was revealed decades later that it was a hoax. you do not have the superior position.Piltdown Hoaxinsults will get you no where and is the usual refuge for those unbelievers who cannot refute what was said.as for the nitpicker: the theory used to deal with origins, including life, but that was one of the things they changed whenthey found out they couldn't prove it true. plus it is the evolutionists that keeps suggesting alternatives for the origin of life thus they do deal with it in hopes of making their theory work.ORIGIN OF LIFEDoes evolutionism supply the answers? - ChristianAnswers.Net ***note: i had asked that this be placed in a non-scientific forum so I could participate but I see that request was denied. so since i have to defend my point of view, it looks like i will have to once again appear in this section. BUT be advised, do not expect me to present evidence the secular scientific way.***

one point to keep in mind. that article is just a simple analysis of the facts given. please do not think you are doing anything by attacking the format and ignoring the words and examples.there is no crime in speaking simply. notice these words in the conclusion: the only 'observation' done by evolutionists is via their 'prediciton' method which is then extrapolated backwards. no prediction is exclusive and cannot be considered evidence for the existence of the process of evolution. the predictions made are constructed in a manner to bring the desired conclusion, and cannot be considered honest.there has been no conclusive observation of the original conditions, the origin of the process, its intercepting life or its continued work, there has also been NO real observation of intermediary species. such claims are all speculation, conjecture, assumption, etc., based upon subjective determination of long dead incomplete (for the most part and for a majority a single bone) skeleton.it is inferred that evolution was responsible while all other logical and reasonable explanations are ignored. since the evolutionist did not observe the fossils being fossilized there is no observation that the process actually 'created' those differences in the fossilized specimens.this then is ultimate evidence that the theory of evolutionis false and the process does not exist except in the imaginations of those reject the Biblical account and want alternatives to it.

You do know how the scientific method works, do you not? What do you think a hypothesis is? How does one test a hypothesis using the scientific method?Before we dig too deep into the evo v. creo debate perhaps we should first agree on how science is done, don't you agree?

Simply put, the Biblical myths of creation tell us nothing about what happened. They are content free and add no useful knowledge and are filled with errors and falsehoods.The Genesis 1 myth claims that creation was through an act of will or magic words. Huh? How exactly does that work, what is the process?The Genesis 2 myth says that mud or dirt was used and then magic breathe made the critter live. How? What is the precess?The Genesis 1 myth has the earth created before the sun. We know with a very high degree of confidence that is simply false.The Genesis 1 myth has land plants created before life in the sea. We know with a high degree of confidence that is false.The Genesis 1 myth has the earth created before the stars. We know with a high degree of confidence that is false.The Genesis 1 myth has the birds and sea life created at the same time. We know with a high degree of confidence that is false.There is NO legitimate excuse for considering such falsehoods as science.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How would that work? When each of your creation mechanisms are summarized fully by "God said," it is a bit tough to replicate those results in a Petri dish. Science deals with experimentation and replication of results pretty much of everywhere it goes - even in palaeontology. Dig up an Ichthyostega, and go back to Greenland the next summer to dig for more, and then go to Nunavut and look for Tiktallik in slightly newer rock.No matter how many times you read Genesis in your preferred translation, the same words are there. That's repitition, not replication.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Is there anything specific that you would like to know? Only I can hardly describe every observation made in support of evolution --- I should die before the task was completed.However, I asked you to name one relevant field of study which you felt did not contradict the Genesis account. This would take you all of five seconds --- if you could think of one.Good luck with that. That since there are widespread myths that presumably you will admit to be false, we have no reason to suppose that creation myths are true just because they are widespread. This is a non sequitur. However, let me briefly point out what you omitted --- that the fact that Piltdown Man was a hoax was, of course, discovered by scientists. You depend for this knowledge on scientists, and when you assert that Piltdown Man was a hoax you are implicitly putting your trust in them. While this fantasy may please you and help you to sleep well at night, I have in fact refuted you so conclusively that you haven't even tried to answer most of my points.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The words "analysis" and "facts" are an exaggeration. But I will give you "simple".Again, I wonder why you thought the world needed this nonsense from you. Other creationists are much more skillful in disguising its nonsensical qualities. And this is how all other scientific knowledge is acquired. To be consistent you would have to not only reject evolution but also go and live in a cave and eat what you can catch. This is, of course, not true. That's science for you.Imagine you were council for the defense, arguing that your client shouldn't be convicted for shooting his victim because the forenisc scientists didn't witness the shooting ...... well, in that case you'd make a lousy lawyer and do no good service to your client. Just as you are presently a lousy apologist doing no good service to creationism. Like the "speculation, conjecture, assumption", that a man with a bullet-hole in his chest and a bullet in his heart and a smoking gun lying next to him has been shot. This is, of course, not true. The "other logical and reasonable explanations" have not been produced. "Since the forensic scientist did not observe the gun being fired ..."Your client is still going to be found guilty. If your garbage was remotely true, then it would be an argument that evolution has not been adequately verified. But it would not even begin to suggest that it was false --- because in your entire post, you didn't refer to one single fossil, or genome, or plant, or animal, or anatomical feature of an animal, or anything at all that might conceivably be evidence against evolution.This is not "evidence that the theory of evolution is false" any more than it is "evidence that the theory of gravity is false". It contains no statements that could conceivably be relevant to such a question.I presume that if you had any actual evidence against evolution you'd have mentioned it.And I presume that if you had any evidence for creationism except the observation that people believe creation myths, you'd have mentioned that at some point instead of whining about evolution.

no. because how secular science does it methods, omits data and pursues a false conclusion. just because something does not meat the secular science methodology doesn't mean it did not take place.your ideas in the first paragraph do not allow for variables or variation and thus is too limited to deal with the topic of origins.we do not need to 'create' a hyptohesis for origins because we already know what it is and those who reject that explanation scramble to replace it with some fictional account they cannot prove and leave people without any answers.in other words, secular science fails people.

and it was replicated 6 times approx. your problem is you want a one sided affair. you want to put God's creative act under your microscope and then declare it valid or not WHILE knowing that you cannot replicate anything to do with the theory of evolution, nor show the original conditions for its beginnings (or replicate that) and initial interaction with life.you cannot even reproduce the original life form and have no idea what it really was, let alone replicate the original conditions that formed life. so before you start dismissing all scientific claims to the creative act and the creative act itself, take a long hard look at what is impossible for yourown theories first. that is not replication, thats discovery of similar bones. if you want real replication please go to the nurseries for humans, animals and plants and see that all things reproduce exactly as described in Gen. 1. all you have are a pile of bones and a lot of assumption.evolutionists and atheists are all the same, thy will demand one thing from their opponents while distorting their own work to make sure it fits their ideas.