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.

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

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.

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.

no you haven't refuted one thing. i have ignored ost of your posts and comments because they are all ad hominem or sans real evidence and so on.i can point to Ann Gibbons' book, The First Human and let you read her records of how anthropologists build huge theories out of a tiny toe bone, and then claim they discovered a new species. it is ridiculous.also, these same anthropolgists find their bones near the surface and claim the bones are millions of years old, while further down the road, and digging in the same dirt, the archaeological finds are dated a mere few thousand years old.sorry but i do not play your game. yet you cannot produce 5 credible and legitimate ones. this is why the creative act and the Bible will never fit the secular scientific model and you will always be deceiving yourselves. the model is designed to exclude facts and data that render it useless and to keep the truth from reaching the right ears.i really do not care what secular science is designed to do or how it operates for it is in the 'wrong' category and does not produce what it should. it is a place for those who want alternatives to go to and hide so they can feel good about living their sinful life. i didn't omit anything. i do not need scientists nor science to tell me that it was a hoax nor did i get it from a scientist, if i recall. i do not put my trust in them for my information. one just has to look with their own eyes and use their God-given intelligence to tell them that evolutionists are blowing smoke.i mean the recent dwarf species debacle is enough to turn anyone off of evolutionary scientists and science. and the egg debacle of the 80's is another incident that turns people off from secular science.you all cannot provide any answers, just opinion then you think you can determine origins. ha ha ha ha. that is better than a robin williams joke. the world needs answers, not hypothesis, theories, maybes. we think, possibly, could be's et al.you all fail the world.

you can cease with the false accusations as i gave you a reference with Ann Gibbons' book and she recorded a lot of activity with none of the digging going very deep. BUT that is just one source {by the way archaeologists go up to 100 feet down} you all think i am taking your word for everything as you all fail to supply any evidence to support your so-called rebuttals, then you all put me to sleep repeating science 101 everytime you do not like what you hear. i am not the ignorant one her. you all forget that i have studied secular science and the secular scientific method, it is you who lack in education as you refuse to study alternatives to your holy grail. you all do what you accuse me of doing, so you really have nothing to complain about.but see, this is another good reason why christians cannot have discussions with unbelievers--you keep going off topic and trying to make issues out of minute things that aren't germane to the subject matter, proving that you cannot refute what i wrote in that article. the only people doing the insulting is your side, i have yet to insult even though you may think i have insulted you, i have not and i should know, i am the one typing the words..now why don't you try to refute what i wrote with actual evidence?Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

these are funny questions given that the home page of this forum states it wants to discuss with christians and one of the admin. stated the same idea. but from the reaction, comments and such questions quoted above, you:1. do not want discussion- you want to prostelytize; brow beat, insult and so on
2. do not want to hear the other side of the issue--you only want discussion done your way and that won't happen.
3.do bot want to be honest in presenting your side-- this is quite evident by the mis-represented quotes, the taking out of context, the distortions, the distractions from the topic and so much more/i amhere because God wants me here and the forum claimed to want discussion but that latter part seems to be a fraud because you want to make all the rules in order to make the playing field lopsided in your favor in order to ensure you get to justify your unbelief and sibnful lifestyle and remain 'superior' to christians and creationists.

thanks for pointing out the typo.

never said they were limited, it was a ball park figure as each dig is different.

well,i am not going to play your game. if ou cannot legitiaely refute my work then i will consider that i have refuted your arguments against creation as science andhave shown that evolution does not qualify for such status.you have done nothing but avoid the issue which shows you do not have any rebuttals nor evidence onhand or anywhere to support your arguments against creation, which are nothing more than a hatred fo Christ and the Bible.as for the poster who talks about my saving people, if you wanted to be saved, you would be acting and talking a lot differently than you are andi would be seeing you show up at my forum, with a boatload of questions.i presented that article to show you that you cannot make rules to disqualify what God has done but as i have said, creation does not fit the secular mode because it is a one time supernaural act and the real rules of science are truth/error & right/wrong anything else is a weak attempt to obtain justification for one's bad choices.it will also not be repeated but then neither can your theory of evolution be repeated either.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

hello, sorry i haven't been here, i am taking a sick day and maybe another one.. i just read some of the comments and will try to make a presentation as best as i can via one of the better responses that keeps things on topic.

Let me preface my remarks with a couple of answers to bluescat. i would disagree. no one has ever believed that the earth was flat. at best, that was an old sailor's tale or bedtime story to scare little children. read Hapgood's 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings'. again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it. which means that its credibility to discover and proclaim the truth is shot and demonstrates that it never knows what the truth is and tellspeople it needs to be ignored.then let's go with that as the foundation for what i am about to present. Iwill support my article's premise by using the theory of evolution as a comparison tool to illustrate why creation can be considered scientific.First, the act:
Now the creation act is a one time affair but then so is the origination of the process of evolution and its initial interaction with the original life form. the origin of life and the origin of the process cannot be repeated thus like creation, secularists ONLY study the supposed results of this process, and this takes millions of years, so they say.whereas the results of creation can be studied by anyone at anytime. so thi gives creation the advantage for qualification over the process of evolution.Second, original condition: for creation we know the orginal conditions for say reproduction. a man, woman, a bed or couch. plus we know that the air, the universe, the oceans, the geography were all about the same as they are now (give or take a flood , pollution etc.) we do not need to guess at what conditions were present for reproduction the creation way.BUT with the theory of evolution there is NO WAY to tell what the original conditions were for their idea of the origin of life, for the origin of the process of evolution, nor do they know the original conditions for the supposed changes in the fossils, the evolutionist claims took place over time.there is no ancient record, no ancient civilization, nothing fom the ancient world that reveals the evolutionary original conditions. which means that even if the scientists think they got it right, they would never know if they did or not, for the theory of evolution, it is all a guess and no confirmation.another advantage for creation.Third, replication: now as i said, evolutionists and creationists can only test the results of each. For creationists, that is not difficult and as i have used this example many times before, one just has to visit the nurseries for the life forms inhabiting the planet today and one will see replication in process. We also see the sun and moon rise and fall each day, the stars at night and so it goes.each stage of the creation act we can see take place and we do not even need a test tube to observe it.BUT with the theory and process of evolution, there is no replication of its supposed work because no one can replicate the original conditions to transform a specimen to change like the examples given in the fossil record.now experiments have been done and the chorus of victory has been sung often by the evoltionary scientist BUT there is a problem, the so-called experiemtns that proclaim the validity of the theory are NOT done as the theory is described. they are performed by intelligent men and women who, unlike the process of evolution, have curiosity, thought, and think, among other things. They are NOT following the same format the process of evolution followed thus their experiments cannot be replicating the claimed theory's results or work.these men and women are also jumping the gun. they are taking existing animals and applying foreign substances to see what will take place, but they forget that the process, did not such thing nor had capibilities to perform such acts thus all these experiments are producing false results which are then credited to the theory.to replicate the process and see if the theory is really correct, then the evolutionist needs to create the original conditions for life, then the original conditions for the process to intercede in that lifeform's destiny and go from there to see if the changes take place as claimed.For all the evolutionist knows all they are getting is the result of contamination of God's perfect design of the gene as their predictions, andtheory do not rule out alternatives from producing the same result. Creation does exclude all alternatives, leaving no doubt what produced the result.with humans involved in the experiments, that alone disqualigies evolution from being scientific for all that is being observed is man's interference with life forms NOT the process's.advantage again creation.Fourth, conclusion: from this little sample we can see that creation is more qualified to be considered scientific than the theory of evolution. We can observe it, replicate it, know the original conditions, plus much more and we do not need science to do it for us.

p.s. for point number three, the evolutionary scientist is basically doing their own experiments and attributing the results to the theory of evolution. that is not is not testing the results of evolution but making things up to fit the theory one wants because it is an alternative to the Biblical creation.