Creation as Science

i do not. what the original argument and the last post did was use the secular idea for modern science. i have not set up any alternative because some science has its place in the world, not as an authority but it has a place.i do present new rules though. in its present form secular science basically says, 'all science is good science' but that is just not so. for if it were, then eugenics would not be barred, the nazi experimentalists would be hailed for covering new ground and so on. even dr. frankenstein would be hailed as a hero, if he were real, and his grave robbing would be excused because it is for 'science' thus it is good.None of them could be condemned nor banished from the realm of other scientists who stick to some form of morals and ethics, even though those morals and ethics would be moot and meaningless because 'all science is good science.'i propose new rules--truth and error/ right and wrong for all of science and that science starts giving the correct answers not just theories, hypothesis, maybes, possiblys et al. then morals and ethixs would mean something and much would be accomplished for scientists would not be wastign their time on unprovable and unreal assumptions like the theory of evolution and natural selection.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

how can i reply to clarify if there is no right to reply?as far as i am concerned the answers to bluescat were not part of the body of the main text andi was very clear about that. the body of my last post was consistant with the OP.but i see people are nitpicking again on minor issues to avoid the reality and finding things to nag about that distract and refuse to discuss with an open mind.case in point: the harpingof the party line even when shown that evolution is NOT studied at all. thenthe denial of creation when shown that all they are studying is really the results of the creative act under the influence of the sin and corruption that entered the world.this is further proof of why creationists cannot discuss with evoklutionists, the evolutinist resorts to blind denial and repetitive chanting of the evolutionary party line. the only people with a closed mind are the evolutionists as they refuse to discuss alternatives.that wholepost seems to be an effort to convince the poster that evolution is still true even though the evidence says otherwise. i have yet to see any secularist on this board actually andhonestly discuss the issues raised.

Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Admin for creation we do not need to do this at all nor do we need a science lab to understand anything about life, its origins and so forth. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.

Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.

Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --AdminEdited by archaeologist, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.

Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Adminyes i do think that but that does not take away from the demonstration that creation qualifies as science under secular rules. those secular rules are too restrictive, too limited and exclude important data which renders it useless to obtain the truth. which limits the use of creation in science for creation does not follow th esecular way thus to obtain the truth, secular science has to change--not creation.***i hope that answers the confusion, as i am not sure what he is getting at.Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.

Hiding the off-topic discussion in this message. --Adminin the OP and in the other post i made, i just wanted to open up discussion about creation as science and demonstrated that the act qualified better than evolution as science , as science is defined today.yes new rules need to be implemented in the scientific field for the truth is not told nor searched for Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic text.

but the human scientist is the same variable. he decides which experiments, what the parameters are, what the prediction will be and so on. then he uses artifical and controlled enviornments and factors to make his experiment. i do not see you having an argument. then science cannot be used as an authority in any field of life, including the legal system. it cannot be relied on to be a determiner, let alone a final one as it is often used. and no one can appeal to it for anything.no one said anything about themeaning of life but truth,/error, right and wrong must be a part of the program or you have nothing and are just wasting everybodies time because you cannot have understanding without those 4 elements involved. you do not need evidence to understand--just reasons. evidence in and of itself is easily manipulated and can say whatever you want it to say. it has been done and is still being done. if yo do not accept any truth, how can you live? you must be stuck in your apartment 24/7 then. the equation includes faith and if you cannot make that a part of your thining then you have problems because there will never be the all the physical evidence you want.but i see most of this as an excuse to avoid the truth, because you still turn to science we for answers even though it is looking in the wrong places and for the wrong things. if the above is true, then why are you using science? it won't help you because it has no truth, according to your thinking. you are just wasting your time.you do not accept anything so even science can't help you. the only thing that will help you now is the Bible, you either accept or reject it you cannot make excuses like, i do not accept anything. that doesn't cut it in the real world.secular science has been designed to fool you an dit has done a very good job.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

okay not replying to that message but to the points raised.sorry but i have done all that and you all have failed to respond properly and with supporting evidence. i have proven my point and not one person has refuted anything i raised but have kept sidetracking.so i am now done with this thread. i am not here to have my points judged, nor do 'homework' just becaus eyou donot like what you read. if you cannot discuss in a proper manner and support your points there is no point in going any further.

didn't do that as i believe i made the point that we can test creation by going to thenurseries fo the world and seeing it in action.we do not need to 'falsify' creation for that is a secular requirement but if you want to falsify it, we could say that God had the choice to create or not. and it is falsified.but i am here simply to repeat what I said in another thread. evolutionists are not replicating the claimed evolutionary changes and that disqualifies it from being science.to really replicate the evolutionary changes the secular scientist would have to recreate the original conditions and not interfere but just sit there and wait for something to take place.any experiemtn done by a secularist or evolutionist is not recreating the original conditions for scientists are involved, they are making an artificial enviornment, they are manipulating the test subjects, they are introducing foreign substances into the mix and so on.NOTHING in evolutionary experiments are actual replications and therefore false.

the question is do you really? how can modern day 'equations' describe the supernatural or the conditions of the ancient world? they cannot because they are based upon assumption not fact. God's 'mentality and morality' are NOT n question as you are not fit to judge that. Yes God can do anything He wants, He is God BUT He has made it faith a requirement because He wants people to truly believe Him. anyone can believe whenthey see the evidence but it takes another type of person to believe and follow when they only have His word.that personis one who loves God for Him. 1 cor. 13 evidence has been given, andthere is only so much physical evidence around faith will always be part of the equation. evolutionary evidence is NOT evidence. it is mere speculation, assumption, conjecture and never has been observed. no it is not the same but if you believe in evolution then you can substitute that process for God and then you would be correct.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box (replace ' with /).

not anymore. once i found out it can be fabricated, its credibility went out the window.