what is a scientific theory of creation

Ib, in order to do this it is Opinon o nly that it would require the 1973 Bayes vs Mendelianism of Wright NONdistinction Dispute to not exist in evolutionary discourse. Rather what seems more acceptable to discourse in evolution is a certain number of topics and dispostions such as units of selection. One must first know what it is that is being created that would have to move without forced man-made motion and this would have to not be all of nature. Now if this is such a trivial excercise why was I not permitted to get a degree at Cornell to do just this and saying I am crazy is not the response as much as one may like. I may have been "crazy" to find no need for one gene-one enzyme but this does not exchange naturalism with materialism. I am trying to formulate outside the Frech contribution what the words and not the equations would look like and then to put the words in equation reliance from which falisfication would be possible for within a creationist historical contuity of hertiage but such is as big or bigger project than Gould's next book. I do not see how the view of Wright on Bayes can be simply topoligized and left for math.I know that the set up response is no match for the set up question but there are some clear things rather that could gain attention in the mean time such as increasing the corrleation between points rather than pointing out the Decline as Wright did and this would be within my response to you interetsting question that can be researched and worked on. This of course is not what is economically expected.

My next reply will show in the difference of Roman and Christian Map making (mirrored technically in a workable raster/vector GIS difference) that creation science does indeed have a natural philosphy extension out of bio-philately at least and the symbolic nature of information gained by the placeing of organisms on historic maps and for reading some kinds of taxogeny.That this possibility whent unrecorded in the paper and pen age of Vonneumannisms is unjustified as is the British Museum Map room idea of not including croizat in this kind of study. Croizat as an evoulutionist clearly practiced this skill that is also I think a part of the developing bariminology discussions.

True , ever since you put up your graphic I have known "something" was not right but stil it could only be you!

Do you mean that an image is exchanged between the fore ground and the back gound DURING COMMUNICATION. I think the point is that one could try to do this with letters to facilliate informed understanding but there is some science of the negative side of a positve image that is electronically controlled being perhaps a bit idolic that even my own perversion of the symmetry would be seen as the color and not the curve. Hope I'm not too far off thread.