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 to the Creation as Science thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.