Kelly writes:
ut there is no difference between evolutionists and creationists with respect to how they came up with their model or hypothesis.
Yes there is, you even admitted as much.
"Evolutionists" started out with data, then formed there hypothesis, made predictions, tested them and they turned out to be correct. That's science
Creationists started out (again, by your own admission) with a thing they wanted to prove, and they're searching for evidence to support their beliefs. That's not science.
Neither group has concrete evidence that their theory about how life might have originated is true for sure.
Evolution isn't about the origin of life, not is this thread about evolution.
We each come up with our hypothesis based on what we *think* the evidence will reveal.
WRONG. You gather data, and only THEN come up with the hypothesis, that's how science works. So, again, by your own admission, creation science isn't science.
No one has concluded that macroevolution is true because they can see it happening.
They've concluded that it's true because of what the evidence shows.
It is an extrapolation, something that some *believe* is what microevolution must necessarily lead to. It is an assumption no different than that of the creationist who believes that microevolution reveals design and that the second law precludes anything but creation.
No, it's not, since there's actually evidence for "macroevolution" and there isn't any evidence for "creation". And the second law is not applicable to Earth, since Earth is an open system. Go read up on what thermodynamics actually says, before making such false statements.
Everyone keeps asking me to show you evidence that creationists are doing science with acceptable scientific methods.
Indeed, are you finally going to provide it?
Well I have offered you a book choc-ful-of-examples and facts about it.
No, you haven't. You've
asserted time and again that it's science, nowhere have you even given a hint of evidence that it actually is. Like I said, it's not difficult. Let's start it out simple. Answer this question in your own words: "What is creation science?". After you've done that, we can move on. Please, no jabs at evolution or anything else, just tell me in your own words what you think creation science is, and we'll take it from there.
I cannot find much online available for me to direct you to.
I don't want to be directed, I've read most of it already anyway. I want to discuss this with
you, not read what some website says about it.
Most things are copyrighted and unless I am going to sit and type you a book, there is not much more I can offer.
Just give me your own words and thoughts, not something you copied off of a website or out of a book, I'm not doing that either.
As I have stated, I am not looking to debate the science, just to show you that creation science is indeed every bit as much a scientific endeavor as is evolution.
Great, then let's start with an answer to that question: "What is creation science?". In your own words please, we'll move along after that has been cleared.
I hunt for the truth