People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

Did you read the above passage?

Don't worry, I am only making predictions. When I read it I will, like everything else, evaluate it critically and without bias (to the best of my abilities). I am very capable of acknowledging something is science even though I do not agree with it. For example Fedduccia's old work on non-dinosaurian bird evolution is scientific, however (in all likelihood) wrong.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Hmmmm. Interesting.If creation "science" is not derived from religious belief can you explain to me exactly how creation science is different from just plain old "science"?What exactly is it that defines "creation science" as creation science as opposed to normal, or indeed any other kind of, science?Be explict.

quote:

---

Morris claims that evolutionary theory should predict a continuum of elements on the periodic table, where we would see gradations between hydrogen and helium, helium and lithium, etc. "transitional" species between the all of the elements as one evolved into the next complex. Creation science, on the other hand, predicts that the elements should all neatly fit into categories that are discreet, even able to be organized into some form of table or something.

---

that has to be one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever heard - this makes typical pseudo-scientific nut-jobs look positively sane. Please please find the actual quote for this, for I would hate for this to be an accidental quote-mine based on failing memory I must say that anyone pushing the above idea is1) absoluetly clueless regarding evolution, chemistry, and phsyics; or
2) a dishonest scumbag, pushing ideas that he knows are fundementally wrong in the extreme.Quick note for Kelly:1) Welcome to EvC
2) Quite a few of us here at EvC are scientists
3) Quite a few us here at EvC were once born-again fundementalist Christians and creationists......so just be a little cautious with your accusations of us not understanding "creation science"

Ok then. If creations science isn't religious, what is the creator. A creator implies a supernatural being. This creator must have created nature, therefore said creator must be supernatural.
Belief in the supernatural means a some sort of religious belief.Are you implying that someone could believe in creation science but not a creator. What is the logic in that?Don't tell me to read a book. Make this make sense.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Creation Science has a completely different and opposing hypothesis. Creation suggests that everything in the world was created at one point in time through processes that are no longer continuing today. This means that everything on the earth, for example--with the exception of things that have gone extinct and of course all the variations we see within a species--have been here from the begining. Mutations and natural selection have changed things within their own kinds so that we see a variety of different kinds of dogs, cats, people etc...but each species is a separately created thing. Species have not evolved from other species. With this in mind, what should we find in the fossil record? Should we find that things show up suddenly and fully formed with no apparent link to or from anything else? Yes. And that is precisely what we do find. We can study the fossil record to find support for sudden creation and moreso, to disprove the idea of long slow evolution in the macrosense. The fossil record also shows signs of sudden burial in a catastrophic event of some type...rather than long slow burial with the layers supposedly representing different time frames. This is just a quick answer because I really am not looking to debate actual scientific studies that can get very detailed and complicated. I just want people to understand that creation science is not a study of God or religion. It is a study of the created earth, universe etc..

Yes, I had planned on finding the exact quote and giving the ref. I would hate to have dreamed this or something! I did find a Morris quote that is at least in support of this view, although not as blatant. However, I am close to positive that the argument I gave is Morris', I just have to find it. Henry Morris "Scientific Creationism" 1974 ed. pg 21-22.Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Forgot to add Morris quote!

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

It is not a study of origins and the cause anymore than evolution is. Your premise suggests that life created itself out of nothing. Am I asking you to show me how this is so and am I suggesting that that is not very logical and requires faith and therefore must be a religion? No. Evolutionists are trying to understand how life works, not what got it started and creationists are doing the same thing. We are trying to find out what is true and what is false about this world in which we live. Studying the evidence and looking for signs of created order is a perfectly legitimate scientific endeavor even if it refutes evolution and points to a creator.

Hi Kelly,

quote:

---

This is just a quick answer because I really am not looking to debate actual scientific studies that can get very detailed and complicated.

---

Oh dear. If this is the case, you're going to have a hard time understanding what evolutionary theory really says and why the evidence in its favour is so strong.Science is hard. It requires work. Reality is complicated. It too requires work to even begin to understand the smallest portion of it. If creation science is such a good method, it should be easy to point us to useful scientific work being done by creation scientists. Where is it?If you are not willing to get in to specifics, you are going to end up just mindlessly repeating creation science slogans.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Then you had better inform the creationists what they are supposed to believe. It seems from their posts, your beliefs aren't creationism at all.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hmm, that does put a bit of a dampener on testing this hypothesis. Are there at least any actual hypotheses for what the processes are? Rabbits in the Cambrian. No chronological pattern of emergence. We shouldn't be able to line up DNA divergence with position in the fossil record. We should find a core group of proto animals/plants/fungi all at once in the earliest fossil records and then variants thereon.Even the creation scientists of the past (18th and 19th Century) had to throw this idea away, since the evidence contradicted it. Various ideas such as multiple creation events and multiple catastrophes were proposed to deal with the evidence of the fossil record.From wiki's article on Georges Cuvier: This line of reasoning was begun before Darwin was even born! Two hundred years later, has all of this been forgotten? I think we're all aware of that. It would be foolish to ignore the religious influence behind 'special creation', though. It all usually falls over at the establishment of the exact 'processes that are no longer continuing today'. Do you have a non theistic hypothesis for what these processes are? After all, if we're going to see if the evidence supports that these processes can and did lead to the results we see today (aka science), we need to specify them, right?If evolution was 'by some unspecificed process that is still happening today...' we wouldn't call it scientific until it could actually tell us what that process was.One could study Creation in a secular fashion, but when we do, we find very large problems like the fact that there are no human fossils in any early layers...even if we only use relative dating methods.

Hi Kelly, This has never been stated, this is a false interpretation brought forth by creationist.Evolution, by definition, does not suggest "creation", it, by definition, implies evolvement.There is no "premise', there is only observed, objective evidence that supports a a gradual modification process. No one on this site can show you evidence for your strawman argument. Evolution is gradual, not a momentary creation of fully functioning species. So, I agree with you, as would most, it would be illogical to conclude that anything was "created"; whether it be a natural or supernatural process that is being invoked. The first part is right, evolutionist are simply studying the evidence brought forth.However, creationist are not doing the same. Creationist, by definition, are seeking to prove a moment of "creation" based on supernatural processes. Studying evidence and looking for signs of created order is NOT legitimate science since you must first start with the premise that there is a creator capable of manifesting such an order from scratch. Can you prove that such a creator is real?Science can prove that chemical reactions can increase order to a system, the premise is objectively seen. Science can also show how mutation, natural selection and speciation occur in nature, so the premise here too is objectively seen.The same cannot be said for creation, no such creator has been objectively shown to exist, the premise fails to lend credence to a creation hypothesis.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Ok, not Morris, but he's quoted in the source for this:

quote:

---

#3-1: What is the Periodic Table? And does its existence speak to an orderly universe (one with laws) or the result of a random chance explosion into existence in space — all by itself?

---

You'll love the source Take a look at a Biblical Creation Overview

Interesting. Do they ignore the radioactive chart of the nuclides? Do they ignore nuclear processes? That lead can be turned into gold, it just costs more than the end product is worth?I guess creating everything 'as is' precludes any meaning to be derived from the study of particle physics and higher energy states of matter. That the present condition can be derived from the hotter primordial condition based on the application of laws in a predictive manner.The contribution of creationism is 'no explanations necessary' therefore no thought is necessary. Go back to your gardening..

Nice try to baffle with BS, but your own comments prove my point Belief in a creator = religion
They can not be separated. Is english your first language? Because I don't think words mean what you think they mean. InconceivableCreation is origin SourceCreationists themselves say it is religious.
SourceFrom Conservapedia Not known as a hot bed of evolutionists Oh, by the way it is "per se"Edited by Theodoric, : Last little bit