Thank you, Kelly, for your participation in this, my second thread. Your posts have turned it into a firestorm. Nothing but tinder was burnt, the logs never took, but it went up like a barn full of straw, man.
I hope you'll join me in the new "Unbended Bar ends Won't Meet" thread.
Goodbye, Buzsaw. I guess I don't have to sweat my spelling and grammar any longer (but I will).
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
Creation Science is cheap Christian apologetics for the 20th Century. Oh wait, Creation Science talks about fossils and fossils aren't mentioned in the Bible, so that can't be right ("Scientific creationism deals with such physical entities as fossils, whereas the Bible never refers to fossils at all", 'What is Creation Science?")
Creation Science is the attempt to demonstrate that all life was created by a non natural process by starting from the premise that all life was created by a non natural process. Wait, that's not right.
Creation Science is trying to show one thing is right by trying to show that another thing is wrong. Wait, that's not it.
Creation Science starts with the premise that all things were created, that the laws of thermodynamics exist, that the fossil record isn't perfect and from this it predicts the laws of thermodynamics and the imperfect fossil record which therefore supports the notion that all things were created. Hang on, I'm getting there, but that can't be right.
Creation Science is about seeking out confirmatory pieces of evidence saying that Creationists predicted that all along, and then whenever contradictory evidence is presented it is saying 'we use the same evidence, we just interpret it differently'. Hmm, that's no good.
Creation Science is a rigorous scientific practice that starts from a different perspective than erm, non creation science, and erm, doesn't really offer anything non creation science doesn't offer. Only it assumes everything was created, though it can't really support that, erm or something. I'll nail it sooner or later.
Creation Science is pseudoscientific nonsense that lends comfort and support to those religious types who see evolution as a threat to their faith and need a way to consolidate the unassailable truth that Science Works, Bitches! with God Created Us and we ain't no stinking monkeys!
Creation Science is like Biblical Creationism, but with all the specific religious stuff stripped out of it so that schools can claim it isn't endorsing a religious view since it is Science!
Creation Science takes the Paley's brave position and marches courageously on against the closed minded brainwashed masses because Creation Scientists and their followers are no fools!
Creation Science is science except with no common ancestry of all life. All evidence for common ancestry is evidence for Creation. Somebody somewhere has done all of the Hard Work in making sure this is true. I absolutely Trust them, they wouldn't Lie to me, would they?
From what I can tell, extinction is something that the creation model would predict. In fact, creation science says that the dinosaurs likely went extinct due to natural reasons such as a climate change--but also think that due to the way they were fossilized they may have been victim to a flood catastrophe first and that if there were any survivors after that--they simply died off eventually anyway. The idea is that water dinosaurs and the flying reptiles could have initially survived a catastrophe like the fossil record suggests had occured.
Once again, not even a glimpse of an answer, even if no one is forced to provide some. What is problematic is the strange custom some people have, that consists in changing subjects, or sneak into a particular useless point not to discuss another, that has been recommended in the most diplomatic way.
I don't know how it's called in english, but in french it's "un dialogue de sourd" - "a deaf dialogue". As usual.
I guess admins and long-time members of this forum are used to this case, the classical useless 200 or 300 posts thread. Modulous told me when i came here for the first time that the percentage of positive experiences through discussion with creationists/ID supporters is very LOW. But if it's not ZERO, let's try again. Seems that it develops our patience and other qualities, like openness. But for now, i'm still convinced that there is no such thing as creation science.
What Science doess, and Creation "Science" doesn't
Science does two remarkable things: it lets us understand why the world is how it is, and it lets us predict how it will behave in the future. The former is often the more interesting of the two; but it is in the latter that science is able to convince us of it's validity.
Creationism and its bastard child misnomer Creation "Science" can do neither of these things.
Creation does not offer an explaination because it is unable to explain why things are one way and not another: because God chose to make it that way does not answer anything. And Creationism has made no predictions about the world, save those that have been found to be false.
Kelly, in this thread, has failed to show anything about Creation "Science" to demonstrate that the above assessment is wrong. The "predictions" she has offered are, instead, post hoc rationalisations of a kind that could be offered whatever the properties of the world were.