Evolution and the Scientific Method ----> Creationsim

"natural experimentation"Natural experimentation may be accepted by the scientific community however it is in no way an accurate form of experimentation. "Also, because natural experiments usually take place in uncontrolled environments, variables from undetected sources are neither measured nor held constant, and these may produce illusory correlations in variables under study." [1]Since all variables are not tested natural experimentation accuracy is lost and results cannot be defined as concrete once again leaving us with a lack of empirical evidence that is usually necessary to forming a scientific theory and can lead to "illusory correlations" of evidence. As a result, in terms of evolution, natural experimentation cannot be used as an accurate source of information. "Both of these processes have been observed in the laboratory"While both natural selection and random mutation have been observed in a laboratory, they have not been observed in nature to the degree that you are trying to argue. "The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations," this quote from your own source [2] states that the bacteria were present in the laboratory for more than 44,000 generations a figure that cannot applicably be applied to nature. These bacteria were being taken care of in a laboratory and therefore these results cannot be accurately switched over to nature. "now working to identify just what that earlier change was" [2] As you can see they still have not found what caused this mutation to form and until this evidence is found it can be assumed that the mutation was the result of laboratory manipulation. Lab life, even for bacterium, is no the same as real life. Also these results do not form a new species of bacteria, they are the same bacteria who now only eat citrate. They did not evolve to occupy a higher plane of existence nor did they evolve into a more complex being, a trait that evolution has still failed to pin down the evolution between tropic levels and the evolution between to diverse species has still not been seen in any lab nor in nature. In fact fossil evidence that bridges the two groups has never been found either.Take for example a fishes evolution into a mammal, a likely evolutionary process according to many evolutionists. "Eventually some fish transformed their fins into legs and in time they also developed lungs - legs for moving and lungs for breathing." [3] In order for this to take place a mutation that turns "fins into legs" must take place. In order for a population of fish to mutate into land living mammals there must be some in between because, as you yourself stated, evolution is not a quick process. Therefore in order to completely mutate (for the bacteria it took 44,000 generations) they must have had a transition stage where there would be evidence of creatures halfway between the fish stage and the mammal stage, say a fish with fins and legs, or a mammal with gills and an elongated fish body. But no transitional fossil record of such a transformation has ever been found... ever. And in a way to combat my opponents next argument in response to this statement just because two species are similar (because I'm sure the "evolution" of humans will be next on the agenda to combat this point) does not mean that they are a transitional species. If ancient "human" ancestors such as Cro-Magnum people evolved into humans there would be sites where a population of people is uncovered where both Cro-Magnum and homo-sapien samples are found living together because they would be in the transition, however such a sight has never been found and many of these "pre-humans" are found far from homo-sapien settlements or often completely isolated. In fact these "missing links" are the largest hole in the evolutionary theory. In fact the most convincing transitional fossil record was determined to be a fake and was that of the Archaeopteryx a supposed mix of dinosaur and bird. [4]Thus evolution once again dodges hard empirical evidence yet manages to retain its status as a scientific theory."speciation (the arisal of a new species) has been observed in the laboratory, mostly in plant species, as a result of both natural and artificial selection" Plants are much more susceptible to crossbreeding than animals are due to the nature of their reproductive cycle. What you have described there is mere crossbreeding and was even artificially manipulated by people through "artificial selection" which cannot go on to explain evolution because this once again leads to lack of natural empirical evidence. If two similar species of dogs mate and have a mixed breed as offspring this is not evolution it is crossbreeding. Crossbreeding and evolution are not the same. Plants lend themselves to cross breeding and cannot transfer over to animal's since say a fish cannot breed with another fish to create a mammal, nor can a fish breed with a mammal to create a hybrid. This evidence simply doesn't transfer."Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid" [5] This quote taken straight from your source clearly shows that the plants were crossbred and does not support the theory of evolution. "In contrast, creationism, by nature, cannot be falsified. It does not matter what evidence is unearthed in denial of creationism, because the traditional creationist argument is so broad, ambiguous, and reliant on faith, any and all evidence that is counter intuitive to it is able to be refuted."The bolded statement is obviously false since you are in an attempt right now to discredit if not falsify my points about creationism. In fact wouldn't a full and complete evolutionary theory with hard empirical evidence dating from the beginning of time to the present successfully falsify creationism? Also creationism is based in science as much as evolution is, I will make two points on the matter. EntropyThe law of entropy states that matter and energy like to travel downwards not upwards, [7] we can see this in death and decay everyday. Stars go out. Systems of atoms will usually fall to their most base state over time through chemical and atomic reactions. Based on the second law of thermodynamics and Newton's laws one will see that in nature systems tend to go from order to chaos. Going from the chaos of the primordial cess pool to the order we see in creatures today is impossible based on these laws. Since it is impossible for a system to gain order over time one can assume that the life we see here today was put here by some sort of creator.The Cambrian ExplosionThe extremely rapid, seemingly instantaneous appearance of extremely diverse forms of life on Earth that took place 545 million years ago including the appearance of most major animal groups and fauna seemingly from nowhere. [6] Such rapid expansion of life lends itself to creationism since evolution could not have occurred so quickly nor so randomly as it did during this period. From this we can deduce that life was put here, as the laws of entropy says must be true. The fact that life could appear so rapidly in such numbers and diversity is contrary to the theory of evolution lending itself once again to the existence of some sort of creator. Also, creationism does not have to be based in faith. I have merely pointed out the probability of a creator who can be nameless and formless but creationism is still the same (based on some creator). [1] http://www.answers.com...[2] http://www.newscientist.com......[3] http://www.earthlife.net...[4] http://evolutionwiki.org...[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...[6] http://www.fossilmuseum.net...[7] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...