So then, if you found a fossil of an organism that is smaller than a similar modern organism, would you conclude that your idea of creationism is false? If not, then the prediction you gave is not a falsification of creationism and you've failed to prove that it is science. I have never argued that creationism (or ID, like you I see them as basically the same idea) is false. I have argued that it is not science and thus should not be taught as science. I personally happen to believe that God created the universe using the big bang as a mechanism. He then allowed it to proceed according to the design He set up for it, which we call the laws of nature. Evolution occurred as part of this process, leading to all the life on earth. BTW, many people who profess to believe in ID will protest that it is not creationism in an attempt to make it scientific. That is the protesting that I referred to. I never intended to imply that you were protesting anything; I was making a point about ID in general.
It would of course be senseless to base anything on one fossil (singular) because that would include the possibility of comparing an adult modern organism with a baby fossilized organism - hardly a fair test. However, what is apparent from the fossil record is that organisms that existed sometime in the past were much bigger than ones we have today. We may not have any idea where these organisms were in their life cycle before they were fossilized but in many (perhaps most) instances, they were much bigger than anything seen on the current earth (speaking of the same species of course) - a comparison of what would be have to considered a random sample at a stage of unknown development (fossil) to a trophy (current). I was mentioning on a previous post that this past weekend I happened to attend a lecture by John Mackay - an Australian who heads up a organization called Creation Research. He organizes digs in all sorts of places. Anyway, he was showing photos of some of the fossils they have unearthed. The ones that stuck in my memory were the horsetail plant that must have been 30 feet high, the dragonfly with wingspan of almost a metre, shark's teeth that dwarf anything today and so on.
...and you've failed to prove that it is science.I have never argued that creationism (or ID, like you I see them as basically the same idea) is false. I have argued that it is not science and thus should not be taught as science.
And by this I assume that you mean the usual steps of observation, the ability to test and the repeatability of results? Of course it's not science - but then, neither is any theory of evolution. Both have to be accepted on faith. I think you are absolutely correct that it shouldn't be taught as science - so does that mean you agree with the position I've taken concerning how the subject should be dealt with in the classroom as explained on my posts 40 and 651?
I of course don't agree with you on your thoughts that God used a big bang as part of his MO.