What is amusing is that you project your own inadequacies onto others and are quite proud of yourself for doing so.
"Scientific observation supports adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation."
Which you have admitted is identical in both evolutionary and creation models.
"It seems that it is YOU who is admitting that there is no scientific difference between the mechanism Darwin proposed for speciation and the one you propose."
It seems to me that you are admitting that the observed mechanism is identical in both evolutionary and creation models.
This is after you said "Why do bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase and express it at times of cellular stress?” Evolution has an answer. Creationism, as usual, has nothing." in post #270.
You now say, "Of course they are identical in both models." You are funny.
"Darwin also proposed that this “adaptation” is what lead to different species. You too seem to agree when you talk of created “kinds” separating into distinct species."
So you agree that all Darwin added to observable variation was the logical fallacy of appeal to negative proof. Good.
"So now that you have mentioned that created “kinds” can separate into distinct species; what mechanism do you propose OTHER than natural selection of genetic variation to explain this?"
I thought you already agreed that the mechanism is the same under both models? Are you denying that now?
"No explanation necessary? No scientific explanation likely, no, probably not, because after all, before you could derive a scientific explanation you would first have to deny the existence of God, according to your own definition of science."
I'm still waiting for you scientific references that appeal to the existence of God as an explanation for any scientific observation.
"So unless you propose an explanation OTHER than “adaptation” through natural selection of genetic variation - Darwin is the one who originated the theory for that mechanism."
Again, all Darwin did is add the logical fallacy of appeal to negative proof to the obvious phenotypic change that is observed in all populations.
For some reason, evolutionists seem to think that adding logical fallacy to observations equals some new, previously undiscovered truth. LOL!
Before Darwin nobody had proposed that this was the mechanism whereby speciation would occur.
This is Darwin's model, not a creationist model. Saying it is YOUR creationist model is true if you accept that adaptation to environmental conditions is through natural selection of variation and you are a creationist.
A creationist who accepts Darwin's theory that life adapts through selection of genetic variation?!?!?!?
You don't want to call it “evolution” you want to call it “adaptation” but we seem to be defining it the same way, a change in DNA that leads to a better (adaptive) outcome.
You don't want to give Darwin the credit he is due for PROPOSING the mechanism. But Darwin did indeed propose the exact mechanism the bacteria is demonstrating.