Thanks Russ, it's nice to hear from you again, but you seem to miss the point.

Actually it is based on observations made in the present day, observations you can make and validate.

What's interesting is that they are based on creationist concepts and speculation -- things creationists need to use to explain current day biology. Let me repeat them for your benefit:

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. [/color]

Creationist say this is just "variation and adaptation within kinds," which they use to describe the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation from their hypothetical "original created kinds," with special reference to those that survived the hypothetical world flood event.

[color:"purple"]Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.[/color]

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)
" ... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind," ... "

Creationists are in agreement with these processes.

Then we move on to the question of whether this is what has happened in the past and whether anything else was involved. To test this we will form a theory:

[color:"blue"]Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species. [/color]

Because this is essentially the same theory for creationists and non-creationists there is no testable differentiation between the two models for the period of time where they overlap. To find a testable differentiation we need to look back into the past, to the point where the two models diverge.

The disagreement is about the time and number of the first common ancestor/s, not about the process that happens from that time to now. Therefore the test to differentiate them is to determine the limits of common ancestry. This is pointed out in the AnswersInGenesis article

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind

[color:"red"]If creationism were true then there should be a clear delineation in the fossil and geological record, at two different times and places, one for the flood and one for creation and we should not find any evidence that continues at all below the second delineation, to say nothing of evidence that forms a tree of relationships[/color]

We should see not one orchard but two, one after the other, and not a tree ... IF creationism is true.

If you disagree with this test feel free to suggest your modification/s.

The next thing to do is look at evidence and see which one works, which one doesn't. That is not speculation of any kind.

What I see, sadly, appears to be a knee-jerk response that is not based on the material in the post.

Nor do your quotes address the issue/s raised in the thread. One day you will realize that quotes are not an argument, especially when they are non sequiturs. In this case none of the material in this thread depends on a single item in your quotes.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]