Hello. I'm a new poster here.

Hi Kyle, and welcome.BTW, I would suggest not giving out your first and last name on any internet discussion group or chat room. Did you notice that the town and state that you live in are also listed? It would be easy for someone to find you if they wanted to.Now, on to the discussion...Why are you a young Earth Creationist?

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Truth be told, the main reason I am a young-earth creationist is because that is what my parents taught me. I have looked at many of the facts and I am still unconvinced that natural processes alone could account for everything in this world.

​

However, I am beggining to think that old-earth may be more realistic. I am heavily researching the carbon dating process, and if I can't find any significant flaw in that process, I will likely change to an old-earth Creationist.

​

I hope I can be a good contribution to the intelligent debate in this forum.

---

First of all, you should know that Creation "science" isn't science. It is religious in nature and has attempted to "dress up" in a lab coat to appear scientific. Howerver, it bears no resemblence to what
real scientists do.Whatever you want to believe in from a religious standpoint is fine, of course, but just realize that it most likely isn't based upon evidence found in nature, but upon divine revelation. IOW, the leading Creation "science" organizations' and "scientists'" claims are not suppoerted by the evidence.Now, here is a good website which deals with radiometic dating from a Christian perspective: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/Wiens.htmlAlso have a look at this definition of science: http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I am very familiar with the concept that Creation science is not science at all. However, I think this statement is hypocritical. I think evolution scientists are biased to their theory in the same way Creation scientists are.

---

Except that everything in science has potential falsifications, and religion does not.Tell me, why do you treat the Bible like a science book? Conversely, what reason do you have, other than your religious views which you were taught to believe, to deny the fact of evolution? Since you are so young, you probabluy haven't done much study of Biology or science.Also, if you think that Genesis is infallibly true, do you believe that the rest of the Bible is infallibly true? If not, then how do you know which parts to take literally and which parts to interpret? If so, then do you think that bats are birds, that the firmament exists, and that rabbits chew their cud?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"First of all, you should know that Creation "science" isn't science. It is religious in nature and has attempted to "dress up" in a lab coat to appear scientific. Howerver, it bears no resemblence to what
real scientists do."
--Please don't make such an inference such as you have constantly made in the 'why creation 'science' isn't science' thread, with your unsuccessfulness to protrude it as being so. If Cobra hasn't taken a look yet, he should skim threw the thread (I think he is actually carrying on some discussion in that thread but with my oh so reliable memory...). A real scientist is not destinguished upon whether they are creationists or evolutionists at all, a rebutable assertion.[/QUOTE]Real scientists use the scientific method. Please demonstrate that Creation "science" uses the scientific method. A good place to start is with a scientific theory of creation, complete with testable hypothesese, confirming evidence, and potential falsifications.Remember, to qualify as scientific, all theories have to be able to be incorrect.

quote:

---

"Whatever you want to believe in from a religious standpoint is fine, of course, but just realize that it most likely isn't based upon evidence found in nature, but upon divine revelation."
--What you believe is a separation of faith and science, faith is not creation science, faith is your faith.

---

If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, despite the vast quantity of evidence that it is very much older than that, AND you try to call this belief scientifically-based, you are holding a pseudoscientific belief.

quote:

---

"IOW, the leading Creation "science" organizations' and "scientists'" claims are not suppoerted by the evidence."
--First, I thought you said that the meaning of majority is next to nothing, if you didn't, it sertainly a truth.[QUOTE] Look, if you want to claim that your own personal viewpoint of science and religion all mishmashed up together is science, then fine, I suppose. If something is scientific or not is not relative. There are clear gudelines for determining what is science and what isn't. You claim that Creation "science" is quite scientific, and have quoted various Creation "science" sites as evidence in support of your position. The ICR and CRS are the experts in the field of Creation "science", yet they explicitly violate the tenets of science in their stated policies and philosophy.

​

quote:

---

And the scientists claims on their science is nothing short of science unless fraudulent, their interperetation of the evidence is the interperetation, which isn't the science, its what the discovery means with the understanding and contemplation of the human mind to the evidence.

---

​

So, are you actually saying that neither Creation "science", nor the interpretations that Creation "scienctists" make, are scientific?

​

Then how can it be science?

​

quote:

---

"Now, here is a good website which deals with radiometic dating from a Christian perspective:"
--Underlying the same assumptions which I still have yet to have an explination rather than, 'these assumptions are irrelevant' without reason or explination.

---

​

The one underlying assuption in science is that the forces of nature which are in effect now have been relatively constant. If you want to say that they haven't been constant, then you have to provide evidence.

​

quote:

---

"Also have a look at this definition of science:"
--Which holds abosolute credibility and equality to creation science, there is no difference, an attempt to assert it otherwize is unsuccessful.

---

​

Look, the people who are the LEADING CREATIONISTS in the world (at the ICR and CRS) violate this definition of science on several points, which has been pointed out to you. If Creationists cannot even agree on how Creation "science" is defined, then what is the point?

​

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002][/B]

---

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Nonsense. Here are some excerpts from the oath that AIG "creation scientists" must sign before receiving funding or employment:"
--As I have emphesized all through my arguments against this assertion, anything any organization believes has absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing to do with whether creation science is scientific or not. If you want to argue with creation science, a new form of debate is urged, if not, then that is perfectly fine, continue arguing with the assertions you make against these organisations, as they have nothing to do with creation science and whether it is scientific or pseudo-scientific/theological/religious.

---

So, are you saying that the Institue for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society, two of the oldest, most prominent Creation "science" organizations in the world, have NOTHING to do with defining what Creation science is?Henry Morris is the founder of the ICR and was the person who began this latest wave of religious rejection of science in the 1970's.So, if the leading Creationist organizations are exempt from criticism, then perhaps you would like to suggest which professional body does define what creationism is?