Hello. I'm a new poster here.

"First of all I'd like to apologize if I am posting this topic in the wrong forum."
--Its allrighty, I agree with shraftner, there should probley be a place where you can put up something of the nature. The Debate area would be the discussion area, ie the sciences."My name is Kyle and I am 15 years old. I have recently become very interested in the Creation-Evolution topic, and I enjoy debating. Please do not disregard my comments because of my age, but if I say something foolish feel free to correct me. I have done some reasonable study on this topic including reading alot of information off of talkorigins.com"--I freely admit, welcome to it, I am also a 15 year old High School sophmore, I've been interested in the debate for a couple years, but after viewing some tapes my interest was greatly increased. I'm no nerd I'll tell you that much though . some good research sites are answersingenesis.org, and ICR.com, go to creationism.com to get a good list. Welcome to the debate and I'll love debating and discussing. Have a question? Ask it, this is the place to discuss and debate (I more readily use the word discussion rather than the debate, as in most cases 'debate' is used as more of a reference of discussion using your own knowledge, so I think discussion is a more apporopriate word). I've read alot of talk.origins material, another well managable site is trueorigins.org, I remember when I first started reading talk.origins material, back when I was a 'baby debater' or in such a context as you could say it :\. Don't get discouraged ."I am currently a young-earth Creationist. I do not go to any church, but I do try to read the bible periodically."
--You should find yourself a church with a cool youth group . Keep your head in Genesis, 99% of the debate revolves around its interperetations."Thank you everyone."
--And thank you for participating.--------------

"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."
--I actually was never taught the creation story as it greatly relates to science. For me personally, I am absolutely convinced that the 'earth' is no more than 6-10 thousand years old, though the stars could be thousands more (I realy havent made my decision yet, I ordered the book 'starlight and time' and I've read 'God time and stephen hawking' and plan to get my hands on more to be more understanding in the feilds of cosmology and cosmogeny."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."
--Personaly in my belif it seems to myself as evolution being very unrealistic, though my knowledge and understanding of the supporting evidences seems to be very compatable with a young earth. Carbon 14 Dating being the most widely known along with Potassium/Argon. They are two of I believe 7 radiometric dating methods. I would urge you to order and read the book "Bones of Contention" another one I want to get my hands on is "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" the only problem is its huge and its like $50 or something."I hope I can be a good contribution to the intelligent debate in this forum."
--All I have to say is praise the lord for an Intelligent debate on the internet .

"Thanks again for your support. I'm sure most of you will be hating me later."
--I doubt it "I tend to think I'm not a nerd either, TrueCreation. I am on the football and basketball team, and I have a good group of friends. I go to a class C school."
--Amen Just a guy with an interest."I think I should join a church or at least a youth group. I am going next Wednesday to a youth group. My friend has offered to give me a ride there every week, so I think I will try to become a regular member of the group."
--Yeah a youth group would be a good idea. Have fun on wednesday, mine is on Friday like today, but anyways, welcome to the Debate and happy debating -------------My pretty signature!

"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."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."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. 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."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."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.----------------

​

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

"Creationism is not science. There really is no simpler way of putting it...Creationist proceed with the assumption that the Bible is innerant,which is an absolutely false assumption."
--We don't claim at all that the bible is innerant, you have a missunderstanding of creation science and how it works. we do not assume the bible is innerant, we can look at what it says and test it, and mind you, it is without fail according to what science can work with."I've studies creationist lores for some time now and i have discovered that creationist consistantly attempt to fit SOME facts to their theory,whereas science works in the exact opposite....to form a theory based one observation of the facts."
--I would challenge you to prove this statement true, as I would disagree with it, also, you should know, majority means nothing, and the theory/mechenism is falsifiable. Discuss it in the 'Why 'creation science' isn't science' forum.------------------

"BTW, Talkorigins is a great way to start learning about the great debate. I would suggest reading every single FAQ there."
--I would also agree that talkorigins is a good way to get information, but to start there and just there would not be the best approach, as I would have to say there is bias in their text, and much of it has been disproven and falsified. I would encourage reading as you would learn much on the majority of evolutionary thoughts, though don't leave it there, find other sites, non bias, and bias to get information, veriety, creation, evolution, and just plain science. True.origins is a good site for rebutals to talk.origins materials.-----------------

"Do you seriously think that no evolution scientists hold a priori?"
--I think the majority are simply looking for an answer where it cannot be found, simply put, they want to be able to see God to believe in him.------------------

"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.