Hello. I'm a new poster here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

---

Nonsense. Here are some excerpts from the oath that AIG "creation scientists" must sign before receiving funding or employment:(From http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)A. Priorities
1. The scientific aspects of Creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.

​

D. General
(vi) By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

​

B. Basics
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

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.

---

Well, it would seem to me that if we are talking about creation science, that we should discuss the creation scientists, themselves. You were the one who said that the bible had no influence on how creation scientists do research. I was simply refuting you. At least some, and probably most, creation scientists are influenced ONLY by the bible. Certain facts must be ignored or bent to fit the biblical myth of creation. Virtually every creationist I have debated on these message boards has ultimately fallen back on the "the bible says so" argument when all others have failed. End of debate...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
First of all I'd like to apologize if I am posting this topic in the wrong forum.

​

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 am currently a young-earth Creationist. I do not go to any church, but I do try to read the bible periodically.

​

Thank you everyone.

​

Isn't it amazing how quickly an innocent topic like this can transform into a raging debate?

---

Not at all. Especially when the same person says this:

quote:

---

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.

---

And why are you here on this message board? Shouldn't yo be in school. Perhaps studying science?

quote:

---

About the current issue:

​

You say creation scientists must bend facts to agree with the bible. What is to stop evolutionists to bend facts?

---

Good question. Have you heard of peer review? If a scientist bends the rules or facts or misrepresents data, they are usually treated unmercifully by editors and rejected by their peers. So far, evolution has passed this test. [QUOTE]Many scientists already reject the idea that mutation-selection is a sufficient mechanism for evolution, yet they stand by their theory with the HOPE that facts will fill in the gaps later. Not exactly scientific....[/B][/QUOTE]Not exactly. Mutation is but one mechanism. It is not sufficient on its own, but it indisputably happens and may be necessary for evolution to occur. I would agree that there are some things that we do not fully understand regarding evolutionary mechanisms, but the basic description of the theory still holds and it does describe what we see in nature. Unlike absolutists, scientists can work with a concept that is not "proven" in the ultimate sense of the word. There is no "hope" or "faith" involved, just the conviction that if it works, it is conditionally correct; in other words, a "scientific fact." The point being that there is no other theory that works as well.