Hello. I'm a new poster here.

"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.

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 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?

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.

​

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

---

Isn't it amazing how quickly an innocent topic like this can transform into a raging debate?About the current issue:You say creation scientists must bend facts to agree with the bible. What is to stop evolutionists to bend facts?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....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
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....

---

Who?

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder. [Pierre-Paul Grass (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding. [Jeffrey S. Wicken (evolutionist), The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.]In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selectionquite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology. [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]Gould stated in an article dealing with whether or not evolution could be explained by mutation-selection:"That theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."Gould now argues that evolution takes place in large jumps (hopeful monsters). However, there is no mechanism in place to explain hopeful monsters, and the question still remains: what would a hopeful monster mate with?By the way, don't argue with me about these statements. Don't shoot the messenger!

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.

Well, it's true that the main reason I am a Creationist is because of my parents. This reason isn't very convincing to anyone that I am unbiased. However, it is true and I don't see why I should tell you anything different. But even though my reasons for being a Creationist are unscientific, that doesn't mean my stance or the creationist stance is unscientific (though many of you would beg to differ)."And why are you here on this message board? Shouldn't yo be in school. Perhaps studying science?"Are you kidding? School is the LAST place I would want to be in order to learn about evolution. You must understand that evolution is very poorly taught at my school. Almost all of what I know is from reading books or off of talkorigins."The point being that there is no other theory that works as well."That's what we are here to debate.P.S. In my interest I must ask you what some of the other proposed mechanisms for evolution are.

A young earth is out of the question from a biblical point of view. Come let us reason together, and after you think on it and read the account in Genesis, you will conclude that it is an old earth simply by reading what it says there and approaching the words for what they actually say. Any takers?

---

Cactus and Scrub
and yellow grass

quote:

---

Originally posted by PecosGeorge

​

Any takers?

---

Hello PecosGeorge,Most of us here are already familiar with the "gap" theory, "day/age" theory and various other arguments that have been put forth to extract an old earth age from Genesis. I would be happy to discuss the issue with you, but I'm afraid it might be a hijacking of this thread. Perhaps you should consider starting a thread specifically on this topic?Namaste'Amlodhi

TC,Can you name one scientist who has looked at the evidence and concluded that the earth is 6,000 years old, a global flood circa 2,000 BCE, and immutable kinds that hasn't first read the Bible? My opinion is that creation science is only meant to find support for a religious presupposition and ignores or distorts falsifying data. Creation science is as much a scientific exploration as looking searching for orc evidence via The Lord of the Rings. Maybe Eden was actually Middle Earth?

There is no such thing as creation "science", only creation "belief".

This topic was inactive for over 2 years.Some of the key participents are long gone, and the views of others (TC) have changed considerably since then. Plus, the topic (judging from the title) was pretty poorly defined in the first place.Closing it down.Adminnemooseus

---

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads