Hello. I'm a new poster here.

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

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.

"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. 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.

​

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

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.

---

Sure enough, I responded to your post in the separation of church and state forum, and find you over here, a step ahead of me. With all due respect to your parents (I'm sure they are fine wonderful people); unless they are experts in earth science, or at least very well educated in the field, they aren't a good source for your scientific knowledge on the age of the earth. As I stated on my other post, you have a lot of years of study ahead of you. Don't decide right now. Simply put away all thoughts on religion, creationism, evolution, and concentrate on learning as much as you can unfettered by what your parents, ministers, friends, even teachers tell you. It's actually quite a bit of reading but if you are like me, you'll enjoy your studies.BTW, Talkorigins is a great way to start learning about the great debate. I would suggest reading every single FAQ there.SLD

I think we should spend less time arguing which scientists are more "scientific" and more time arguing the different viewpoints of the scientists. After all, if creation scientists are correct, it won't matter how "scientific" they were during life when we are all facing judgement from God.Do you seriously think that no evolution scientists hold a priori?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Do you seriously think that no evolution scientists hold a priori?

---

from:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/apriori.htm"A priori" is a term used to identify a type of knowledge which is obtained independently of experience. A proposition is known a priori if when judged true or false one does not refer to experience. "A priorism" is a philosophical position maintaining that our minds gain knowledge independently of experience through innate ideas or mental faculties. The term a priori is distinguished from a posteriori, which means knowledge gained through the senses and experience. These are the two most common ways in which philosophers argue that humans acquire knowledge."So I would say that were your question limited to a priori notions about evolution then no they hold a posteriori notions.....

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:
[/B][/QUOTE]Sigh. This is too easy. There is no evidence that decay rates have changed in the slightest since time immemorial. Scientists know of no quantum mechanical way in which they could change. It would be up to you to provide the evidence or mechanism by which decay rates could change over time. But, and here is the key, we have observed ancient decay rates; very very old ones, in fact. And the decay rates are the same. Where have we seen these? In supernovae bursts. Sorry to burst your bubble FalseCreation, but that is solid proof that decay rates haven't changed.SLD

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.

---

TC writes:
I think the majority [of evolutionists] 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.

---

Acceptance of the theory of evolution is not a rejection of God. A great many scientists hold deep and sincere religious beliefs. Most probably see science and religion as dealing with different realms. Few outside of evangelical Christianity take a literal interpretation of the Bible, but acceptance of a young earth and rejection of evolution is much more widespread than fundamentalism.You were born during the administration of a US president who once said, "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Reagan was echoing feelings on this topic that resonate strongly throughout American culture.--Percy