Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 5:07 PM
349 online now:
Aussie, Faith, jar, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (8 members, 341 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,618 Year: 29,224/21,208 Month: 1,290/1,847 Week: 213/452 Day: 87/126 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   What is Creationism?
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 1 of 88 (808947)
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


I couldn't find this discussed specifically as a topic. So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs? You will also need to say what sort of Creationism you are talking about.
Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive Creation?
Are Deism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design forms of Creationism and how do they differ from the others?
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 8:20 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 8:20 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 10:43 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2017 11:44 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM CRR has responded
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 05-15-2017 1:33 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2017 2:11 PM CRR has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 88 (808949)
05-15-2017 7:46 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What is Creationism? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 3 of 88 (808951)
05-15-2017 8:17 AM


A new ythread on Creationism but not on Evolution
Wow, amazingly a thread on Creationism gets promoted, but we cant discuss and talk about evolution, whether its their beneficial mutations, origins or that their belief that our ancestors are treeshrews.

Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander, in open debate. As evolutionists seem to demand answers from creationists, but do not like to answer any questions about their belief system.

For ehrein, they will surely come and try to degrade creationism through their continual insistence on answering their questions, but run away in a two sided debate. I wonder why is that ? I think I know..

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/Proveit.html


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 4 of 88 (808952)
05-15-2017 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


I couldn't find this discussed specifically as a topic. So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs? You will also need to say what sort of Creationism you are talking about.
Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive Creation?
Are Deism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design forms of Creationism and how do they differ from the others?

I thought topics were suppose to be well defined and narrow in scope, so a focused discussion could be introduced. But CCR, this topic is so broad, any divisions in creationists will easily be mocked by the no answering evolutionists, who have no answers, and yet will demand answers HEREIN and try to separate creationists.

I think you fell into their trap....


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CRR, posted 05-15-2017 3:00 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5270
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 5 of 88 (808953)
05-15-2017 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


What's wrong with the dictionary?

quote:
noun
1.
a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CRR, posted 05-15-2017 3:00 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 11:46 AM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 88 (808982)
05-15-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


How much denial do you need?
I couldn't find this discussed specifically as a topic. So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs? You will also need to say what sort of Creationism you are talking about.
Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive Creation?
Are Deism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design forms of Creationism and how do they differ from the others?

And I'm going to agree with Tangle on the definition. When I first came here I said I was a deist and not a creationist, whereupon I was corrected (by Mr. Jack), that as I believed that god/s created the universe that I was de facto a creationist.

So yes, the term needs modification for what type of creationism is involved.

To me it comes down to how much of the objective empirical evidence one must deny to maintain a position being inversely proportional to the likely possible reality. The more you need to deny (such as all the evidence on the age of the earth, for young earth creationists) the less likely those beliefs are to being true. To me all objective empirical evidence is evidence of reality and thus evidence of the result of creation.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CRR, posted 05-15-2017 3:00 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 11:41 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10265
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 7 of 88 (808988)
05-15-2017 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
05-15-2017 10:43 AM


Creator by definition
CRR writes:

I couldn't find this discussed specifically as a topic. So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs? You will also need to say what sort of Creationism you are talking about.
Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive Creation?
Are Deism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design forms of Creationism and how do they differ from the others?

Creationism presupposes a Creator.

RAZD writes:

To me all objective empirical evidence is evidence of reality and thus evidence of the result of creation.(...)When I first came here I said I was a deist and not a creationist, whereupon I was corrected (by Mr. Jack), that as I believed that god/s created the universe that I was de facto a creationist.

As a Deist, do you believe that the concept of a creator need be a personal One? (The Creator, that is)

Deism Defined writes:

belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Wheras David Jay Jordan describes a Creator differently:

DJJ writes:

So Solomon seemed to try just about everything, and yet without success. So what then is the solution to Life, what does bring us happiness and fulfillment.? What are we all looking for anyway? Yet centuries later one poet was so brash as to say she had found the solution, that even the wisest man on Earth could not..
AH! SWEET MYSTERY OF LIFE, at last I've found thee; Ah! I know at last the secret of it all; All the longing, striving, seeking, waiting, yearning, The burning hopes, the joys and idle tears that fall! For 'tis LOVE, and love alone, the world is seeking; And it's love, and love alone, that can reply; 'Tis the ANSWER, tis the end and all of living.~Rida Johnson Young

So within the context of Creationism, we have either a personal relational Creator or a hypothetical nonrelational One who is nonetheless part of reality. Perhaps the relational aspect is the essence of our conversations. For some, the action of creative thought is itself evidence of a Creator. Comments?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 10:43 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 8 of 88 (808990)
05-15-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


I'd have said that the distinctive feature of Creationism is the view that the various kinds of organisms were created separately by God doing miracles. What exactly constitutes a "kind of organism" varies from creationist to creationist.

Deists think that God created the universe and then left it alone to run its course. A modern deist would --- perhaps not by definition, but with no exception that I know of --- accept that the universe came into being without life and so would attribute the origin of life to natural causes and the diversity of life to evolution.

Intelligent Design does not have a single coherent definition agreed on by all the people who claim to advocate it.

Theistic evolutionists accept the facts of evolution, including common descent, and see it as the working-out of God's plan, either because God set the boundary conditions of the universe so it should occur, or by augmenting the theory of evolution with divine intervention as an additional mechanism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CRR, posted 05-15-2017 3:00 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10265
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 9 of 88 (808991)
05-15-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tangle
05-15-2017 8:20 AM


Which came first? The Mind or the matter?
Tangle writes:

What's wrong with the dictionary?

Creationist: a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.


The concept of a Creator need not be limited to an ancient storybook. The concept of creationism presupposes a source of creativity.

One may trace the source back to a primordial soup of chemicals. (Matter)

Or one may believe that the source is Mind. (Mind over matter)

Comments?

Edited by Phat, : fixed broken quote

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 8:20 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 12:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14015
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 10 of 88 (808992)
05-15-2017 11:52 AM


I would say that for a creationist, the Creator supersedes any aspect of reality. At one end of the spectrum you have creationists who reject reality entirely if it disagrees with their religion. At the other end you have creationists who accept science but insist that God did it.
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 12:07 PM ringo has responded
 Message 14 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-15-2017 12:20 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10265
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 11 of 88 (808995)
05-15-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
05-15-2017 11:52 AM


Source vs Content
I would say that for a creationist, the Creator supersedes any aspect of reality. At one end of the spectrum, you have creationists who reject reality entirely if it disagrees with their religion. At the other end, you have creationists who accept science but insist that God did it.
Would you thus argue that creative thought is itself no evidence of a Creator apart from yourself?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 11:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM Phat has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11859
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 12 of 88 (808997)
05-15-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


Whether or not I call myself a creationist depends on who I'm talking to and what the context is.

I accept evolution and I believe in God.

I guess, technically, I'm a creationist in that I think God created this.

But I'm not a Creationists in the sense of being against evolution.

Typically, at least here, a creationist is someone who does not accept evolution because of their belief in God's creation. In that sense, I don't count.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CRR, posted 05-15-2017 3:00 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 5:26 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14015
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 13 of 88 (808998)
05-15-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
05-15-2017 12:07 PM


Re: Source vs Content
Phat writes:

Would you thus argue that creative thought is itself no evidence of a Creator apart from yourself?


Why would creative thought be evidence of a creator any more than any other human trait? Why wouldn't you tout greed or jealousy as evidence of a creator?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 12:07 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2017 12:32 PM ringo has responded
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 12:33 PM ringo has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1594
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 14 of 88 (809000)
05-15-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
05-15-2017 11:52 AM


At the other end you have creationists who accept science but insist that God did it.

Within this group are the bunch who continuously redefine science and claim that whole branches of science are religion.

A fairly large number of the creationists we encounter at EvC insist that evolutionary biologists are all atheists and make erroneous claims about evolution and the theory of evolution.

Creationism seems to consist, in large part, in attacks on strawman versions of evolution and attempts to force unevidenced versions of biblical creationism into public schools, especially into science classes.

The intelligent design bunch are creationists who have tried to add in the idea that some life processes are too complex to have evolved. When you actually see what they are writing it is clear that it's plain old creationism with a few new sciencey sounding magical concepts carefully arranged to try and fool the courts into letting them teach it in public school science classes.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 11:52 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11859
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 15 of 88 (809001)
05-15-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
05-15-2017 12:14 PM


Re: Source vs Content
Why would creative thought be evidence of a creator any more than any other human trait?

For me, creativity requires submission to a source that is not my self.

You gotta find that muse, and then let it speak to you.

It feels foreign.

I don't really ever feel greed or jealousy, so I dunno. Other traits just kinda come and go, but creativity requires active participation on my part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017