Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-25-2017 9:29 AM
89 online now:
kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 82 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Porosity, Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,418 Year: 24,024/21,208 Month: 1,989/2,468 Week: 82/416 Day: 37/45 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   What is Creationism?
Phat
Member
Posts: 9775
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 16 of 88 (809002)
05-15-2017 12:33 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?
Does a Creator by definition require evidence or can it be a philosophical belief?

I would argue that life itself requires more than cosmological evolution. The argument hinges on the requirement of a supreme mind or nah.


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 13 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:45 PM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5073
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 17 of 88 (809003)
05-15-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
05-15-2017 11:46 AM


Re: Which came first? The Mind or the matter?
Phat writes:

The concept of a Creator need not be limited to an ancient storybook.

Of course - but it almost always is.

The concept of creationism presupposes a source of creativity.

Yup, normally called god.

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

Nope - that just asks the question 'what created the soup?'

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

If you're suggesting that I'm making all this up in my head and nothing but my head exists, I have to ask 'what made my head?'


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 9 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 11:46 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 18 of 88 (809006)
05-15-2017 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
05-15-2017 12:32 PM


Re: Source vs Content
New Cat's Eye writes:

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 would agree that you have to listen to the "muse" but I don't see it as something outside myself. It's more like listening to my body telling me whether it wants vegetables or ice cream.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2017 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 19 of 88 (809007)
05-15-2017 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
05-15-2017 12:33 PM


Re: Source vs Content
Phat writes:

Does a Creator by definition require evidence or can it be a philosophical belief?


By definition? A creator practically flies in the face of evidence.

Phat writes:

I would argue that life itself requires more than cosmological evolution.


You'd be arguing against the evidence. That would put you toward the denial end of the creationist spectrum.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 12:33 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 05-22-2017 2:10 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 20 of 88 (809013)
05-15-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


CRR writes:

So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs?

Creationism is an attempt to make a theistic faith based belief look like science in order to gain wider acceptance.

Creationism is the belief that God created the universe through some untestable, undetectable, and unfalsifiable process that apparently looks exactly like natural processes, but isn't.


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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29365
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 21 of 88 (809022)
05-15-2017 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
Creationism seems no common core beliefs beyond that some deity created something. For example Christian Creationism has two source tales found in the Bible, tales that are contradictory in the order of creation, method of creation, descriptions of the creator and then whole host of extra Biblical fantasies.

Then there are the equally valid creation myths of the dozens or hundreds of other non-Christian religions.

Since there is zero evidential support for any of the many flavors of Creationism they are at best belief or mythological systems.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

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 26 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 8:28 AM jar has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 22 of 88 (809062)
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Young Earth Creationism
1 The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. Hence the Earth is a bit over 6000 years old.

2 The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. (Common ancestry within the kinds)

3 The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

4 The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

Yeah, I think that about covers it. YEC defined by a YEC.

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2017 6:43 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2017 7:03 AM CRR has responded
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:39 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 61 by CRR, posted 05-22-2017 7:25 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18974
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(4)
Message 23 of 88 (809066)
05-16-2017 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
1 The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. Hence the Earth is a bit over 6000 years old.

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Just counting tree rings gets you to a minimum age of over 12,405 years, just for starters. The world is over 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is over 13.4 billion years old

See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for the evidence and methodology, and the challenge to provide an explanation that covers the correlations between different systems reaching the same results.

2 The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. (Common ancestry within the kinds)

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Fossil and genetic nested clades do not form into neat groups that can only be traced back to a set of original kinds 6000 years ago, because there are always older ancestors common to two or more of those existing 6000 years ago.

See current discussion on Science is Revealed Truth, Message 87 on Euarchontoglires common ancestor to Euarchonta common ancestor to both tree shrews and primates, including humans. Was the original kind the first population of Euarchonta or the first population of Euarchontoglires or the first population of Boreoeutheria ... and it doesn't stop there. Note that including humans in a clade with any other animal is a crisis conflict for ...

4 The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Fossil and genetic nested clades do not form into neat groups that divide the diversity of life into {human} and {all other species}

3 The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Again Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 provides plenty of objective empirical evidence that no flood could have occurred in the last 35,987 years. Then there is the geological evidence.

You basically need to deny all science to believe YEC mythology, hence it is a highly untenable position.

Sorry, if it don't fit reality it isn't real.

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 22 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5073
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 24 of 88 (809068)
05-16-2017 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
You just told us what you as a young earth Christian creationist believe. That's going to be almost unique to you and a few others. There are multiple flavours of creationist with multiple beliefs, and none.

In other words for anyone interested in life the universe and everything, so what?


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 22 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:16 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 8:24 AM Tangle has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 25 of 88 (809076)
05-16-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tangle
05-16-2017 7:03 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
You just told us what you as a young earth Christian creationist believe.

Uh, yeah. That is kinda the purpose of this thread isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2017 7:03 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2017 8:37 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 26 of 88 (809078)
05-16-2017 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
05-15-2017 2:11 PM


Re: Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
Creationism seems no common core beliefs beyond that some deity created something.

So would you classify these as Creationist? They express points of view that I as a Creationist don't agree with.

1. There is a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences.

2. God created the genes that tell a flower to bloom and spread pollen.

3. God created the common ancestry among organisms first noted by Darwin

4. God created the evolutionary process that ultimately resulted in our own human consciousness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2017 2:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 05-16-2017 9:20 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2017 10:15 AM CRR has responded
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:41 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5073
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 27 of 88 (809080)
05-16-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by CRR
05-16-2017 8:24 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
CRR writes:

Uh, yeah. That is kinda the purpose of this thread isn't it?

Well I did wonder.....

But telling us what you personally believe, while sort of interesting in that it helps us understand where you are coming from, can not be applied more generally.

Definitions tend to be specific and the only definition I can think of that's of any use is the dictionary one.

After the statement that some undefined being created life the universe and everything, the rest is a set of diverse subjective opinions - probably as many as there are creationists.


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 25 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 8:24 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29365
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 28 of 88 (809086)
05-16-2017 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by CRR
05-16-2017 8:28 AM


Re: Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
Of course I would classify them as Creationists.

And all the other Hindu or Buddhist or animist creation myths as well.

The reason Creationism is so worthless as an explanation is that it is whatever fantasies a peoples create. Even in the Bible there are two mutually exclusive creation myths that differ in the order of creation, the method of creation, even in the description and characteristics of the god doing the creation.

When you add in the fact that there is no evidence of any special creation and almost all the various creation myths are refuted by the evidence found in reality the only possible answer to the question "What is creationism?" is "It's whatever some person or people what it to be!"


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 8:28 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 29 of 88 (809093)
05-16-2017 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by CRR
05-16-2017 8:28 AM


Re: Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
So would you classify these as Creationist? They express points of view that I as a Creationist don't agree with.

May I ask why you don't agree with number 2?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 8:28 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:09 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 30 of 88 (809104)
05-16-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
CRR writes:

1 The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. Hence the Earth is a bit over 6000 years old.

And yet no such research is ever presented by creationists.

2 The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. (Common ancestry within the kinds)

Creationists still don't have any genetic or morphological tests or predictions outlining which species belong to which kind, or an explanation as to why separated kinds fall into a nested hierarchy.

3 The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

And yet they still can't provide evidence for a world wide flood layer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017