Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 154 (413997)
08-02-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
08-02-2007 12:56 AM


POM Statement Correction
Moose writes:
Tazmanian Devil, message 233 (Got POTM nomination and seconding by Buzsaw and Minnemooseus):
Correction here: Taz's statement got nominated by Buzsaw and 2nded by Moose who in also in his message promoted another of Taz's gems coming from the same message of Taz.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-02-2007 12:56 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 154 (414035)
08-02-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
08-02-2007 12:56 AM


Riddle, or Logic?
Taz writes:
You and I both know that with enough command of the English language, one could write academically coherent literature while making the over message a one big riddle to support just about anything, and this is the tactic that these so-called "articulate informed creationists" use to support their position.
Taz, methinks you have lumped us all into this riddle barrel. Much of what some of us do is a mix of logic and basic science laws and principles which minimizes to a significant degree the riddle/mystery factor. ICant is a good example of this in the Before the Big Bang Tread where he quite efficiently goes on the offense pretty well holding his counterparts at bay and even on the defence via the implementation of his logic and some basic knowledge of science.
I have had some success in similar manner myself, way back when in my great debate with Jar before your time here, applying the thermodynamic laws of science with logic since the creationist perspective is that the very observable laws of science such as those thermodynamic laws were installed by intelligent design, i.e. God, so why shouldn't the Genesis account be interpreted in compliance with those laws, including 1LoT which logically implies eternal energy and an eternal universe to accomodate the existence of an eternal thermodynamically and eternal omnipotent designer who has been creating and destroying things in the universe forever?
Where the creationist gets into trouble is when we try to go beyond our limit of knowledge in applyin science. There are some basic laws of science which we can comprehend and apply to the logic we use so long as we work within our capacity to do so without violation of empirically (I say empirically) substantiated scientific fact.
One of the problems is that evolutionists here sometimes mimimize the riddle/mystery in theories such as QM and string theory, et al which the best scientists like Dr Richard Feynman have admitted to while maximizing the mystery/riddle aspect of ID creationism.
Perhaps what I'm suggesting is that one need not be totally articulate in science in order to apply some basic science which layfolks can understand and apply to debating the less complicated science issues.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-02-2007 12:56 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 154 (414129)
08-02-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by arachnophilia
08-02-2007 3:15 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
I told Percy up front that my reading time was very limited due to my busy life at home and business, being a sole proprieter. You have to read to moderate. I came back on to do what I can but I do like to debate the issues for ID creationism, the Biblical and the social issues et al. That's why I joined in the first place
I believe Administasia said something in PAF about IAJ that she would keep an eye out on his input. I have admittedly been somewhat remiss on my role in that, however.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 08-02-2007 3:15 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 3:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 154 (414135)
08-02-2007 9:51 PM


Informed Not Always Articulate
I believe it's possible to be a good creationist debater on some of the science issues, fairly well informed on the basics of science without being all that articulate in things like string theory, QM, et al. I cited ICant as an example way back in message 6. Moose, does that fit within your criteria as on topic and if Moose has no objections, does anyone care to comment on that?
On the other hand we have had a few fairly articulate folks come on briefly to find the site not so friendly to their science inform-ation and bug off. Lyndonshire is one example of that for some of the long timers who remember that tired light debate. I thought that debate was quite interesting to follow.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 1:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 154 (414136)
08-02-2007 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object
08-02-2007 9:51 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
CFO writes:
As for the topic title: "What is an Articulate Informed Creationist" it is ridiculous! As if any evolutionist is going to say that a Creationist is as such! If any evolutionist says that a Creationist is as such then that person is not a real Creationist.
I have to pretty much agree with you, CFO. I never ever in over 4 years remember of any ID creationist participant at EvC that would be considered both articulate and informed by either Admin or the membership at large. To be informed you must be evo and to be articulate doesn't make you informed as an ID creo.
That's why I entitled the thread I was going to have promoted on this topic, "EvC Expectations For Biblical Creationist Pariticipitation In Science."

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-02-2007 9:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 2:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 154 (414147)
08-02-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by bluegenes
08-02-2007 10:07 PM


Re: Articulate Interpretations Of Science.
bluejeans writes:
Intelligent thiests know that belief in God is a matter of faith. Many see science as the study of their God's creation. If their God exists and created the universe, then they're correct!
The crux comes when you consider that the God of their faith is likely the Biblical god. So if the God of their faith is a Biblical God, they are confronted with the fact that if their God is a Biblical god then according to the record of the book of their God he intelligently designed everything that was made and all things came from him. All of this stuff is relative to the God of their faith. So to be intelligently informed and articulate on scripture, it makes sense to be able to interpret what is observed in science as being intelligently designed by a higher power than NS and RM. This is the basis of our contention that there is such a thing as ID creationist science and articulately informed scientists like those associated with ICR may interpret science on that basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2007 10:07 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2007 7:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 8:13 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 154 (414377)
08-03-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
08-03-2007 2:19 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
ICant writes:
So you are telling me to be an informed person that believes in creation by God I have to believe that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science an not religion.
That is ridiculous.
I have to agree that creationism perse is not science, just as evolution perse is not science. Science is doing things of a scientific nature relative to subjects such as creationism or evolutionism. I can't speak for Percy but perhaps that's what Percy was aluding to.
Creationism perse is neither religion or science. I suppose there are folks who would be regarded by some as articulate and informed creationists who are not religious.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 2:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 4:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 154 (414382)
08-03-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluegenes
08-03-2007 10:25 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
bluejeans writes:
Creationists have faith, that's all, and saying "I have faith in my view" is not much of an argument.
That's false, demeaning and unfair. There are all kinds of creationists, some informed and articulate, some less articulate but informed, some less informed but articulate and some who are none of these, as is the case with evolutionists. Some of us who have faith apply a whole lot more to debates on the issues than faith alone. Unsubstantiated faith is one thing but when substantiated by things like history, archeology, experience, et al, quite another.
Some very articulate and informed creationists have faith but rely little on it in debate and forming opinions relative to many topics.
Everytime you cross a bridge you exercise faith in the ability of the bridge to do it's job based on observtion and past experience. Failures such as we've recently observed do happen but faith alone is not why the hapless victims were on it when it failed. The same applies to informed creationists.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2007 10:25 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2007 1:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 154 (414538)
08-04-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Adequate
08-04-2007 1:32 AM


Re: Faith?
DA writes:
If it's based on "observation and past experience", how is it "faith"?
Just as there is varying amounts of evidence for something, so with faith. There's blind faith having little or no evidence substantiating it and there's all degrees of substantiated faith, depending on the amount of evidence supportive of it.
Articulate and informed creationists would not, of course, exercise blind faith, i.e. faith having no substantiation. The articulate & informed creationist may have faith in God as creator. That faith does not X out the observable scientific aspects of the various versions of creationism, supportive of the faith.
Edited by Buzsaw, : add word for clarification

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2007 1:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 154 (414541)
08-04-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
08-04-2007 4:02 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
MMmm, my dear brother ICant, I'm really pleased to have you on the creo team at EvC. You are rapidly becoming articulate and informed. Why? Because you are so eager and willing to learn. Hopefully we on the creo team, the great minority may together become more articulate and informed. Much of what I know has come form my counterparts in debate, either directly or in research so as to try and make sensible responses, et al.
That's all I had better say in response to your excellent message so as not to have us both in the suspension clink for violation of Forum Guidelines. Perhaps some points of your message are more in sinc with the OP than I am crediting you with, however, being some are more compatible with topic than others.
I'm sure we'll have other opportunities to address some of the points of your messag. May God bless you richly!

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 4:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 154 (414542)
08-04-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
08-04-2007 4:02 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
ICant writes:
I think herein I see one of the biggest problem we have here at EvC.
Everyone here is lumping everybody that believes in creation by God into the same camp with ID/ers, and YEC'ers.
Yah, I know. For years I've tried to make it clear that I'm neither a YEC or YUC (young universe creo), explaining in detail as to why not a YEC and why I am eternal universalist but often still get lumped in the one lump as you say.
Having said the above, certainly there are YEC PHD's and others who are a whole lot more articulate and informed on many aspects of creationism than I'll ever be, so I thank God for them and support them inasmuch as possible without compromising what i believe to be the correct rendering of the Genesis account. There are a number of counts where I disagree with ICR (Institution for Creation Research), for example but I am thankful for their Grand Canyon video as well as the Mt St Helens video, both of which I have. I know these are receiving a lot of criticism by my counterparts, but imo, either they haven't even seen the videos or if they have they choose to throw out the baby with the bathwater on these. At any rate some of their objections are 2nd hand miss-inform-ation.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 4:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 154 (414551)
08-04-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Chiroptera
08-04-2007 2:38 PM


Intellectural Founders.
Chiroptera writes:
Actually, the US has never been very prone to thinking.
Many of the Founding Fathers were brilliant intellectuals, but that was pretty much the last time intellectual thought had any place in the public discourse.
Mmm, So you admit that the ones who established and founded a nation of Christian principles in and out of government were brilliant and intellectual. That's interesting coming from you, given these believed in about everything the EvC despised Biblical fundamentalists of today believe, even to the extent that they all were brought up beginning with the NEW ENGLAND PRIMER, all Bible, and the Bible and Watts hymnal in every classroom taught actively. Not only that but church was held in the halls of Congress with the Marine band providing the music.
IMO, Chriroptera, if these men were here debating in EvC you would regard them as the most far out non-articulate and ill informed folk that you ever encountered. Furthermore given their feisty Boston Tea Party and Revolutionary disposition/mindset to government intervention and control of religion in and out of government, any one of them would last about a quarter of a thread here on this board and off they would go into permanent ban land.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2007 2:38 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2007 8:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 154 (414553)
08-04-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by bluegenes
08-04-2007 5:12 PM


Re: Informed
[qs=bluejeans] LOL. According to the record, John the Baptist just before birth leaped in the womb of Elizabeth when he heard the salutation of Mary who at the time was early in her pregnancy with Jesus of the Holy Spirit. Not only that, but likely nobody quite knows how much of the mindset of mothers is bred into the babe in a sublime manner of some sort.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2007 5:12 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 154 (414578)
08-04-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Chiroptera
08-04-2007 9:03 PM


Re: Seriously Though
Chiroptera writes:
Americans have always been fond of emotionalism and "gut instinct". I dunno why -- it seems to be a national trait.
But by and large, unlike so many looser despotic governments, we've been Biblically articulate and intelligent enough via majority Biblical Christian citizenry from the founders until recently or possibly the present to be the most desireable nation to live in of all the nations. But from here where we go is likely down, given the secularist mindset trend that is emerging in our time according to the evidence of history, particularly the secularist humanist brutal regimes of Europe and Asia last century.
Mohammed was gossly articulately and imformation deficient Biblically, as evidenced in his book which misapplies much of what the Bible advocated for Israel to advance his ambitions of world domination for his religion, Islam by imposing his version of OT Levitical Law upon all nations by the sword, beginning with Mecca and most of the Mideast, now focusing on Europe and finally the West for the future.
Having said the above, imo, articulate and informed creationists are not only what EvC's science sector needs, but what the whole planet needs more of if humanity is to progress and survive. According to the Biblical prophecies, it won't happen until messiah Jesus returns to fix it.
Informed, implies truth. What is truth? The more we can determine the answer to that the more we can really determine who is really informed. I guess that's what we're all here attempting to do is to inform ourselves and one another in our attempts to answer that question, what is truth.
Likely Stalin and Hitler were both articulate and informed in their ideology which they purposed to impose on the planet. Their scientists were some of the best. So scientifically articulate and informed is not necessarily a virtue the world needs outside of truth and the Biblical golden rule. The end results of these looser despots pretty much assured the world that truth was deficient in their ambitions and ideologies.
So as to be fair and balanced in my citing Mohammed, The Christianity professing popes and bishops of Vatican City were like him, misapplying scripture to empower and enrich themselves and bring upon the planet the brutal bloody dark ages in a Christian era/age where Jesus and the desciples of the Bible advocated non-violence for all of NT Christianity.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2007 9:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2007 11:58 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2007 12:31 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 154 (414616)
08-05-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by arachnophilia
08-05-2007 12:31 AM


Re: Seriously Though
I don't see anything in your message all that relative to topic or even making a lot of sense so I'll decline comment.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2007 12:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2007 7:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024