|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussing the evidence that support creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
dwise1 writes: Not grammatical correctness -- grammar being the structure of a language -- , but rather semantic correctness -- semantics dealing with meaning. Each of those sentences are grammatically correct, but half of them are semanticly wrong and don't make any sense.Evolutionism is not the same thing as evolution. To try to claim that they are the same thing is both false and misleading. By the same token we can argue that it is semantics that evolutionists use to avoid the gramatically proper term/word evolutionism in reference to evolution. This is nothing but spin on the term so as to avoid it's usage in order that the evolutionists may gain the higer ground in debate on the controversial issue. The fact remains that evolutionism is every bit as relative to evolution as creationism is to creation and journalism is to what journalists do, autism is to the autistic etc. Speaking for myself so long as I'm gramatically correct relative to the usage of it I'll not be denied the right to apply the word/term in reference to evolution. It's time creationists hold their rightful ground on ligitimate issuse such as this. As for the semantic arguments, both camps can argue til the cows come home on them so the generic non-partisan definition of the word becomes the bottom line which we must go by if this issue is ever to be resolved. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
This definition of evolutionism is from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia on evolutionism writes: Evolutionism, from the accusative of the Latin evolutio, "unrolling" + the Greek -‘‘, "suffix of action or state", is generally used by creationists as a pejorative label for the scientific theory of evolution. I think that about sums it up. It's just a more specific form of the word scientism, this also from that entry at Wikipedia:
Wikipedia on scientism writes:
Wikipedia goes on to explain the objection to use of evolutionism fairly clearly:
Wikipedia on evolutionism writes: Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to science. What you're telling us is that you're going to insist on referring to evolution in pejorative terms. One of the reasons threads involving Randman had such difficulty maintaining civility was because of his insistence on referring to other side in pejorative terms. Your chosen course of action seems ill-advised, not to mention inconsistent with rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Formatting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy, the Wikipedia bias against creationism and conservatism is well established. Therefore I choose to go with the online dictionary, American Heritage and other neutral fair and balanced sources in defining terms. I have documented my POV in this debate well from more reliable sources than Wikipedia.
The debate is on regarding this. Why should my POV be restricted to biased sources for documentation? Yes, this debate is raises controversial issues. However, I see no problem with civility on either side of the debate so far. If there comes a civility problem which concerns you it won't be on my count. I believe that is the duty of moderators to deal with any civility problem which should arise. Thus your referral to the Forum Guidelines relative to my alleged violation of it has no basis. Wikipedia has a systemic problem due to the bias of the moderators as to which user contributions to allow and disallow as can be seen by the link below and this is just one of many websites which are critical of Wikipedia's bias:
Many of the CreationWiki authors have expressed frustration with Wikipedia. It is said that while Wikipedia claims to take a "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) position on topics and seems to follow it quite well for most issues, when it comes to creation science and intelligent design, it has a strong negative point of view. Sometimes this bias simply results from contributors who do not like or in some cases show a clear hatred for Creationism, but sadly this sentiment extends to the sysops as well. One example is the fact that they classify Creation science and Intelligent design as pseudosciences which is a standard anti-creation tactic.
Wikipedia - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science Wikipedia Main PageAbout Wikipedia An example of the systemic bias in Wikipedia was the vote to delete the article "Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared". Despite Wikipedia's NPOV policy, many voters felt free to vote to delete the article on the grounds that they considered creationism as pseudoscience or worse, rather than on the merits of the article itself. Some of the comments in support of the vote to delete were: The title of the page is inherently wrong, as it suggests that creationism is a scientific view....comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic. By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV. Creationism is not science. Delete, since creationism is ultimately based on untestable religious beliefs... Not only did these voters feel free to vote on the basis of their bias, no administrators felt the need to remind the voters that they should be voting on the merits of the article, not their personal opinion of creationism. Furthermore, the contributor who proposed that the article be deleted”after he had vandalised the creationist views listed there”considered the Talk.Origins Archive to be "the most balanced treatment on the web to date" BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Buz, I think we're all just a bit tired of your incessant accusations of bias. The topic of this thread is the evidence supporting Creationism. If creationism is science then it must have supporting evidence. But if creationism is Genesis stripped of Biblical references then that explains the lack of supporting evidence, and you can't blame that on evolution. I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd get on topic and talk about the evidence for creationism.
If creationism were truly science with a more accurate view of the real world than traditional science then its primary advocates, fundamentalist Christians, would be be producing the results of that better science at centers of study like Liberty University and Indiana Wesleyan, but scientific advances don't emerge from such places. They don't come from the Discovery Institute, either. If evolution were wrong then the best advances in biology would be coming out of places that understand it is wrong, but we don't see this from fundamentalist institutions. The way creationism is going to convince science of its views is by doing the science and presenting the evidence. Your focus is on things for which there is no evidence, such as a global flood or different physical laws before 4000 years ago. No one ignorant of Genesis and just looking at the real-world evidence would conclude such things. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: The topic of this thread is the evidence supporting Creationism. Dwise made a fuss about the meaning of evolutionism and I countered with the creationist POV and off we all went on it. I agree we need to get back on track. In the mean time terminology issue remains unresolved and the debate goes way beyond this site. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Evidence presented supporting creationism = 0%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Why am I not surprised you're pulling the 'my belief is a victim' card.
If you had evidence you would have presented it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thanks to whoever invented this subtitle. I got a good chuckle out of it.
Buz, do I have you to thank? Science excludes pseudoscience. This is a matter neither of bias nor 'liberalism' (whatever that is). It's in the definition. Science and pseudoscience are mutually exclusive categories. To all creatures fundy and infidel: a Joyous Noel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Ray writes: Could you please show us where Aquilegia or any Creationist came to this Forum to learn? Could you please also show us where any Evolutionist was recognized as a teacher and accepted in that role by any Creationist? Creationists come to EvC Forum to evidence Creationism and show the falsity of Evolutionism. Ray Ray, every thinking person of any ilk should look at everything as an opportunity to learn. If you do not then I am sad for you. I go to different churches that I do not believe in, why? To learn. I read websites from YEC's, from conservatives, from communists, from vegans to Nazis. Why? To learn. I want to know what people think and why they do it. If creationists come to EvC with the goal of evidencing creationism and falsifying evolution then they have done a piss-poor job of it. If they come with any interest in learning then material is provided here. You cannot, as a veteran of these debates, seriously identify yourself with those that burst in here with "Paluxy man-track" arguments can you? My hope is that those people will stick around at least as long as it takes to recognize the lies they have been told. Edited by Lithodid-Man, : To clarify point before response "I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
A substantive greeting here. Nothing else substantive. Thanks! Christmas greetings to you and yours as well.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Nothing substantive here at all.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Zero substance here also.
Edited by Buzsaw, : fix smiles BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Time to step up to the plate.
Do you have even one single piece of evidence that supports Biblical Creation? Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Regarding substantive evidence for creationism, I haven't read the whole thread, but has the human population factor been discussed?
Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. http://www.creationevidence.org/...dencefor/evidencefor.html BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Buz, this thread has less than 80 posts to go. Three consecutive content-free posts after earlier pleas to get on topic is hard to fathom. As a moderator you shouldn't let other posters act as enablers of your tendency to go off-topic.
To everyone: This thread hasn't got much more time. Please don't help other posters go off-topic. I think that posts in this thread should discuss the evidence for creationism, and that those that don't shouldn't be posted. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024