Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 301 (443296)
12-24-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by dwise1
12-23-2007 11:38 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by dwise1, posted 12-23-2007 11:38 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 12:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 212 of 301 (443313)
12-24-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Buzsaw
12-24-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
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:
  1. The term is often used as a pejorative to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
  2. The term is also used to pejoratively refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience". It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism. (Compare: scientific imperialism.)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 11:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 7:24 PM Percy has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 301 (443382)
12-24-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
12-24-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
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 Main Page
About 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"
Wikipedia - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 12:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 9:25 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 217 by obvious Child, posted 12-25-2007 3:13 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 218 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-25-2007 3:53 AM Buzsaw has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 214 of 301 (443408)
12-24-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Buzsaw
12-24-2007 7:24 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 7:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 10:39 PM Percy has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 301 (443422)
12-24-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Percy
12-24-2007 9:25 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 9:25 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by CK, posted 12-24-2007 10:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 216 of 301 (443425)
12-24-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Buzsaw
12-24-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
Evidence presented supporting creationism = 0%

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 10:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 9:30 AM CK has not replied
 Message 232 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-25-2007 3:15 PM CK has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 217 of 301 (443447)
12-25-2007 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Buzsaw
12-24-2007 7:24 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
Why am I not surprised you're pulling the 'my belief is a victim' card.
If you had evidence you would have presented it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 7:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 9:29 AM obvious Child has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 218 of 301 (443451)
12-25-2007 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Buzsaw
12-24-2007 7:24 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 7:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 9:28 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 219 of 301 (443454)
12-25-2007 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Cold Foreign Object
12-22-2007 7:02 PM


Just saw this
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 7:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 301 (443472)
12-25-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Archer Opteryx
12-25-2007 3:53 AM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-25-2007 3:53 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 301 (443473)
12-25-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by obvious Child
12-25-2007 3:13 AM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by obvious Child, posted 12-25-2007 3:13 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 12:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 301 (443476)
12-25-2007 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by CK
12-24-2007 10:41 PM


Re: Wikipedia Liberal Anti-Creationist Bias
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by CK, posted 12-24-2007 10:41 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by jar, posted 12-25-2007 9:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 11:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 223 of 301 (443478)
12-25-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 9:30 AM


Please present evidence that supports Biblical Creation
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 9:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 301 (443480)
12-25-2007 10:05 AM


Human Population Factor
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by bluescat48, posted 12-25-2007 12:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 1:13 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 9:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 225 of 301 (443490)
12-25-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Buzsaw
12-25-2007 9:30 AM


A plea for substantive, constructive, on-topic discussion
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 9:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2007 12:17 PM Percy 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