Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 31 of 432 (657238)
03-26-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bridgebuilder
03-26-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Hey Creationists! Have your cake and eat it too
Adam and Eve have nothing to do with Genesis 1, a story that was written hundreds if not thousands of years after the Genesis 2&3 myth were written.
The earth is billions of years old, that is simply not open to discussion among any educated people.
But Adam and Eve never existed either and if they had, since Eve was a clone of Adam it should be Adam and Steve anyway.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-26-2012 5:41 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 32 of 432 (657245)
03-27-2012 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by bridgebuilder
03-26-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Hey Creationists! Have your cake and eat it too
quote:
...However, I would like to ask the Bible believing creationists to please reread the 1st chapter of Genesis carefully. Please tell me when/where does God ever say "let there be water?" Where does it say "let there be land?"
He doesn't. The water was already there according to the Genesis account. Maybe it was there for eons upon eons.
I'll say that you got this right, The Genesis 1 creation account starts with the Primordial Ocean of Middle Eastern Creation myths. A view completely at odds with the reality shown to us by science.
And this is why anyone hoping to build a bridge between science and religion must recognise that religion includes myths, and myths cannot be taken as accurate accounts of what happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-26-2012 5:41 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:45 PM PaulK has replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 33 of 432 (657248)
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


At least you science-minded folks reply and give thought provoking responses. So far not one creationist has responded to my initial post. That is the audience I was seeking when I made my initial post. I disagree with the creos who think God didn't create anything until 5000-6000 yrs ago. I don't disagree with their belief that God is the master-mind of creation.
There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe. Neither will happen. But at least the latter side engaged in the debate. The silence from the creos is deafening.
Thanks to everyone who responded. I enjoyed reading your thoughts and seeing your points of view.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2012 3:06 AM bridgebuilder has not replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 3:56 AM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 37 by Admin, posted 03-27-2012 8:51 AM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:58 AM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2012 9:59 AM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 10:08 AM bridgebuilder has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 34 of 432 (657252)
03-27-2012 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe. Neither will happen. But at least the latter side engaged in the debate. The silence from the creos is deafening.
No, the creos will never be able to effectively respond. They depend on a narrowly defined set of premises that just simply do not exist. So by their own narrowly defined set of premises, God does not exist. OK, let us allow them to live in the Hell that they themselves have defined for themselves -- with hope, some of them can become atheists and then have some remote chance of learning the truth -- assuming that they can overcome the complete and utter bullshit lies they had been taught about atheists and atheism.
OK, "evolutionists". Just what the frak is that supposed to mean? I've studied "creation science" since circa 1981. I know all too well what kind of utter bullshit the creationists have been trying to foist onto the American public. "Evolutionist" is a purely creationist term. So, as you are using that term, just what the frak is evolutionist supposed to mean?
OK, here's what I have seen "evolutionist" to mean. Creationists, whom you typified as "creos", define anybody who accepts evolution as an "evolutionist". And furthermore, they (the "creos") typify those "evolutionists" as being atheists, anti-religionists, anti-Christians and all kind of mean ugly nasty things. Bullshit! Many of those "atheist, anti-religion, anti-Christian" "evolutionist" are in fact believing, practicing Christians. Dr. Kenneth Miller, a practicing Catholic creationist is also an "evolutionist." Duh???
There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe. Neither will happen.
Bullshit! Unless, of course, you are in reality a stupid creationist, in which case you have damned yourself.
OK, so just what the frak is an "evolutionist"? Until you can define just exactly what an "evolutionist" is and what exactly you are, your bullshit is just exactly that, bullshit!
The scientific side has been expressed and presented very well. Are you able to do the same for your side as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:30 AM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 35 of 432 (657255)
03-27-2012 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe.
As dwise1 has pointed out, you are confusing evolutionists with atheists. The actual difference between evolutionists and you is that they adhere to a well-evidenced non-magical explanation for the origin of species, whereas creationists believe in an unevidenced magical explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:30 AM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 1:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 36 of 432 (657267)
03-27-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by bridgebuilder
03-26-2012 6:59 PM


Re: Hey Creationists! Have your cake and eat it too
Hello Bridgebuilder,
I agree. It is a matter of faith. Faith in science or faith in religion. I happen to believe that God is the ultimate scientist and both sides have validity. Both side have falsehoods. I am aware that this view will not make allies either side.
Well it all depends on what you class as the meaning of 'faith'.
If I use an elevator to go up 30 floors I am in a way using 'faith' that the lift engineers have got their maths right, their use of technology etc etc and I won't plummet 30 floors due to engineering incompetence. But that 'faith' is more 'trust' in the competence of the engineers and the science behind elevator technology.
In principle if I wished I could see the specification of the elevator, it's materials, load strength, a host of other technical specifications to make the elevator work. If I'm bright enough I cold even offer improvements to the design!
Contrast this with 'faith' needed for religion. No real world evidence that a God ever existed save for the utterings from bronze-age shepherds. Faith is something you need when you have NO evidence. Faith is sold to the religious as some sort of divine gift "You just gotta have faith man!". But in reality faith isn't a laudable trait - it's gullibility.
Why on earth would you want to have 'faith' in something without evidence to back it up?
The real difference between science and religion is one requires faith in the absence of evidence whilst the other ONLY uses real world evidence to formulate its theories.
Science can make a 180 degree turn if evidence points to the contrary - this has happened before. Suggestion of meteoritic explosions causing biological catastrophe had been suggested almost a hundred years ago but it wasn’t' until the late 1970s when it was taken seriously when evidence (such as the KT boundary layer) started coming to light.
Science is not dogmatic - it follows the evidence - the only 'dogma' it uses is "The evidence leads the way". Surely any other approach is stupidity! I challenge you to show otherwise.
Religion on the other hand is very much dogma. "We have these ancient tribal words telling us the score and any evidence to the contrary must be wrong....cos those ancients couldn't possibly have got it wrong - could they?" Bollox !!
You surely aren’t that dim..are you??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-26-2012 6:59 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 37 of 432 (657270)
03-27-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


bridgebuilder writes:
Thanks to everyone who responded. I enjoyed reading your thoughts and seeing your points of view.
I hope this isn't adios.
Anyway, by sheer bad luck you chose to begin with a thread in the Free For All forum, and as one might guess by the name, it is unmoderated. People tend to fire away with both barrels in this forum.
Your first post in this thread would make a good thread proposal. If you post it in the Proposed New Topics forum I'll promote it to one of the moderated forums at my first opportunity.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:30 AM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 1:12 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 432 (657272)
03-27-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


Bridge we do frequently discuss theology in the Coffee House section; I wish you'd stick around and consider opening a thread where you advance your best case for the existence of God. Or maybe just participate in a few of the threads, there.
I wouldn't say that most of the evolutionists here are atheists, it's probably more 50/50 and Percy, who runs the site, is fairly open about not being an atheist. I think you're wrong that evolution necessitates atheism or that you can't "genuinely agree" with evolutionists and believe in God. But I do think that evolutionary history basically contradicts every popular notion of God as an omnipotent and benevolent being.
Again these are more "Coffee House" topics. I hope you'll see fit to participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:30 AM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 1:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 39 of 432 (657273)
03-27-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by bridgebuilder
03-26-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Hey Creationists! Have your cake and eat it too
bridgebuilder writes:
To a evolutionist,....
I'm an "evolutionist" in the sense that I have accepted the Theory of Evolution. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with no education in Biology, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of biologists are all wrong. The same with calling me an "atomist" because I accepted the Atom Theory. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with very, very little education in Physics, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of Physicists are all wrong.
bridgebuilder writes:
... saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset.
No, saying the earth is 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous because ALL the scientific evidence we have indicate that the earth is way older than that.
bridgebuilder writes:
They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory"...
Untrue. I would accept a "new earth theory (whatever that is)", if all the evidence we have indicate a "new earth (whatever that is)".
bridgebuilder writes:
... or ex nihilo creationism, which defies laws of thermodynamics.
I didn't have the laws of thermodynamics in mind when I accepted that the earth is much, much more than 5000-6000 years old. I used all the available physical evidence to get to an educated conclusion about the age of the earth.
Let me give you a little advice: making false statements about what other people (who you don't even know) will or won't do doesn't make you a bridgebuilder. I can think of more unpleasant , but very accurate terms in describing people who attempt that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-26-2012 5:41 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 1:57 PM Pressie has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 40 of 432 (657276)
03-27-2012 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


'creationist' vs 'evolutionist' is a false dichotomy
Hi again bridgebuilder,
There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists ...
As others have pointed out, "evolutionist" is a term used by creationists to try to categorize non-creationists, with the implication that it is some kind of 'ism = a belief system.
In fact there are many people who are non-creationists that are also theists of various types, people who accept\trust science as providing testable concepts of reality, and who accept\trust the results of science as providing the best explanation of the evidence.
... unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe. Neither will happen.
Yet it has already happened.
As others have pointed out, this is not true. Personally, I am a Deist, one who believes that what we see (objective evidence) and how we think it works (physical 'laws' theories, etc) is due to the universe having been created that way. Thus science is in harmony\consilience with my faith - science is how we better understand how the created universe works. You should also look at:
(1) http://www.clergyletterproject.net/
quote:
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests ...
Religious leaders of may faiths have signed this letter.
(2) Radiometric Dating
quote:
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. ...
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, ... In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is ... to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
Dr Wiens is a christian.
(3) Ken Miller's Evolution Page
Dr Ken Miller has already been mentioned -- he is a catholic
(4) Robert T. Bakker - Wikipedia
Dr Robert Bakker is a paleontologist who was instrumental in molding latest theories about dinosaurs being warm blooded, and he is an Ecumenical Christian minister.
... So far not one creationist has responded to my initial post. That is the audience I was seeking when I made my initial post. I disagree with the creos who think God didn't create anything until 5000-6000 yrs ago. ...
You will note that evolution does not date the age of the earth, that this information comes through geology, physics, and some other sciences. Using 'evolutionist' is thus misleading. The fact remains that creationism is in conflict with almost all branches of science in some way.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 33 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:30 AM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 41 of 432 (657277)
03-27-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe.
Have you never heard of a Theistic Evolutionist?
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:30 AM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 42 of 432 (657300)
03-27-2012 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Admin
03-27-2012 8:51 AM


To the Administrator, Percy
>>>I hope this isn't adios.
Anyway, by sheer bad luck you chose to begin with a thread in the Free For All forum, and as one might guess by the name, it is unmoderated. People tend to fire away with both barrels in this forum.
Your first post in this thread would make a good thread proposal. If you post it in the Proposed New Topics forum I'll promote it to one of the moderated forums at my first opportunity.<<<
Hello Percy,
I will be back in a few days but I must prepare for a somewhat long road trip in the AM. I knew that the "Free for All" forum would be rough territory, but it is OK, I like the unfettered expression of opinions. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to have chosen another forum for this particular topic. You have my permission to repost my original post to another forum if you wish to do so, and thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Admin, posted 03-27-2012 8:51 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 43 of 432 (657301)
03-27-2012 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
03-27-2012 8:58 AM


To crashfrog
Thanks for the invitation. Will do

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


(2)
Message 44 of 432 (657302)
03-27-2012 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
03-27-2012 3:56 AM


Dr Adequate & dwise
You are right. It was narrow-minded of me to lump evolutionism within the same category as atheism. I should not have used it as an umbrella term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 3:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 1:22 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 432 (657303)
03-27-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 1:20 PM


Re: Dr Adequate & dwise
You are right. It was narrow-minded of me to lump evolutionism within the same category as atheism. I should not have used it as an umbrella term.
It's good of you to say so, and I look forward to our future discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 1:20 PM bridgebuilder 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