Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
573 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 572 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,315 Year: 4,427/6,534 Month: 641/900 Week: 165/182 Day: 45/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 301 (722334)
03-20-2014 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by shadow71
03-20-2014 11:51 AM


Not sure why you conclude "creationists" etc.

I believe in creation and this finding supports the fact that the universe had a beginning, and thus there was some sort of creation.

Sometimes when people type "creationist", they just mean the small subset of creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 11:51 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 1:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2173 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 17 of 301 (722337)
03-20-2014 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2014 12:29 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Sometimes when people type "creationist", they just mean the small subset of creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution.

They should not use such a broad brush.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2014 12:44 PM shadow71 has taken no action
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 12:54 PM shadow71 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 18 of 301 (722342)
03-20-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by shadow71
03-20-2014 12:38 PM


That's not a broad brush. Whether we like it or not, the word "creationist" now means "science denying kook", rather than "someone who believes in a creator". If you have an issue with that, take it up with the creationists --- they hijacked the word, we would be happier if they called themselves science-denying kooks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 12:38 PM shadow71 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 301 (722344)
03-20-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by shadow71
03-20-2014 12:38 PM


They should not use such a broad brush.

In the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, most people get the distinction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 12:38 PM shadow71 has taken no action

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 20 of 301 (722350)
03-20-2014 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2014 12:29 PM


Small subset? So the main players on the creationist side; the loudest, most vocal and most wealthy, are NOT "creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution"? Discovery Institute and CMI are just creationists that accept a creator, but also accept science? Most of the creationists that come here are only creationists that believe in a creator, but accept science?

The brush is broad because it paints nicely and evenly.


Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 4:02 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 301 (722352)
03-20-2014 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
03-19-2014 9:25 AM


I agree.

Gravity waves are the big news here. That and the possibility of probing, even with a blunt instrument, the period before the universe became transparent to visible light are astounding physics.

If admin hadn't pretty much pooh-poohed the idea during thread creation, I would give a shout out to every poster from Alphabob to Zaius regarding their crackpot ideas on the subject.

Of course that would be crass. I Won't do it.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 03-19-2014 9:25 AM ramoss has taken no action

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 22 of 301 (722357)
03-20-2014 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
03-18-2014 9:21 AM


Who Lit The Fuse?
Tangle writes:

Now others go away and check that the original discoverers got it right and creationists have to make up a whole new pile of anti-science to make it fit their model(s).

Biblical Creationists may have to scramble quite a bit, but I, as a cosmological creationist, see that we are getting closer to a final answer. Images such as this confirm the majesty of my belief.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2014 9:21 AM Tangle has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 03-25-2014 9:47 AM Phat has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 301 (722370)
03-20-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by hooah212002
03-20-2014 1:11 PM


Small subset? So the main players on the creationist side; the loudest, most vocal and most wealthy, are NOT "creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution"? Discovery Institute and CMI are just creationists that accept a creator, but also accept science?

No, there's just more people who aren't like them. They're the minority.

Most of the creationists that come here are only creationists that believe in a creator, but accept science?

I think so. I mean, I'm one of them. I can think of others. And there's not that many cranks.

I could be entirely wrong here, I dunno. What percentage of the people who believe in God do you think are science-deniers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 1:11 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 24 of 301 (722379)
03-20-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2014 4:02 PM


I think so. I mean, I'm one of them. I can think of others. And there's not that many cranks.

When we talk about creationists in this arena, you aren't one of them. You can join them, if you like. But I'd advise against it.

What percentage of the people who believe in God do you think are science-deniers?

So the title of this site is (or translates to) "Evolution vs people that believe in god"? The term creationist is there for a reason and it is not a blanket term for any god believer. Context is pretty important.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 4:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 4:51 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 301 (722381)
03-20-2014 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by hooah212002
03-20-2014 4:33 PM


When we talk about creationists in this arena, you aren't one of them.

That's what I was telling shadow71.

Context is pretty important.

You should take your own advice.

quote:
Not sure why you conclude "creationists" etc.
I believe in creation and this finding supports the fact that the universe had a beginning, and thus there was some sort of creation.

Sometimes when people type "creationist", they just mean the small subset of creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution.


That second creationist, that I've now bolded, was referring to people who believe in a creator but aren't science-deniers. The first one that I scare-quoted are the ones who are science-deniers.

As I said:

quote:
In the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, most people get the distinction.

When we just refer to creationists generally, we're not really talking about the people who believe in a creator but do not deny science. That's what I was explaining to shadow71. And now you're trying to argue my same point back to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 4:33 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 9:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 26 of 301 (722382)
03-20-2014 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2014 4:51 PM


That's what I was explaining to shadow71. And now you're trying to argue my same point back to me.

No, I'm not. I am telling you that you are making an irrelevant distinction that has no bearing on this topic. The person that first used the term creationist did so for good reason and it wasn't a mistake. You then went on to say those creationists are a small subset. They are not. If they were a small subset, they wouldn't effect the education system the way they do and they wouldn't hold political office. They would be laughed at in the public eye instead of given voice to question science TV shows.

Anyone silly enough to call themselves a creationist does not confuse themselves and does not call themselves a creationist because they simply believe in a creator, but also accept science. People that actively call themselves creationists do so because they ....are creationists that believe in creationism, not science.

was referring to people who believe in a creator but aren't science-deniers.

Those people aren't considered creationists in this day and age, though. They are called religious. Or Catholic. Or Protestant. Or Christian. Or Muslim. Or Jewish. Creationists are called creationists. You know, the ones that believe in the creation myth and not things like the big bang?

When we just refer to creationists generally, we're not really talking about the people who believe in a creator but do not deny science.

Who is we? No one I have ever encountered, that is for sure.


Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 5:19 PM hooah212002 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 301 (722383)
03-20-2014 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by hooah212002
03-20-2014 5:06 PM


My point was that in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, the term "creationist" means the science-deniers rather than just a person who believes in a creator. Also, that the science-deniers are a small subset of the people who believe in a creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 03-20-2014 5:06 PM hooah212002 has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8498
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 28 of 301 (722395)
03-20-2014 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by shadow71
03-20-2014 11:51 AM


Shadow71 writes:

Not sure why you conclude "creationists" etc.

I believe in creation and this finding supports the fact that the universe had a beginning, and thus there was some sort of creation.

If it helps, my original post named Faith as the person who would now have to go and invent something sciency sounding to get round the problem. So blame Admin for any ambiguity.

But really, there shouldn't be any....


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 15 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 11:51 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2014 8:24 AM Tangle has taken no action
 Message 37 by shadow71, posted 03-21-2014 12:31 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 29 of 301 (722396)
03-20-2014 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by 1.61803
03-19-2014 2:22 PM


I guess I'm now officially old, because this recent news about the universe moves me more than that steatopygian wonder.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by 1.61803, posted 03-19-2014 2:22 PM 1.61803 has seen this message

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 30 of 301 (722406)
03-20-2014 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2014 4:51 PM


CS writes:

When we just refer to creationists generally, we're not really talking about the people who believe in a creator but do not deny science. That's what I was explaining to shadow71. And now you're trying to argue my same point back to me.


You guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. A "creationist" is simply someone who believes in creation. If you want to limit your reference to a specific type of creationist, e.g. a "young-earth creationist" (YEC), simply add the adjective "young-earth" to the term "creationist". This will clarify that you do not intend your comments to apply to "old-earth creationists" and "evolutionary creationists". Without this clarification, the meaning is sometimes clear from the context, but at other times is unclear.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2014 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 10:21 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2014 2:41 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022