Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:04 AM
28 online now:
vimesey (1 member, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Creationism?
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 1 of 88 (808947)
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


I couldn't find this discussed specifically as a topic. So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs? You will also need to say what sort of Creationism you are talking about.
Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive Creation?
Are Deism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design forms of Creationism and how do they differ from the others?
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Davidjay, posted 05-15-2017 8:20 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 8:20 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 10:43 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2017 11:44 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM CRR has responded
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 05-15-2017 1:33 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2017 2:11 PM CRR has responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 22 of 88 (809062)
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Young Earth Creationism
1 The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. Hence the Earth is a bit over 6000 years old.

2 The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. (Common ancestry within the kinds)

3 The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

4 The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

Yeah, I think that about covers it. YEC defined by a YEC.

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2017 6:43 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2017 7:03 AM CRR has responded
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:39 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 61 by CRR, posted 05-22-2017 7:25 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


(1)
Message 25 of 88 (809076)
05-16-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tangle
05-16-2017 7:03 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
You just told us what you as a young earth Christian creationist believe.

Uh, yeah. That is kinda the purpose of this thread isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2017 7:03 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2017 8:37 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 26 of 88 (809078)
05-16-2017 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
05-15-2017 2:11 PM


Re: Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
Creationism seems no common core beliefs beyond that some deity created something.

So would you classify these as Creationist? They express points of view that I as a Creationist don't agree with.

1. There is a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences.

2. God created the genes that tell a flower to bloom and spread pollen.

3. God created the common ancestry among organisms first noted by Darwin

4. God created the evolutionary process that ultimately resulted in our own human consciousness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2017 2:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 05-16-2017 9:20 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2017 10:15 AM CRR has responded
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 10:41 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 33 of 88 (809177)
05-16-2017 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2017 10:15 AM


Re: Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
Sorry, missing context.
Old Earth, Evolution but 2. God created the genes that tell a flower to bloom and spread pollen.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2017 10:15 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 5:29 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 35 of 88 (809208)
05-17-2017 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
05-15-2017 12:14 PM


New Cats Eye,

Perhaps then you are a theistic evolutionist like Ken Miller.
You believe in God. Do you call yourself a Christian? If you do then you can't be a Deist.

Edited by CRR, : Salutation added

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 11:08 AM CRR has responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 44 of 88 (809382)
05-18-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2017 11:08 AM


Ken Miller, biologist and author of "Finding Darwin's God". Of whom Larry Moran said "In this sense, the Francis Collins version of Theistic Evolution is similar to that of Ken Miller in Finding Darwin's God." http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/...n-how-does-god-do-it.html

[edit: I note Minnemooseus has a different view and calls KM a theist.]

I'm an Anglican and lapsed atheist. The closest of the Protestant faiths to Catholicism.

I used to believe in evolution. I stated reading Young Earth Creationist literature out of curiosity and after a while I began to realise they had valid arguments. While old earth evolutionists do have some good arguments I also think there are a lot of weaknesses in their position and overall the YEC position holds up well.

If the evolutionists here hope to convince me they will need to lift their game.

Edited by CRR, : edit

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2017 9:56 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2017 10:02 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 10:19 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2017 10:20 AM CRR has responded
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:35 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 3:58 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 51 of 88 (809537)
05-18-2017 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2017 10:20 AM


Lift you game
No. For us to convince you, you will need to lift your game. You've been duped by YEC arguments; your thinking is shallow, amateurish, and --- as we have seen --- desperately ill-informed.

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who regularly makes accusations of lying or "You made that up".
e.g. Message 43


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2017 10:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2017 7:12 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 05-19-2017 12:40 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 61 of 88 (809999)
05-22-2017 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
One significant difference between YEC and theistic evolution, and many other points of view, is that
YEC believe in descent with modification while others believe in ascent with modification as the general rule.

Take cats for example. YEC believe there was an original Cat Kind which has diversified into the many different cats we see today, from tabby to tiger, generally by loss of genetic information as each adapted to different environments. Others believe that the cat family came from a non-cat ancestor, ultimately the same microbial ancestor as all other creatures, with production of much new genetic information, features, and body plans.

This of course is a generalisation and I know that evolutionists agree that genetic information can be lost, as shown in Lenski's LTEE, I am talking about the overall scope rather than particular instances.

So since we believe that all species of cats today came from a common ancestor we do in a restricted sense believe in evolution and speciation. This is why examples of adaptation and speciation are of no particular concern to us.

New species? So what?
Cit+ trait in E. Coli? Meh.
Finch beaks changing size? Ho hum.
Trinidad guppies? Yawn.
London Underground Mosquito? So?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2017 8:07 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2017 8:31 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2017 8:42 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 65 by herebedragons, posted 05-22-2017 8:57 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2017 5:17 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 05-23-2017 11:39 AM CRR has responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 75 of 88 (810253)
05-26-2017 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
05-23-2017 11:39 AM


Re: The cat kind
Taq writes:

The problem is that it is just a religious belief and has no scientific relevance.


Did you mean "no scientific evidence."?

Hybridization evidence supports the hypothesis that all cats are closely related and belong to the same kind. "[T]here are many reports of hybridizations either occurring spontaneously or deliberately undertaken. Seven of the eight major cat lineages reported by Johnson et al. are linked by hybridizations. Only the Bay Cat Lineage has not been linked by hybridization to another lineage. Phenotypically, however, it is closely related to the Caracal lineage." http://creation.com/the-cat-family


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 05-23-2017 11:39 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 05-26-2017 10:55 AM CRR has responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 76 of 88 (810254)
05-26-2017 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
05-23-2017 11:50 AM


Re: Source vs Content
Coyote writes:

It also shows there are upwards of 40,000 Christian denominations in the world today.

No.


  • These “denominations” are defined in terms of being separate organisations, not necessarily separate beliefs. This is a critical difference, not commonly noted by critics.
  • The largest component (something like two thirds to three quarters) of these totals are “independent” churches, mostly in Africa. These are not necessarily different in doctrine, but are simply independent organisations.
  • These estimates include national branches of the same denomination (e.g. the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Lutheran Church of Australia) as separate organisations in the count.
  • There are many churches among the independent churches which would have effectively the same teachings, just different locations, different leaders, etc.

How many christian denominations worldwide?

For instance Wikipedia list 38 "denominations" of the Anglican Church alone.
[edit] I.e. One for each country https://en.wikipedia.org/...istian_denominations#Anglicanism [/edit]

Most of the Christian churches believe in the same core elements but have disagree on minor matters or on forms of worship. In my church, Anglican, any communicant member of another Christian church is welcome to take communion with us.

Edited by CRR, : as marked


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2017 11:50 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2017 6:42 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 80 of 88 (810282)
05-27-2017 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taq
05-26-2017 10:55 AM


Re: The cat kind
The fact that you call them hybrids indicates that they are different species.

Correct. They are different species, in conventional Linnaean classification, within the cat kind. Some of the hybrids are even different genera.

Of course that then raises an issue with the Biological Species concept which says a species consists of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other populations. That would mean that if you can get a fertile hybrid then they would be part of the same species. This is part of what is known as the Species Problem.

Hybridisation chains then provide one objective criteria for mapping which species belong to which kind. However it is also possible for species within the one kind to be fully reproductively isolated. I would expect that some crosses of the cat family would incapable of producing offspring, fertile or sterile, even by artificial insemination, just as a female Chihuahau won't carry to term pups sired by a Great Dane.

So if you can show by hybridisation a chain linking a group of species and genera couldn't you call that a Kind? You couldn't call it a Family since some Families in the current Linnaean system could contain more than one Kind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 05-26-2017 10:55 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2017 4:23 AM CRR has responded
 Message 82 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2017 4:26 AM CRR has responded
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 05-30-2017 11:33 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 83 of 88 (810286)
05-27-2017 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by dwise1
05-27-2017 4:23 AM


Re: The cat kind
Well, gee, isn't it funny that none of the hybrids jump that panthera line

P. concolor × L. pardalis (puma × ocelot) bridges the gap between larger and smaller cats. Is that what you were looking for?

[edit]
Oops, my mistake. That should have been P. concolor(Puma) × P. pardus(Panthera/Leopard) = (Pumapard)

Hybridization data connects the largest cats, P. tigris and the massive Liger (400+kg), to the smallest cat, F. nigripes, via seven documented hybrid steps: P. tigris (110–320 kg) × P. leo (120–250 kg) × P. pardus (30–85 kg) × P. concolor (35–100 kg) × L. pardalis (11–16 kg) × L. wiedii (3–9 kg) × F. catus (3–7 kg) × F. nigripes (1.5–2.5 kg).
http://creation.com/the-cat-family

Edited by CRR, : As marked.

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2017 4:23 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2017 2:19 PM CRR has responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 85 of 88 (810308)
05-27-2017 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by dwise1
05-27-2017 2:19 PM


Re: The cat kind
Oops, my mistake. That should have been P. concolor(Puma) × P. pardus(Panthera/Leopard) = (Pumapard)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2017 2:19 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 86 of 88 (810312)
05-27-2017 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Tangle
05-27-2017 4:26 AM


Re: Noah's Ark
While I'm reading The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark you can read this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2017 4:26 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Davidjay, posted 05-27-2017 7:35 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019