Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
47 online now:
Juvenissun (1 member, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Creationism?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 88 (808982)
05-15-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


How much denial do you need?
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?

And I'm going to agree with Tangle on the definition. When I first came here I said I was a deist and not a creationist, whereupon I was corrected (by Mr. Jack), that as I believed that god/s created the universe that I was de facto a creationist.

So yes, the term needs modification for what type of creationism is involved.

To me it comes down to how much of the objective empirical evidence one must deny to maintain a position being inversely proportional to the likely possible reality. The more you need to deny (such as all the evidence on the age of the earth, for young earth creationists) the less likely those beliefs are to being true. To me all objective empirical evidence is evidence of reality and thus evidence of the result of creation.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1 by CRR, posted 05-15-2017 3:00 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 05-15-2017 11:41 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 23 of 88 (809066)
05-16-2017 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Re: 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.

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Just counting tree rings gets you to a minimum age of over 12,405 years, just for starters. The world is over 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is over 13.4 billion years old

See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for the evidence and methodology, and the challenge to provide an explanation that covers the correlations between different systems reaching the same results.

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)

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Fossil and genetic nested clades do not form into neat groups that can only be traced back to a set of original kinds 6000 years ago, because there are always older ancestors common to two or more of those existing 6000 years ago.

See current discussion on Science is Revealed Truth, Message 87 on Euarchontoglires common ancestor to Euarchonta common ancestor to both tree shrews and primates, including humans. Was the original kind the first population of Euarchonta or the first population of Euarchontoglires or the first population of Boreoeutheria ... and it doesn't stop there. Note that including humans in a clade with any other animal is a crisis conflict for ...

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.

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Fossil and genetic nested clades do not form into neat groups that divide the diversity of life into {human} and {all other species}

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

Which means the denial of massive amounts of empirical objective evidence. Again Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 provides plenty of objective empirical evidence that no flood could have occurred in the last 35,987 years. Then there is the geological evidence.

You basically need to deny all science to believe YEC mythology, hence it is a highly untenable position.

Sorry, if it don't fit reality it isn't real.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 22 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 88 (809250)
05-17-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2017 11:08 AM


I don't know who Ken Miller is, nor do I really care about a label, but yeah - I'm a theistic evolutionist.

He's a biologist at Brown University (RI), he was at the Dover Trial and he's written a number of papers dealing with creationism. He also is a Catholic.

See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-18-2017 12:43 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 88 (809327)
05-17-2017 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Davidjay
05-17-2017 7:07 PM


More lies ... trying to set a record?
Creationism states that humans came from humans, evolutionists can not answer this question so slither from bats to tree shrews to semantic classifications, but cant and wont state who are ancestors werre.

False. Inability to understand information provided does not mean the information was not provided.

They mock when Creationists say we came from humans, whereas they dont know where we came from or who parented us, except way back when just after their BIG BANG, it must have been a one celled amoeba, or similiar.

Also false.

Then they get upset when we creationists show them their stupidity or lack of logic and science.

Sadly, for you, that day has not yet arrived.

You are one of the people making a mockery of creationism.

Counting the posts you make before being banned again?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 38 by Davidjay, posted 05-17-2017 7:07 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 50 of 88 (809499)
05-18-2017 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by CRR
05-18-2017 9:29 AM


Challenge to debate the age of the earth
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.

The Young Earth delusion is based wholly on belief, not evidence. The biggest weakness, imho, of the YEC position is the age of the earth ... it is just not compatible with reality. Mountains of reality.

If you want to debate this then go to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and start with Bristlecone Pines

Or, if you want a more updated version (includes new data since the one above) go to The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1) -- it is only partially complete yet, but it gets to an age for the earth of over 12,477 years (2017), well past the normal YEC delusional age. We can ask admin to promote it ...

Or, if you want to do this one on one, we can make it a new thread on The Great Debate forum.

The challenge for the age deniers is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and in the same way to produce virtually identical results (within the margins of error) - when random results or systematic errors in different methods should produce notably different results:

The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age?

Those other measurement systems come into fuller play in later posts.

No creationist has been able to meet the challenge yet, so you can be the first on your block.

My prediction is that you won't take up the challenge, or you won't last long in a one on one (there have been others that have tried and failed), because your cognitive dissonance in maintaining cherished beliefs will not permit contrary information into your worldview bubble.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 44 by CRR, posted 05-18-2017 9:29 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 60 of 88 (809970)
05-22-2017 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
05-22-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Creationism is also anti-Christian and anti-Bible.
And anti-Christian and anti-Bible and ant-reality and anti-reason and anti-logic and created to make God look stupid.

Creationism is not bible study (or koran study etc) it is the process of making things up that are not in the bible etc and then claiming they are true because of the bible etc.

The age of the earth is an example. Nowhere does the bible etc state how old the earth is.

Building mountains with flood water is another, explaining fossils, rock layers, etc with a magic flying flood is another.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 58 by jar, posted 05-22-2017 12:51 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 88 (810051)
05-23-2017 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by CRR
05-22-2017 7:25 PM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
YEC believe in descent with modification while others believe in ascent with modification as the general rule.

Logical fallacy of equivocation

biology descent as in descendants, offspring

you descent as in going down stairs (to go with ascent going up stairs)

Argument shot

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 61 by CRR, posted 05-22-2017 7:25 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 88 (810258)
05-26-2017 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by CRR
05-26-2017 4:06 AM


Re: Source vs Content
How many christian denominations worldwide?

For instance Wikipedia list 38 "denominations" of the Anglican Church alone.

Most of the Christians 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.

Isn't it amazing how Christianity has evolved over the years.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 76 by CRR, posted 05-26-2017 4:06 AM 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 © 2020