Reasons for Creationist Persistence

I'm not sure I understand the rebuttal. The Bible makes a claim about the relationship of the diameter of a circle to its circumference; the claim that it makes is that it is exactly 1 to 3.It's not my fault that the Bible claims its value of pi to be more accurate than it actually is. (Insufficient inaccuracy?)For a book held to have been authored by God and therefore inerrant in every detail, I would expect a far greater precision. If it was accurate to, say, the ten-thousandth place, I'd see no reason to complain.

I'll be back...

Are those paleontologists YECs?Edited by Parasomnium, : fixed quote

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! We started this side-discussion because you took issue with painting all creationists with a broad brush, but you've lost sight of what a creationist is. A creationist is someone who rejects science (evolution most of all) because of religious beliefs. A creationist is definitely not someone who takes a skeptical but scientific approach. The proper term for that type of person is "scientist".In other words, a creationist is not someone who rejects an ancient earth because he is skeptical of the evidence. A creationist is someone who rejects an ancient earth because of a literal interpretation of Genesis.If you have friends and acquaintances who reject evolution and an ancient earth for scientific reasons, we'd sure love to meet them!About my "cat from a dog" comment, it wasn't meant to be insulting. Try actually asking it, I think you'll be surprised how many of your friends and acquaintances actually understand evolution on just that level. I venture to guess that a fair number of my friends and acquaintances only understand evolution on that level, and they're not even creationists. In other words, they accept evolution but don't really understand it.--Percy

And who turn out, time and time again, to have adopted fundamentalist religious beliefs before they tried to think of these "scientific reasons", which invariably turn out to be rubbish, and which they are, for this reason, unable to justify with actual evidence.C'mon, you can't avoid the elephant in the room. Creationism really is ideologically motivated. Look here.A recent discussion topic. J C Sanford. A real, proper geneticist.Then one day he found Jesus.Now he hates the theory of evolution. He is incapable of arguing against it or even stating honestly what the theory is. But he hates it nonetheless.Jesus ate his brain.---"Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."--- Philip Johnson"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--- William Dembski

There are some practioners who manage to compatamentalize Crash.There is a recent case in the news of someone getting his doctorate in , IIRC, palenotology but is a young earther. It generated some discussion and controversy.I worked with a physics doctoral student who managed to compartamentalize his mind. At least once upon a time I haven't heard of him for years and years.So they can exist. They do not exist in such numbers as would be required for MJ to be right. He is not telling the whole story.

Actually, jar is right. There is a problem of defining just what is meant by "creationist", which is why we had to repeatedly ask the question of milfloresta as he tap-danced around it for as long as he could."Creationist" in the most general sense does indeed mean one who believes in a supernatural creator or creators. When applied to a Judaic-Christian-Islamist, it would be one who believes in a specific supernatural entity known respectively as YHWH, God, and/or Allah. What has happened is that the YEC faction, a small subset of all creationists, has hijacked the name "creationist" and effectively denies the existence of all other creationists.As a PhD candidate, evangelical Christian Steve Schimmrich was involved in the debate as a strong opponent of "creation science". On his page, "What is a Creationist?" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/creationism.html), he wrote:

quote:

---

Keeping all of the above in mind, I think it's time for Christians to reclaim the word creationists from the Biblical literalists. To be a creationist means to believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life therein. This is the historic, orthodox Christian position and implies nothing about the age of the earth or the mechanisms (or lack thereof) of biological evolution. Let's speak of Biblical creation or young-earth creation when distinguishing the beliefs of those who accept a literal reading of Genesis.

---

He created and used to run the "Science & Christianity mailing list", but that resource is no longer up. Shortly before graduation, his first children were born and his time and attention were needed elsewhere. Then he went to work teaching at a college and put a new site up again, but that also disappeared. When I was able to still contact him, I obtained permission to repost some of his web pages, which are available through this page: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/index.html

I don't see it as a big problem. It's a problem because people insist on muddying the term to create a deceptive appearance of compromise. "See?" such people say. "You can still be a creationist and accept evolution."Well, no, you really can't. Rejecting science because it conflicts with religious dogma is a crucial part of being a creationist.There's no problem with defining the term, just like there's little issue defining "socialist" and "skinhead." These are terms that apply to specific groups with a specific ideology. You're just inventing history. The earliest use of the term "creationist" in this context in English was 1929, used by Harold Clark to refer to his former instructor George McCready Price, who held that a Noahic flood has produced the geologic conditions that evolutionists had mistaken for an old Earth with a history of evolution.So, indeed, "creationist" has always referred to those who maintained the literal historicity of Genesis. (Prior to this time it referred to a particular position on the nature of souls.) It has no history of usage as a general term for theists.

So you assert. Looks a lot like the typical Fundy assertion though.I believe in Creation, that GOD created all that is, that will be.Science is just a way of us learning how GOD did it.You are free to pretend any definition you come up with is valid, but when presented with evidence that conflicts with your definition, is it time to reevaluate your assumption?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Did you present some? I must have missed it. Your ability to insist on ideosyncratic definitions of words isn't evidence for anything but your intractibility.Unless you meant to suggest that you believe each human gets their own soul, rather than simply inheriting their soul from their parents (the original "creationism" debate) then it's clear that my definition of the term predates yours.All I'm saying is that we stick to accepted definitions for clarity. Your beliefs are not best described as "creationism", but as "theistic evolutionism."

Adventist Church - Geoscience Research Institute is a "Links and Information" topic I started over five years ago, when I had been a member for just one month.There, I said: Perhaps you could make some comments at the above cited topic?Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Most words have more than one definition, more than one meaning. Which meaning is intended is usually apparent from context. In the context of the creation/evolution debate, the intended meaning of "creationist" is quite clear. The discussion about the co-option of the term "creationist" by fundamentalists should be taken to the appropriate thread.--Percy

quote:

---

I'm just responding from the perspective of one who is legitimately fascinated by science AND who subscribes unequivocally to a creationist paradigm.

---

If you are talking about Biblical Creationism, I cannot see how it and science can be anything other than diametrically opposed.They are completely different ways of thinking about evidence.

TO ALL: I'm sorry I haven't the time to address all of the posts that accrued in my absence. If there is anything particular you wish for me to address I'll be glad to do so.TO Moose: Of what in particular did you wish me to comment?That there is evidence in opposition to Adventist beliefs? No doubt. Whatever else may you wish me to comment on?

Required for me to be right about what? I believe the only claim I have made is to the personal acquaintances I have that practice science and adhere to Creationism (in whatever anti-darwinianism form). So "they do not exist in such numbers as would be required for MJ to be right" about what, exactly? And I'm not picking a fight (I know it's easy to misconstrue intent via the internet) but you saying "he is not telling the whole story" is a claim that I don't get. Care to explain your motives behing that claim? You're talking about Marcus Ross (of University of Rhode Island-, recent Ph.D recipient (paleontology) who has managed to incite the wrath and condemnation of the imperial guards of Darwinism including her Emminence of the NCS, Eugenie Scott, herself...his offense? Pursuing a Doctorate under the influence of YECism...The only reason Marcus Ross in particular has made such a big splash is because his degree was conferred by a secular university...