Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hammster]

Speaking as a theologian, I see no disparagement.

Okay.

 

[dlamberth]

God didn't speak to them?

God doesn't speak to the people who study the Earth's geological and Biological evolution?

 

[dlamberth]

There's not a single religion on this planet that has not brought in something from the religions before them. And most all religions have some sort of Creation story as a starting point that helps explain things going forward. Everything depends on it. So Creation stores tend to be very sacred. Back in the ancient Middle-East, long before we had the geological knowledge of the Earth and the Evolutionary knowledge of Life on the Earth, the people back than had their own Creation story that made sense to those folks at the time. I don't have to jump far to believe that what we see in the Biblical Creation story circulated way before the time of Moses and was brought into the picture as pre-Jewish beliefs. And as Judaism developed through the ages that particular Creation Story stuck and was brought forward as a Christian Creation story. It worked well up until the present time. But a new Creation Story is taking hold, one that actually reflects what the Earth is telling. I don't see how that takes God out of the picture, though the Creation picture may look very different today than how those ancient pre-Jewish people saw the world around them.

 

[AV1611VET]

God doesn't speak to the people who study the Earth's geological and Biological evolution?

Did, or did not, the "ancient middle-eastern tribes" study the earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

But a new Creation Story is taking hold, one that actually reflects what the Earth is telling. I don't see how that takes God out of the picture, though the Creation picture may look very different today than how those ancient pre-Jewish people saw the world around them.

So how is it that you have a line on this "creation story" that the Jews in Moses' time didn't?

Did the earth tell Moses (Adam actually) one thing, and you another?

 

[dlamberth]

Did, or did not, the "ancient middle-eastern tribes" study the earth?

I'm quite certain that if they did, those ancient desert dwelling people did not have the developed tools that we have today.

 

[dlamberth]

So how is it that you have a line on this "creation story" that the Jews in Moses' time didn't?

Did the earth tell Moses (Adam actually) one thing, and you another?

Sorry, I should have written "Abraham". My bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm quite certain that if they did, those ancient desert dwelling people did not have the developed tools that we have today.

So Earth only speaks to those who have the right tools?

 

[Hans Blaster]

God doesn't speak to the people who study the Earth's geological and Biological evolution?

[AV:] So Earth only speaks to those who have the right tools?

Strange how that works out.

 

[kiwimac]

The mistake, and it is largely a modern one, is to insist that the Genesis stories are a kind of "how to" guide rather than a "why." The authors were not attempting to explain how the universe came to be; rather than that the universe was a definite act of a loving God. How God chose to do that is not as important as that God was the originator and author.

 

[Astrid]

Strange how that works out.

Your pal may have had a epiphany

 

[Astrid]

And God Reveals the Truth to little children, He Reveals What He Did, and honestly it looks just exactly like He Says.

It is men / mankind who get it all wrong, as they are opposed to God.

Is that why yec always distort,
misrepresent and otherwise
speak falsely and get everything
wrong about science?

 

[driewerf]

A suggestion- ask, don't assume,

This reminds me of this exchange (read the whole page):

Anti-abortion GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker paid for abortion?

So you are comfortable that god killed 42 children -morally still immature - in a slow painful and cruel way for a petty 'crime' as insulting a bald man. And that he didn't chose no other option. Wow. That's an instructive lesson about christianity and about what christians stand for. What...

www.christianforums.com

 

[driewerf]

From Wikipedia:



SOURCE

Do you know the difference between something that is "fictional," and something that is "redundant"?

You omitted quite some stuff from your source:

1. "Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily)..."
2. "The term is most often used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion.[4]"
3. "However, the term has been used by creationists in discussing the creation–evolution controversy.[6] For example, the Institute for Creation Research, in order to imply placement of evolution in the category of 'religions', including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief.[10] The BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes the idea of theistic evolution, uses the term "evolutionism" to describe "the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse." It views this as a subset of scientism.[11][non-primary source needed]"

Quote mining in action.

 

[driewerf]

What God says he did trumps what it looks like He did.

If you believe that, you put yourself outside any discussion about science. In scientific discussions the empirical evidence is the ultimate arbiter, above tradition, authority, revelation or like and dislike.

 

[Astrid]

You omitted quite some stuff from your source:

1. "Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily)..."
2. "The term is most often used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion.[4]"
3. "However, the term has been used by creationists in discussing the creation–evolution controversy.[6] For example, the Institute for Creation Research, in order to imply placement of evolution in the category of 'religions', including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief.[10] The BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes the idea of theistic evolution, uses the term "evolutionism" to describe "the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse." It views this as a subset of scientism.[11][non-primary source needed]"

Quote mining in action.

Sounds like a violation of forum rules,
calling science a religion.
At best its insidious and
dishonest.

 

[dlamberth]

What God says he did trumps what it looks like He did.

God Created the Earth and Life on it, so being of God, the Earth can not lie. Now, today, ancient creation stores of the past are being updated by God through the window that science gives us into the Earth and the Cosmos.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even the most dedicated to literal "God's word" balk at Pi= 3.0, and do the most remarkable triple back flips to " explain" how the plain text actually doesn't mean what it says.

Engineers can tell you that preliminary drawings are always drawn and marked: NOT TO SCALE.

NTS drawings come before the scaled drawings.

The passage in question ...

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

... is "NOT TO SCALE."

 

[driewerf]

Engineers can tell you that preliminary drawings are always drawn and marked: NOT TO SCALE.

NTS drawings come before the scaled drawings.

The passage in question ...

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

... is "NOT TO SCALE."

God is just like a human engineer and can't do the things right from the first time?

 

[AV1611VET]

You omitted quite some stuff from your source:

1. "Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily)..."

I was addressing the part where someone said the word "evolutionism" is fictional, when clearly it isn't.

I don't happen to think it's derogatory, myself.

It's just a matter of taste.

EVOLUTIONISM:

Vocabulary.com = (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

The Free Dictionary = a theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin; advocacy of or belief in biological evolution

Oxford Reference: In the 19th century, evolutionism was a current of thought based on a biological analogy, but distinguished from Darwinian theory by its deterministic nature.

Wiktionary.org = evolution +‎ -ism

Britannica = Evolutionism implied that humans progressed along one line of development,

Oxford Learner's Dictionary = belief in the theories of evolution and natural selection

"Evolutionism" is far from a fictitious word.