Fairytale?

[Aron-Ra]

Certainly no conspiracy thinking going on there.

Obviously not since USincognito said he doesn't want this issue to be misrepresented by a lack of participation from all perspectives, or by off-balance treatment of mythology over methodology.

There is an awful lot of conspiracy thinking on your part however.

 

[Inan3]

I'm still waiting for you to give reasons to be a Creationist.

Fishface, et. al. Are you folks forgetting what subforum this is? If people like Inan can't help but evangelize here... just ignore them or direct them to the proper subforum.

What is creationism to you?

 

[USincognito]

What is creationism to you?

I'm up to 12 at this point and my backspace to typing ratio is limiting my response time before I go to bed so I'll just say this - Creationism (with a capital C), to me, is a fundamentalist reaction to the science which has shown that all life on Earth is the result of evolution, that the topography of the current and historical planet is the result of geology and that Sol, the visible stars and the Universe itself is due to astrophysics and cosmology... as science has determined it to be correct.

So let me turn the question back on you... what is Creationism (note the capital C) to you?

 

[Aron-Ra]

What is creationism to you?

If I may; Regardless whether we're talking about Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Sikh variants, creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well; and these people rely instead on blind faith in the erroneously-assumed authority of their favorite fables. In all cases, creationism is an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally conjured out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else –despite all indications to the contrary. This definition isn't limited only to the American political movement, but encompasses all forms of creationism including Intelligent Design.

 

[Inan3]

I'm up to 12 at this point and my backspace to typing ratio is limiting my response time before I go to bed so I'll just say this - Creationism (with a capital C), to me, is a fundamentalist reaction to the science which has shown that all life on Earth is the result of evolution, that the topography of the current and historical planet is the result of geology and that Sol, the visible stars and the Universe itself is due to astrophysics and cosmology... as science has determined it to be correct.

So let me turn the question back on you... what is Creationism (note the capital C) to you?

cre·a·tion·ism (krē-ā'shə-nĭz'əm)

n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
http://www.answers.com/topic/creationism?cat=technology

-------------------------------------

cre·a·tion·ism [ kree áysh'n ìzzəm ]
nounDefinition:belief that God created universe: the belief that God created the universe
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861671003

-------------------------------------

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1880 : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

http://m-w.com/dictionary/creationism


None of these suggested that God or the Bible was to be taken out of the equation. If I am in a Creation & Evolution board and I am on the side of Creation I can in fact bring up such topics as relate to God and the Bible.

 

[LittleNipper]

If I may; Regardless whether we're talking about Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Sikh variants, creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well; and these people rely instead on blind faith in the erroneously-assumed authority of their favorite fables. In all cases, creationism is an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally conjured out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else –despite all indications to the contrary. This definition isn't limited only to the American political movement, but encompasses all forms of creationism including Intelligent Design.

This is absurd. Creationists are seeking to understand what GOD's WORD has to say from a scientific point of view. Evolutionists are content with their belief based on mistaken understandings of what they established with their own visual research. Why do you imagine that Jews make such excellant doctors. Could it be that they already have a very good understanding of what is clean and what is filth, simply from their biblical traditions as practiced. Did Edison invent the phonograph by reading Darwin, or by hearing a Morse code recording machine accidently spin out of control? The reason cable cars were invented have nothing to do with Darwin. The reason the Aeroplane was invented had nothing to with Darwin. The reason mechanical clocks were invented had nothing to do with Darwin. The Polio vaccine had more to do with trial and error than Darwin. The origin of man is but a very small theory that certainly has its influences but is not in itself the "end all" when it come to progress or scientific research...

 

[TheOutsider]

Did Edison invent the phonograph by reading the Bible, or by hearing a Morse code recording machine accidently spin out of control? The reason cable cars were invented have nothing to do with God. The reason the Aeroplane was invented had nothing to with God. The reason mechanical clocks were invented had nothing to do with God. The Polio vaccine had more to do with trial and error than God.

Do you see where we are coming from? And yes, Creationists do reject the scientific method. Most will come right out and say that if the evidence contradicts the Bible, then the evidence is wrong.

 

[Nathan Poe]

cre·a·tion·ism (krē-ā'shə-nĭz'əm)

n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
http://www.answers.com/topic/creationism?cat=technology

-------------------------------------

cre·a·tion·ism [ kree áysh'n ìzzəm ]
nounDefinition:belief that God created universe: the belief that God created the universe
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861671003

-------------------------------------

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1880 : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

http://m-w.com/dictionary/creationism

Around here, when we talk of Creationism, we usually mean the first or third one. The second one is a bit too broad, as it would necessarily include Theistic evolutionists in it's scope -- and there's no need to cloud the debate like that, unless one was being intellectually dishonest.

None of these suggested that God or the Bible was to be taken out of the equation. If I am in a Creation & Evolution board and I am on the side of Creation I can in fact bring up such topics as relate to God and the Bible.

All of them claim that the Bible is the equation, and nothing else, not even the natural world itself, can alter it. None of them are allowing for the study of the actual physical world that was created. The Bible is in, the world itself is out.

Isn't it odd to have an origins study without studying the thing that was originated?

It would be similar to a doctor diagnosing a patient before the examination, and in fact, refusing to change his diagnosis even after the examination.

Doctor -- "The patient has a fever."

Nurse -- "But doctor, we took his temperature, and it's 98.6 degrees."

Doctor -- "You're interpreting the themometer wrong. The patient has a fever -- that settles it. We'll also give him some Morphine to help him with his leg pain."

Patient -- "But Doctor, my legs feel fine."

Doctor (kneecaps patient with a baseball bat) -- "How about now?"

(Patient screams in agony) "Arrrrggghhh! My legs!

Doctor -- "I also do prophecy, you see..."

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is absurd. Creationists are seeking to understand what GOD's WORD has to say from a scientific point of view.

If that's the goal, the no creationist in human history has ever succeeded.

Evolutionists are content with their belief based on mistaken understandings of what they established with their own visual research.

I know that actually looking at something is such an absurd way to research -- better to close your eyes.

Why do you imagine that Jews make such excellant doctors. Could it be that they already have a very good understanding of what is clean and what is filth, simply from their biblical traditions as practiced.

Actually, my doctor is a practicing Muslim.

Got any more racial stereotypes to trot out, Nipper? Want to talk about Blacks in basketball, Japanese in corporate society, or Fundamentalists in Inquisitions?

Did Edison invent the phonograph by reading Darwin, or by hearing a Morse code recording machine accidently spin out of control?

And here you said that visual research was useless. If you're going to be refuting yourself today, I'll just step out for a cup of coffee.

The reason cable cars were invented have nothing to do with Darwin. The reason the Aeroplane was invented had nothing to with Darwin. The reason mechanical clocks were invented had nothing to do with Darwin.

And nothing at all to do with the Bible. At least Darwin used the same methods that would lead to cable cars, Airplanes, and mechanical clocks -- no thanks to religious thought: An exercise in futility.

The Polio vaccine had more to do with trial and error than Darwin.

Ironically enough, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection had everything to do with trial and error as well -- the errors went extinct.

I feel almost like a schoolyard bully here. "stop refuting yourself! Stop refuting yourself! Nyaah Nyaah!"

The origin of man is but a very small theory that certainly has its influences but is not in itself the "end all" when it come to progress or scientific research...

Except that it works better than anything else that's come along, and is certainly better than the futility that comes from Creationist thought.

 

[FishFace]

What is creationism to you?

In this context, I would suggest it is at the broadest, the belief that the world was created, by God, less than 10,000 years ago, and that the diversity of life on earth today is the result of small changes on basic so-called "kinds" which God originally created.
More specifically, it also encompasses beliefs in the flood, 6-day creation, the Fall and so on, in this particular context.

 

[FishFace]

This is absurd. Creationists are seeking to understand what GOD's WORD has to say from a scientific point of view. Evolutionists are content with their belief based on mistaken understandings of what they established with their own visual research. Why do you imagine that Jews make such excellant doctors. Could it be that they already have a very good understanding of what is clean and what is filth, simply from their biblical traditions as practiced. Did Edison invent the phonograph by reading Darwin, or by hearing a Morse code recording machine accidently spin out of control? The reason cable cars were invented have nothing to do with Darwin. The reason the Aeroplane was invented had nothing to with Darwin. The reason mechanical clocks were invented had nothing to do with Darwin. The Polio vaccine had more to do with trial and error than Darwin. The origin of man is but a very small theory that certainly has its influences but is not in itself the "end all" when it come to progress or scientific research...

List the verifiable benefits that Creationism has brought to the world.
Now list the verifiable benefits that evolution theory has brought to the world. (Antibiotics that work should start you off.)

 

[Inan3]

As far as I can tell, your post, quotes and all, serves only to undermine your position and drive people away from your faith.

I thought you might find this interesting as a contrast to what you suggested to me above.

Evolution without Atheism, and Other Ways to Sell Science:
A few weeks back, Mathew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney wrote an article for the Washington Post arguing that defenders of evolution undermine their cause when they seek to promote atheism as well. I wholly agree with this argument. There is no inherent conflict between a belief in evolution and a theistic worldview. The theory of evolution explains how human beings and other species evolved, and is a very effective way of understanding biological systems. Evolution does not purport to answer the question of how things began, or whether there was a Prime Mover who initiated the evolutionary process or perhaps even guided it. It is a scientific explanation about the natural world that we experience. When evolution advocates embrace atheistic evangelism, they not only misrepresent evolutionary theory, they also undermine their ability to communicate with a largely God-fearing public.
Nisbet and Mooney make this point in the context of a broader discussion of how scientists need to "sell" scientific understanding. While Mooney and I clearly have our differences I generally think they are correct here as well. If scientists want to have a greater influence on the public, they need to learn to talk to laypeople differently than they talk to other scientists. This does not require misrepresenting scientific research, nor does it require pretending that science can answer what are essentially normative policy questions. But it definitely requires recognizing the challenge of communicating scientific information to a relatively scientifically ignorant public.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1177512441.shtml

 

[thaumaturgy]

Certainly no conspiracy thinking going on there.

Actually there is no conspiracy. The creationists and YEC usually don't have any background or understanding of the science and therefore their debates tend to circle back to religion, which drives the ripostes to a religious discussion.

USincognito is right we need to focus better and not allow ourselves to be so easily diverted.

Please present your science and defend your scientific stance.

Or let us know what you'd like to find out about what the scientists know.

We are here to provide information and to debate the science.

As I said so many times my keyboard is worn down: I don't want to take your religion away from you. I want you to understand that religion doesn't work in science as a scientific principle

You can believe what you want. The minute you express your belief that religion can be an important part of science you will meet with resistance.

No conspiracy. As far as I can tell we are all quite open about what we believe here.

 

[thaumaturgy]

defenders of evolution undermine their cause when they seek to promote atheism as well.

You'll note not all evolution-believing individuals are atheists.

This is that same type of logic point that Poe brought up about the line from Proverbs.

The article appears to be focusing on people who just happen to be atheists who believe in evolution.

In point of fact since religion has no role in science as a scientific principle and since evolution is a science, then religion has no role in evolution topics.

The debate is really between people who reject evolution on religious grounds and those who do not reject evolution or who may reject it for non-religious reasons. (The latter group being exceedingly small)

I wholly agree with this argument. There is no inherent conflict between a belief in evolution and a theistic worldview.

This is why the majority of christians have no problem with evolution.

When evolution advocates embrace atheistic evangelism, they not only misrepresent evolutionary theory, they also undermine their ability to communicate with a largely God-fearing public.

And it is their PERSONAL choice. It really on bothers those who feel that religion must play a role in everything around them. Certainly a uniquely American viewpoint.

Nisbet and Mooney make this point in the context of a broader discussion of how scientists need to "sell" scientific understanding.

No one is required to sell science. Science can pretty much sell itself as long as people see the data.

It's hard to argue with success and science shows success after success.

 

[Inan3]

[/i]

You'll note not all evolution-believing individuals are atheists.

This is that same type of logic point that Poe brought up about the line from Proverbs.

The article appears to be focusing on people who just happen to be atheists who believe in evolution.

In point of fact since religion has no role in science as a scientific principle and since evolution is a science, then religion has no role in evolution topics.

The debate is really between people who reject evolution on religious grounds and those who do not reject evolution or who may reject it for non-religious reasons. (The latter group being exceedingly small)



This is why the majority of christians have no problem with evolution.

[/b]

And it is their PERSONAL choice. It really on bothers those who feel that religion must play a role in everything around them. Certainly a uniquely American viewpoint.



No one is required to sell science. Science can pretty much sell itself as long as people see the data.

It's hard to argue with success and science shows success after success.

My take on the article was that it would be better if evolution was presented on the science alone without the attack on God from an atheistic viewpoint.

My "unsaid" point to WC was that he implyed my posts drive people from away from my faith, and I wanted to point out that the posts from the otherside had the same effect on Creationists and if evolutionists wanted Creationists to listen they are going to have to make an attempt to change the way they are posting, also.

 

[Inan3]

List the verifiable benefits that Creationism has brought to the world.
Now list the verifiable benefits that evolution theory has brought to the world. (Antibiotics that work should start you off.)

How exactly does evolution come into play when making antibiotics?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

How exactly does evolution come into play when making antibiotics?

Actually a bigger issue is the way evolution comes into play in the development of antibiotic resistance.

 

[Loudmouth]

My take on the article was that it would be better if evolution was presented on the science alone without the attack on God from an atheistic viewpoint.

I would argue that it also be good if scientific theories were not rejected because they contradict a person's religious convictions. Perhaps we could all focus on the science.

My

"unsaid" point to WC was that he implyed my posts drive people from away from my faith, and I wanted to point out that the posts from the otherside had the same effect on Creationists and if evolutionists wanted Creationists to listen they are going to have to make an attempt to change the way they are posting, also.

Let's use an analogy, and please don't take offense, it's not meant to offend. Let's say that someone came to you and started talking about their religious beliefs. In that conversation they state that their God made the Moon out of cheese, and that the Moon really is made of cheese but this information is being suppressed by secular, atheist scientists. Wouldn't you think this person is a little loony, and that their god probably doesn't exist?

When creationism is presented to knowledgable people they will have about the same reaction. Afterall, the Moon being made of cheese is just as improabable as a god who made starlight magically appear from stars billions of light years away or that orthologous ERV's were put in genomes by magic in just a way that it makes them look like they share a common ancestor.

 

[Aron-Ra]

cre·a·tion·ism (krē-ā'shə-nĭz'əm)

n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
http://www.answers.com/topic/creationism?cat=technology

-------------------------------------

cre·a·tion·ism [ kree áysh'n ìzzəm ]
nounDefinition:belief that God created universe: the belief that God created the universe
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861671003

-------------------------------------

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1880 : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

http://m-w.com/dictionary/creationism


None of these suggested that God or the Bible was to be taken out of the equation. If I am in a Creation & Evolution board and I am on the side of Creation I can in fact bring up such topics as relate to God and the Bible.

As I've said so many times before, and myriad polls have shown, most evolutionists are Christian and most Christians are evolutionists. As Dr. Kenneth Miller put it, in defense of evolution in Kitzmiller v. Dover,

"I'm a Roman Catholic. In the broadest sense, I believe in an intelligent designer. But you know what?..."

He then went on to explain why he was testifying against creationism. Why would he do that if he were a creationist himself?

Both of your first definitions would have all Christian theistic evolutionists classified as creationists. But of course that's not true. And your third definition recognizes only Judaeo-Christian Islamic creationists. The word, 'creationist' applies to more religions than just those dedicated to the Abrahamic god, and always depicts someone who is opposed to scientific methodology in general and evolutionary science in particular.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This is absurd. Creationists are seeking to understand what GOD's WORD has to say from a scientific point of view.

Wrong. First, the Bible is not "God's word", it is the word of men pretending to speak for God. Second, creationists really are opposed to scientific principles and methodology, just as I said, and (3) it is not possible to understand anything about gods from a scientific point of view.

Evolutionists are content with their belief based on mistaken understandings of what they established with their own visual research.

And what mistaken understandings would those be? And who are you to say that they're mistaken? How many professional scientists do we have on this forum? What is your level of education and area of expertise? Because all you've ever shown me is mistaken understandings of anything and everything you've ever mentioned.

Why do you imagine that Jews make such excellant doctors.

Who says they do? Can I see your source for this, please? Why do you imagine Hindus make better doctors than Jews?

Could it be that they already have a very good understanding of what is clean and what is filth, simply from their biblical traditions as practiced.

No. Because magic wands dipped in bird's blood will never cure anyone of scabies. But Leviticus 14 says it will.

Did Edison invent the phonograph by reading Darwin, or by hearing a Morse code recording machine accidently spin out of control?

No, I think Edison invented everything he did by realizing "all religion is bunk" -as he so eloquently put it.

The reason cable cars were invented have nothing to do with Darwin. The reason the Aeroplane was invented had nothing to with Darwin. The reason mechanical clocks were invented had nothing to do with Darwin.

And none of these things had squat to do with anything Biblical either. But they did all deal with science, which creationism does not.

The Polio vaccine had more to do with trial and error than Darwin.

Wrong again as always. It had a whole lot to do with evolution. It didn't have much to do much Darwin, because Darwin was just the guy who got credit for discovering evolution.

The origin of man is but a very small theory that certainly has its influences but is not in itself the "end all" when it come to progress or scientific research...

In a sad sort of way, it is the most critical "end all" there is, because everyone opposed to it is, to some degree, opposed to scientific research.