I am not a creationist.

[Doveaman]

I am not a creationist. I believe in an old earth as well as a new one. So what does that make me?

In the Genesis theory: Genesis 1:1 begins with a summary of the fact that God did it.

Genesis 1:2 then goes on to describe the conditions at the end of the old earth - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And Genesis 1:3 then go on to describe the beginning of the new earth – And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:2 speaks of an earth that was formless, empty, dark, and covered in water which existed before the six days of creation week began in Genesis 1:3.

It was from this preexisting ‘old’ earth that the “new” earth we now live on emerged out of its preexisting water – And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so...Gen 1:6-9.

Water was not created during the six days of creation week, nor was the rocks underneath it, they both already existed.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Do you believe that God created animals, plants, etc as described literally in the Genesis account? Timing of such does not matter. If so, then you are creationist.

If you believe in an old universe and the above, you are an old earth creationist.

If you believe the universe is 4,000-6,000 years old, then you are a young earth creationist.

 

[Doveaman]

Do you believe that God created animals, plants, etc as described literally in the Genesis account? Timing of such does not matter. If so, then you are creationist.

If you believe in an old universe and the above, you are an old earth creationist.

If you believe the universe is 4,000-6,000 years old, then you are a young earth creationist.

If these are the various definitions for being a creationist then what does that make you, especially in regard to the old universe/earth definition?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How do you believe the universe, the Earth, life, and the human species came into being?

 

[Doveaman]

How do you believe the universe, the Earth, life, and the human species came into being?

GOD did it, of course.

How do you believe they came into being?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

GOD did it, of course.

How do you believe they came into being?

Well, I don't believe God did it. But this is a thread about your beliefs. What, exactly, do you think God did, and how? Do you agree with the mainstream scientific consensus about the origin of the solar system and life?

 

[3sigma]

GOD did it, of course.

Then, among other things, you are a creationist, plain and simple. The basic definition of a creationist is one who believes that God created something, be it the universe, the Earth, life or even just man in its image.

 

[Doveaman]

Then, among other things, you are a creationist, plain and simple. The basic definition of a creationist is one who believes that God created something, be it the universe, the Earth, life or even just man in its image.

There are different types of gods. Do you believe the universe came into being on its own?

Besides, I've heard some theistic evolutionists criticizing creationists for being creationists. Why is that, don't they believe God did it?

 

[3sigma]

There are different types of gods. Do you believe the universe came into being on its own?

I don’t know how the universe came into being because we don’t yet have a verified answer to that question. There isn’t yet enough sound evidence to come to a conclusion and there may never be. Of course, the lack of sound evidence isn’t going to stop creationists credulously believing that their God created the universe. If you believe that your God created the universe then you are a creationist. There’s no denying it.

 

[3sigma]

Besides, I've heard some theistic evolutionists criticizing creationists for being creationists. Why is that, don't they believe God did it?

I didn’t see this addition to your post before I submitted my previous post. The reason people criticize creationists is because they come to conclusions without any sound evidence supporting them. Their unwarranted religious beliefs are not the product of sound reasoning.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Although the definition should be somebody that believes G-d created the universe, "creationist" is generally applied to those with irrational beliefs about creation. I believe that god created the universe, but at the same time I probably wouldn't be called a creationist. It's just one of those things.

 

[3sigma]

Although the definition should be somebody that believes G-d created the universe, "creationist" is generally applied to those with irrational beliefs about creation. I believe that god created the universe, but at the same time I probably wouldn't be called a creationist.

Believing that your unsubstantiated God created the universe without a shred of sound evidence to support that belief is irrational. If you believe things were created by your God then you are a creationist.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, I don't believe God did it. But this is a thread about your beliefs.

Your beliefs can help to clear up some of the misconceptions of what a creationist really is.

If you believe the big bang did it there are some who consider this to be a form of creationism, after all the big bang started as a catholic idea. It was suppose to be the missing link between the creation and God. In other words, God did it with the big bang.

If you only believe in the big bang part but not in the God part the question still remains: who or what caused/create it? Unless you believe cause and effect can be separated.

What, exactly, do you think God did, and how? Do you agree with the mainstream scientific consensus about the origin of the solar system and life?

You know I don't drift along with the mainstream big bang, but I don't completely rule out evolution. As for the universe, I believe God did it with electricity, remember. However, I do believe the process would have taken longer than 6000 years as I mentioned in the OP. I don't have a clue how long it took.

So am I a creationist or what?

 

[AV1611VET]

So am I a creationist or what?

In my opinion, we are all creationists in one form or another.

We either believe:

• creatio ex nihilo
• creatio ex materia
• creatio ex Deo

The ex [nihilo, materia, Deo] is not the issue in determining if we are a creationist or not --- the "creatio" part is.

We can say the earth "formed" by accretion (or whatever), but that is still a form of creatio ex materia.

Again --- in my opinion.

 

[Doveaman]

I don’t know how the universe came into being because we don’t yet have a verified answer to that question.

But is it a legitimate question in the scientific community?

There isn’t yet enough sound evidence to come to a conclusion and there may never be.

Would you like to know the conclusion?

Of course, the lack of sound evidence isn’t going to stop creationists credulously believing that their God created the universe. If you believe that your God created the universe then you are a creationist. There’s no denying it.

Is it possible that chance did it?

Is this all there is to being a creationist - that God did it? I thought there was more to it.

The reason people criticize creationists

Not just "people", theistic evolutionist also criticize creationists, and they, according to you, are also creationists.

Why would a creationist criticize a creationist of being a creationist?

is because they come to conclusions without any sound evidence supporting them. Their unwarranted religious beliefs are not the product of sound reasoning.

Is this why they are criticized as creationists?

This is a dictionary definition I came across:

Cre[FONT=&quot]⋅[/FONT]a[FONT=&quot]⋅[/FONT]tion[FONT=&quot]⋅[/FONT]ism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

This doesn't quite match your definition.

 

[Doveaman]

we are all creationists in one form or another.

We either believe:

• creatio ex nihilo
• creatio ex materia
• creatio ex Deo

The ex [nihilo, materia, Deo] is not the issue in determining if we are a creationist or not --- the "creatio" part is.

We can say the earth "formed" by accretion (or whatever), but that is still a form of creatio ex materia.

You should post this on Wikipedia.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should post this on Wikipedia.

--- thank you.

 

[Super_Rational]

Not just "people", theistic evolutionist also criticize creationists, and they, according to you, are also creationists.

Why would a creationist criticize a creationist of being a creationist?
Is this why they are criticized as creationists?

C'mon, is this a serious question? If a theistic evolutionist is talking about creationists, then obviously that person doesn't consider themself a creationist. We're not talking about dictionary definitions here. It's relative. One believes in evolution, the other doesn't in that sense...which is why the 1st would criticize the 2nd.

 

[3sigma]

But is it a legitimate question in the scientific community?
Would you like to know the conclusion?
Is it possible that chance did it?

The answer to those questions is, yes. However, the fact remains that anyone who actually comes to a conclusion about how the universe came into being is doing so in the face of a complete lack of sound evidence and is hence credulous. You have come to the conclusion that your God did it despite a complete lack of sound evidence supporting that belief. Therefore, you are a credulous creationist.

Is this all there is to being a creationist - that God did it? I thought there was more to it.

You were wrong. If you think things were created by your God then you are a creationist.

Not just "people", theistic evolutionist also criticize creationists, and they, according to you, are also creationists.

Why would a creationist criticize a creationist of being a creationist?

Because the creationists who deny evolution are behaving even more irrationally than the theistic evolutionists. However, theistic evolutionists still want to credit their unsubstantiated God with initially creating life despite a complete lack of sound evidence supporting that belief so they are still worthy of criticism as well.

Is this why they are criticized as creationists?

This is a dictionary definition I came across:

Cre⋅a⋅tion⋅ism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

This doesn't quite match your definition.

Do you believe your God created the universe?
Do you believe your God created the Earth?
Do you believe your God created life on Earth?
Do you believe your God created man in its image?

If the answer to any of those is “yes” then you are a creationist. From what I’ve seen, theistic evolutionists believe that life evolved after it was created, but they still believe their God initially created life on Earth. They probably also believe that their God created the universe so, either way, they are still creationists.

It doesn’t even matter whether or not religious believers think their God created anything. The mere fact that they believe their unsubstantiated God is real without a shred of sound evidence to support that belief means they are credulous and demonstrates that their perception of reality is not to be trusted.

 

[AV1611VET]

The mere fact that they believe their unsubstantiated God is real without a shred of sound evidence to support that belief means they are credulous and demonstrates that their perception of reality is not to be trusted.

What if we see Christian symbols while taking the Rorschach Test, have had happy thoughts about dying, and claim to have resisted the Devil?