Atheists are in fact Creationists

[Sha'irullah]

I have notice a very fundamental flaw in argument pertaining to Creationists. They state an over used set of examples saying that when you see a computer or item you know that it was created....this is true. But the meaning is subjective as creating is not equal to existence.

Bringing about existence is not remotely equal to creating.

When I create a statue with all of its glorious perfections I did not create it from nothing. This is not creation. I simply rearranged a series of particles through the processes of thermal energy(heat) and kinetic energy(striking from chisels etc). I did not create anything but simply rearranged matter.

So in reality we as humans create nothing in the definition used by Creationist. Evolution is "Creationism" as it is the rearranging and restructuring of biological particles to create a newly evolved life. Altering the chain of the 4 nucleobases without a doubt counts as "creationism".

The forth-bringing of matter is not creation, it is an existential genesis.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nope. You can argue that evolution is a creative process, or whatever. But it's not big-C Creationism in any sense.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Nope. You can argue that evolution is a creative process, or whatever. But it's not big-C Creationism in any sense.

You are aware I am not arguing this at all right? You did not read my message just the title .

I am referring to how Creationist misuse the term "Creationism" and what qualifies as created

 

[rusra02]

I have notice a very fundamental flaw in argument pertaining to Creationists. They state an over used set of examples saying that when you see a computer or item you know that it was created....this is true. But the meaning is subjective as creating is not equal to existence.

Bringing about existence is not remotely equal to creating.

When I create a statue with all of its glorious perfections I did not create it from nothing. This is not creation. I simply rearranged a series of particles through the processes of thermal energy(heat) and kinetic energy(striking from chisels etc). I did not create anything but simply rearranged matter.

So in reality we as humans create nothing in the definition used by Creationist. Evolution is "Creationism" as it is the rearranging and restructuring of biological particles to create a newly evolved life. Altering the chain of the 4 nucleobases without a doubt counts as "creationism".

The forth-bringing of matter is not creation, it is an existential genesis.

I believe what the Bible says is simple and true: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) God also created, arranged, and structured biological particles. They did not evolve, but like a computer, were the product of intelligent design. The Morse code is simple compared to DNA, but few would argue Morse code is the product of natural forces.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are aware I am not arguing this at all right? You did not read my message just the title .

I am referring to how Creationist misuse the term "Creationism" and what qualifies as created

I read more than the title. I disagree with your premise.

2 things;

Firstly, the title forms part of the whole. 'Atheists are in fact Creationists' is a statement I disagree with.

Secondly, you went with

Evolution is "Creationism" as it is the rearranging and restructuring of biological particles to create a newly evolved life.

I understand the implication of the double quotes. But in no sense would any evolutionary theory ever grant a capital C to the term 'Creationism'.
Creationism (as opposed to create, creating, creates, or any other normal use of the word) is completely tied in with a Creationist view of the world.

So whilst I do understand what you're saying, I disagree with any portion of it that relates to atheists in any way, and are unsure how including atheism in your topic makes it's point any clearer.

Stick to Creationists misusing the term Creationism, and we might have more common ground. Dunno, haven't thought enough about it to be honest.

 

[secret2]

I believe what the Bible says is simple and true: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) God also created, arranged, and structured biological particles. They did not evolve, but like a computer, were the product of intelligent design. The Morse code is simple compared to DNA, but few would argue Morse code is the product of natural forces.

I admire your persistence as well as consistence. You spend so much time on this forum, and somehow you manage to learn nothing. Anyway, since we are here I'll ask a few questions and you are going to ignore them.

1. When a sentence in Morse code has a few places deleted/expanded/modified to the opposite character (dash to dot, and vice versa), are we guaranteed that the new sequence would be a legitimate sentence (i.e. make sense)? What about DNA, when a segment of DNA has a few places deleted/expanded/modified, are we guaranteed that the new sequence would be legitimate (i.e. able to carry out biochemical reaction)?

2. Which is more complex, a piece of paper or snowflakes? For a Martian observer, would it be painfully obvious then that snowflakes are "the product of intelligent design"?

 

[Valjean]

All you're doing is insisting on a very narrow, de novo et ex nihil definition of "create," Archer; a definition useless in common parlance.

A snowflake's pretty much a simple, orderly crystal arrangement of a single substance. You could make a case that paper is the more complex and unnatural stuff.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I read more than the title. I disagree with your premise.

2 things;

Firstly, the title forms part of the whole. 'Atheists are in fact Creationists' is a statement I disagree with.

Secondly, you went with

Dude, . I have never said Atheists are creationist, it is only used in the title. I said multiple times throughout the post stating that the creator argument is not logical.
I never said atheists are creationist in no literal sense

I understand the implication of the double quotes. But in no sense would any evolutionary theory ever grant a capital C to the term 'Creationism'.
Creationism (as opposed to create, creating, creates, or any other normal use of the word) is completely tied in with a Creationist view of the world.

I am aware of this and it still makes no sense.

So whilst I do understand what you're saying, I disagree with any portion of it that relates to atheists in any way, and are unsure how including atheism in your topic makes it's point any clearer.

Double facepalm seemed appropriate.
You are disagreeing with something that is not even there. Atheists are not creationists so I have no idea why you are stuck on something that is not even present.
The argument is about the Creationists and how they accidently label atheists as creationist through semantics.

This is a semantics argument, please read the post again.

Stick to Creationists misusing the term Creationism, and we might have more common ground. Dunno, haven't thought enough about it to be honest.

I AM TALKING ABOUT CREATIONISTS MISUSING CREATIONS!

Seriously read the post. This is my entire argument.

 

[Sha'irullah]

All you're doing is insisting on a very narrow, de novo et ex nihil definition of "create," Archer; a definition useless in common parlance.

A snowflake's pretty much a simple, orderly crystal arrangement of a single substance. You could make a case that paper is the more complex and unnatural stuff.

I am not making a case for anything. I am simply stating that when creationists say that atheists deny that all things must be created they are misusing the word created.

That's it

 

[Kalidas]

I am not making a case for anything. I am simply stating that when creationists say that atheists deny that all things must be created they are misusing the word created.

That's it

I think I get it. He is saying that the creationists definition of creation would make athiest creationists. The argument he says they claim says "look at that computer, someone created it er go God created the universe". Using this same logic atheists become creationist.. He's not saying THEY ARE he's saying the argument does.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think I get it. He is saying that the creationists definition of creation would make athiest creationists. The argument he says they claim says "look at that computer, someone created it er go God created the universe". Using this same logic atheists become creationist.. He's not saying THEY ARE he's saying the argument does.

Somebody gets it! Lemme hug you buddy .


Essentially this argument is just semantics as I stated earlier. When these examples of Creationism vs Evolution arise the Creationist always tends to use very poor wording in the description of "created".
One can easily lump Atheists and their common acceptance of evolution into the mix because by definition to create simply means the rearrangement of matter from pre-existing matter.

Very much like alchemy . To create a 2 ton steal statue one must acquire 2 tons of steel. Yo cannot create a ton ton steel statue from anything less then 2 tons or from anything that is not steel and equivalent to the weight.

 

[Kalidas]

Somebody gets it! Lemme hug you buddy .


Essentially this argument is just semantics as I stated earlier. When these examples of Creationism vs Evolution arise the Creationist always tends to use very poor wording in the description of "created".
One can easily lump Atheists and their common acceptance of evolution into the mix because by definition to create simply means the rearrangement of matter from pre-existing matter.

Very much like alchemy . To create a 2 ton steal statue one must acquire 2 tons of steel. Yo cannot create a ton ton steel statue from anything less then 2 tons or from anything that is not steel and equivalent to the weight.

I actually know an atheist....wait for it.... Who does not except evolution! Le gasp!

 

[Sha'irullah]

I actually know an atheist....wait for it.... Who does not except evolution! Le gasp!

:thud: How can he be an atheist!
All atheist are amoral drunkards who do drugs and believe in evolution.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

All atheist are amoral drunkards who do drugs

Except for, you know, the majority of atheists...



(on the other hand, studies have shown that atheists are, on average, more well-educated... )

and believe in evolution.

At least you managed to say something that wasn't plainly false; pretty much all atheists believe in evolution, although there are likely a few exceptions.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Except for, you know, the majority of atheists...



(on the other hand, studies have shown that atheists are, on average, more well-educated... )


At least you managed to say something that wasn't plainly false; pretty much all atheists believe in evolution, although there are likely a few exceptions.

You are aware that I was being sarcastic right? Getting your morals from common sense instead of religion is the best thing to happen to humanity so why would I downplay atheists having no morals when my view on morality is no different?

 

[rusra02]

I admire your persistence as well as consistence. You spend so much time on this forum, and somehow you manage to learn nothing. Anyway, since we are here I'll ask a few questions and you are going to ignore them.

If by learn you mean be taken in and duped by fallacious reasoning, then thank you.

1. When a sentence in Morse code has a few places deleted/expanded/modified to the opposite character (dash to dot, and vice versa), are we guaranteed that the new sequence would be a legitimate sentence (i.e. make sense)? What about DNA, when a segment of DNA has a few places deleted/expanded/modified, are we guaranteed that the new sequence would be legitimate (i.e. able to carry out biochemical reaction)?

No. How is that relevant?

2. Which is more complex, a piece of paper or snowflakes? For a Martian observer, would it be painfully obvious then that snowflakes are "the product of intelligent design"?

I would say both require an intelligent designer, at least somone who designs the processes that produce paper and snowflakes. I cannot speak for martians

 

[Kalidas]

Except for, you know, the majority of atheists...



(on the other hand, studies have shown that atheists are, on average, more well-educated... )


At least you managed to say something that wasn't plainly false; pretty much all atheists believe in evolution, although there are likely a few exceptions.

Do they not have sarcasm where you come from?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ah yes, I was supposed to infer sarcasm from your facial expres... from your tone of voi...from your... chosen font size? (in other words, sarcasm doesn't translate well via writing)

 

[Kalidas]

Ah yes, I was supposed to infer sarcasm from your facial expres... from your tone of voi...from your... chosen font size? (in other words, sarcasm doesn't translate well via writing)

that is all.

 

[Ouroboros]

Seriously read the post. This is my entire argument.

Sometimes it helps if someone else rephrase something to make it more clear.

I'll try to say in my words what I think you were saying, and then you can correct me if I understood you wrong. (Btw, from my interpretation of what you said, I think I agree with you.)

When people are talking about "creation" they really mean that something was created from nothing. There were no matter, space, time, anything, and boom, the world with all things came into being, in whatever/whichever form.

Atheists talking about evolution or the world coming into being they talk more about transformation of existing "somethings". In other word, something existed before space, time, matter, and it wasn't the same as this that we have, but it was something. And in evolution, or scientists/engineers/etc "create" things, they only transform what already exists.

So the basic difference between the two concepts are one that argues that existence itself came into being/created, the other that existence isn't something that is created but something that always was and our particular/specific existence is only a new form of all that existed before.

Something like that...

And from that, there's a continuous misuse and misunderstanding on both sides of the "creation/design/evolution" debate because they're considering two completely different things.

Am I totally off here or somewhat close?

And your title was more as a quote from how some creationists argue about atheists or evolution or big bang etc.