Atheists are in fact Creationists

[Sha'irullah]

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.

You presented my argument spot on :yes:. The title was mean't to be sort of a shock tactic but that is what title are for .

 

[Ouroboros]

You presented my argument spot on :yes:. The title was mean't to be sort of a shock tactic but that is what title are for .

Yeah. I figured as much about the title after reading your post.

A couple of years ago, I remember some discussion I had with someone about the accusation of scientists who "try to be God." For instance genetic modification, advanced medicine, etc. The thing is, they're not trying to be God since no one really could, even if they tried, because the concept of "God making something from nothing" isn't the same as us "making something from something else." Even when they create particles artificially in laboratories, they use energy, and it's more about making nature creating it for us. Still not the same as "ex nihilo" though.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

that is all.

Lol ok friend... I guess beggars can't be choosers when it comes to scoring points in a discussion, so I'll let you keep this one.

 

[George-ananda]

The thread is:.......Atheists are in fact Creationists


You're telling me they are! How many posts I've spent trying to convince them of evolution!!..........

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

On a related note, if we define vegetables as "meat", vegans are meat-eaters. All those vegetarians who say that they don't eat meat are just misusing the term.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

You do know that the concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive, right? Of course you do, as you've been informed of this countless times before. Willful ignorance is a form of dishonesty, and dishonesty is a sin, so, I guess you best drop to those knees and pray for forgiveness, boy.

Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sha'irullah]

On a related note, if we define vegetables as "meat", vegans are meat-eaters. All those vegetarians who say that they don't eat meat are just misusing the term.

You are trying to rile me up since I hate vegans. You sly dog

 

[McBell]

Bringing about existence is not remotely equal to creating.

um, what definition of "create" are you using?

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
create
v 1: make or cause to be or to become; "make a mess in one's
office"; "create a furor" [syn: make, create]
2: bring into existence; "The company was created 25 years ago";
"He created a new movement in painting"
3: pursue a creative activity; be engaged in a creative
activity; "Don't disturb him--he is creating"
4: invest with a new title, office, or rank; "Create one a peer"
5: create by artistic means; "create a poem"; "Schoenberg
created twelve-tone music"; "Picasso created Cubism"; "Auden
made verses" [syn: create, make]
6: create or manufacture a man-made product; "We produce more
cars than we can sell"; "The company has been making toys for
two centuries" [syn: produce, make, create]
​

Please note definition number 2

 

[Kalidas]

um, what definition of "create" are you using?

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
create
v 1: make or cause to be or to become; "make a mess in one's
office"; "create a furor" [syn: make, create]
2: bring into existence; "The company was created 25 years ago";
"He created a new movement in painting"
3: pursue a creative activity; be engaged in a creative
activity; "Don't disturb him--he is creating"
4: invest with a new title, office, or rank; "Create one a peer"
5: create by artistic means; "create a poem"; "Schoenberg
created twelve-tone music"; "Picasso created Cubism"; "Auden
made verses" [syn: create, make]
6: create or manufacture a man-made product; "We produce more
cars than we can sell"; "The company has been making toys for
two centuries" [syn: produce, make, create]
​

Please note definition number 2

I think he's using the creationist argument definition. which is as I have seen it go as this : See that (fill in man made object here) it didn't APPEAR out of thin air it was CREATED! yada yada yada God created everything. Yet using this same argument makes evolution believing Atheists creationists because the natural laws that are evolution (among others) created life. Meaning that this argument uses objects which is made from other objects to make this new object. thus these examples should not and do not make for a proper argument to prove the creationist stand point. As opposed to the "where did the universe come from" argument.

 

[Kalidas]

um, what definition of "create" are you using?

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
create
v 1: make or cause to be or to become; "make a mess in one's
office"; "create a furor" [syn: make, create]
2: bring into existence; "The company was created 25 years ago";
"He created a new movement in painting"
3: pursue a creative activity; be engaged in a creative
activity; "Don't disturb him--he is creating"
4: invest with a new title, office, or rank; "Create one a peer"
5: create by artistic means; "create a poem"; "Schoenberg
created twelve-tone music"; "Picasso created Cubism"; "Auden
made verses" [syn: create, make]
6: create or manufacture a man-made product; "We produce more
cars than we can sell"; "The company has been making toys for
two centuries" [syn: produce, make, create]
​

Please note definition number 2

Bringing about existence and bringing something INTO existence are in fact different. Before God created existence(the ability for material things to have form and characteristics) there was no place for said material creations to be. Before God the material world we knew did not exist by creating the first whatever (energy, atoms, natural laws, black matter etc etc etc) existence was not a "thing". Once something we made there started the material existence and thus objects to be born into it.

 

[rusra02]

You do know that the concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive, right? Of course you do, as you've been informed of this countless times before. Willful ignorance is a form of dishonesty, and dishonesty is a sin, so, I guess you best drop to those knees and pray for forgiveness, boy.

Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claiming one can believe both in God and evolution does not change the fact that evolution is untrue.

 

[LuisDantas]

Claiming one can believe both in God and evolution does not change the fact that evolution is untrue.

Indeed. But only because your statement is based on a false premise.

 

[McBell]

I think he's using the creationist argument definition. which is as I have seen it go as this : See that (fill in man made object here) it didn't APPEAR out of thin air it was CREATED! yada yada yada God created everything. Yet using this same argument makes evolution believing Atheists creationists because the natural laws that are evolution (among others) created life. Meaning that this argument uses objects which is made from other objects to make this new object. thus these examples should not and do not make for a proper argument to prove the creationist stand point. As opposed to the "where did the universe come from" argument.

I disagree.
Until such time as you name a creator, evolution is not a form of creation.
Seems far to many people are misusing the word "created" in order to better fit their agenda.

 

[McBell]

Before God created existence(the ability for material things to have form and characteristics) there was no place for said material creations to be.

Speculation.

Before God the material world we knew did not exist by creating the first whatever (energy, atoms, natural laws, black matter etc etc etc) existence was not a "thing". Once something we made there started the material existence and thus objects to be born into it.

more speculation.

Merely presenting your beliefs as fact does not make your beliefs fact.

 

[Father Heathen]

Claiming one can believe both in God and evolution does not change the fact that evolution is untrue.

It only holds "untrue" to those who deliberately refuse to examine evidence and apply logic. Why so adamant about blindly adhering to a literal interpretation of the ancient mythology of dead goat herders? God isn't bound, restricted, or reduced by the superstition and ignorance of primitive savages. He is well above and beyond your book.

 

[secret2]

I disagree.
Until such time as you name a creator, evolution is not a form of creation.
Seems far to many people are misusing the word "created" in order to better fit their agenda.

I second. Some people are trying to argue that "hey, but evolution is consistent with some form of creation myth." Consistency doesn't mean much. Evolution is also consistent with flat Earth, young Earth, eugenics, FSM movement etc., but so what?

 

[yoda89]

Claiming one can believe both in God and evolution does not change the fact that evolution is untrue.

Evolution is Fact. Some of the varying mechanisms are unknown and are thus theories. However Evolution has been proven

 

[Sha'irullah]

Claiming one can believe both in God and evolution does not change the fact that evolution is untrue.

Your logic is untrue but evolution is an objective fact.

 

[Kalidas]

Speculation.


more speculation.

Merely presenting your beliefs as fact does not make your beliefs fact.

I never said I believed this, and even if I did it is speculation. It still means that your second definition of creation does not explain the creationists mind set very well.

Don't assume because I claim an argument that I agree with it.

 

[rusra02]

Your logic is untrue but evolution is an objective fact.

Assuming you are referring to so-called macro-evolution, no, it is not.