How the term "Creationist" has been hijacked

[Rainbow Mage]

Creationist basically just means one who believes there was an act of creation at some point, by some deity. Why is creationist always used so negatively by atheists? It seems fundamentalists have hijacked the term for what they term "young earth creationism". Not good to assume all creationists deny evolution :no:

 

[darkendless]

Lack of factual evidence to support anything remotely like creation?

The completely fantasy-like nature of a God making everything?

Creation just seems lazy.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well but what if I believe in both creation and evolution?

 

[darkendless]

Creation and evolution are not polar opposites. Evolution can happen inside creation.

But as for some old dude with an epic beard creating things and then having a day off at the end to catch some sun?

The reason i despise creation or the process of it is because it can only be devoid of any type of critical reasoning.

Its basically "i don't know, ok God did it."

If it is anything other than that i'm all ears.

 

[tarasan]

Creation and evolution are not polar opposites. Evolution can happen inside creation.

But as for some old dude with an epic beard creating things and then having a day off at the end to catch some sun?

The reason i despise creation or the process of it is because it can only be devoid of any type of critical reasoning.

Its basically "i don't know, ok God did it."

If it is anything other than that i'm all ears.

of coruse its not deviod of critical reasoning.

If you can disprove God or make a better speculation then be my guest.

 

[Raithie]

of coruse its not deviod of critical reasoning.

If you can disprove God or make a better speculation then be my guest.

Better 'speculation'? Abiogenesis and evolution. Naturalism.

I can't disprove God, but I can't disprove unicorns either.

 

[tarasan]

Better 'speculation'? Abiogenesis and evolution. Naturalism.

I can't disprove God, but I can't disprove unicorns either.

of course you can disporve unicorns thats a silly statement, you can also disprove santa, fairies, jack frost etc. just encase you were going to use those....

 

[tarasan]

Better 'speculation'? Abiogenesis and evolution. Naturalism.

I can't disprove God, but I can't disprove unicorns either.

also evolution doesnt disprove God thats also silly, as well as abiogenesis being riddled with wholes, sense the miller experiment was a failure.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is creationist always used so negatively by atheists?

Speaking for myself and many others, it is basically shorthand for "creationists who stubbornly (and often dishonestly) attempt to claim that evolution is "just a theory"".

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

of course you can disporve unicorns thats a silly statement, you can also disprove santa, fairies, jack frost etc. just encase you were going to use those....

Then I want you to disprove unicorns for me please. Remember, I believe in invisible pink unicorns.

 

[Willamena]

Creationist basically just means one who believes there was an act of creation at some point, by some deity. Why is creationist always used so negatively by atheists? It seems fundamentalists have hijacked the term for what they term "young earth creationism". Not good to assume all creationists deny evolution :no:

Creationist was adopted as a term in the 19th Century by and for the Creationist movement, and as it's now a wide-spread term there is nothing that can be done about it but be specific about one's beliefs. (Also, I suspect that, rather than being the hijackers, most fundamentalists are the innocents sitting strapped in their seats while their plane is variously steered towards large objects.)

But I must make a point that aside, because I feel strongly about it. I disagree that creation is an "act" at a "point" in time. That brings creation itself into the creation, into the picture that it is allegedly painting, as you must have an actor present who has intent and ability before you can have an action. An alleged actor, his "point" in time (not to mention time itself), his intent and his ability are all creation (not creator). If you place creation in time, you slave creator to creation.

So who's the hijacker now?

 

[Raithie]

of course you can disporve unicorns thats a silly statement, you can also disprove santa, fairies, jack frost etc. just encase you were going to use those....

Oooh! Please tell me how!

 

[Raithie]

also evolution doesnt disprove God thats also silly, as well as abiogenesis being riddled with wholes, sense the miller experiment was a failure.

Um... I never said it disproved God. I said it was a hell of a better explanation. It doesn't assume the existence of a supernatural entity...

However, it does prove how life can come about via naturalistic processes.

Abiogenesis is not a complete theory. Could you explain why the Miller experiment was such a 'failure'? Amino acids are pretty funky little things to come about without a designer. The point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the formation of amino acids is possible through natural means and it did exactly that.

 

[painted wolf]

Creationist was adopted as a term in the 19th Century by and for the Creationist movement

Not to quibble... but I think it was in the 20th Centrury... 1920's.
But I could be wrong.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

But I must make a point that aside, because I feel strongly about it. I disagree that creation is an "act" at a "point" in time. That brings creation itself into the creation, into the picture that it is allegedly painting, as you must have an actor present who has intent and ability before you can have an action. An alleged actor, his "point" in time (not to mention time itself), his intent and his ability are all creation (not creator). If you place creation in time, you slave creator to creation.

Excellent point.

 

[tarasan]

Um... I never said it disproved God. I said it was a hell of a better explanation. It doesn't assume the existence of a supernatural entity...

However, it does prove how life can come about via naturalistic processes.

Abiogenesis is not a complete theory. Could you explain why the Miller experiment was such a 'failure'? Amino acids are pretty funky little things to come about without a designer. The point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the formation of amino acids is possible through natural means and it did exactly that.

the fact that he stacked the deck by making more oxegin in the experiment than there should have been, of course that oxegin was his downfall there was only 3 of the neccessary 21 amino acids that were produced and those three quickly oxidised (horrible spelling) this experiment showed how impossible life would be when created under his experiment any aminoacids that were created would instantly oxidise rather than connect with each other, if such an atmosphere was even possible to begin with which is doubtful.

 

[tarasan]

Oooh! Please tell me how!

ok but I get to choose santa cause he is my favourite!!! :yes:

first off we have to define who santa is, he is a fat man in a red suit that travels down the chimney using pixy dust, he delivers gifts, has a derr drawn sledge and a village at the North Pole.

first off if Santa Existed we would be seeing unaccounted for presents under the tree, we would, if we sensored the floor, see a violation of the sensor pades as he walked by, we should see if we sensored hte chimney an anomilly when he traveled through it with pixy dust. we should also see a sledge in the sky, a village at the North Pole, if it is explored in depth I could go n and on and on.

This is the correct way of dipoving something using lack of evidence rather than just the Athiest statement of "there is no evidence".

no only am I showing that there is no evidence for santa, I am also showing were we should find evidence for santa and that it isnt there.

This is what the Athiest position should do when it trys to use the No evidence for God malarcy, state that there is no evidence then try and show where we should find evidence and dont.

 

[Raithie]

the fact that he stacked the deck by making more oxegin in the experiment than there should have been, of course that oxegin was his downfall there was only 3 of the neccessary 21 amino acids that were produced and those three quickly oxidised (horrible spelling) this experiment showed how impossible life would be when created under his experiment any aminoacids that were created would instantly oxidise rather than connect with each other, if such an atmosphere was even possible to begin with which is doubtful.

Firstly, 22 amino acids were produced. Could you back up your claim that each amino acid was destroyed afterwards?
Also, amino acids form everywhere, even in space.
There have been many further experiments where the building blocks for even DNA and RNA have formed.

Anyway, the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the formation of the building blocks of life (proteins) is possible through natural means. The experiment did just that.

 

[Raithie]

ok but I get to choose santa cause he is my favourite!!! :yes:

first off we have to define who santa is, he is a fat man in a red suit that travels down the chimney using pixy dust, he delivers gifts, has a derr drawn sledge and a village at the North Pole.

first off if Santa Existed we would be seeing unaccounted for presents under the tree, we would, if we sensored the floor, see a violation of the sensor pades as he walked by, we should see if we sensored hte chimney an anomilly when he traveled through it with pixy dust. we should also see a sledge in the sky, a village at the North Pole, if it is explored in depth I could go n and on and on.

This is the correct way of dipoving something using lack of evidence rather than just the Athiest statement of "there is no evidence".

no only am I showing that there is no evidence for santa, I am also showing were we should find evidence for santa and that it isnt there.

This is what the Athiest position should do when it trys to use the No evidence for God malarcy, state that there is no evidence then try and show where we should find evidence and dont.

Ah, but Santa could be fooling you all and modifying your memories to make the parents think that they did it! And since he's so powerful etc., to be able to deliver presents in one night, he could easily avoid all of that...

Secondly, I never said santa. I said unicorns. The reason being unicorns can more easily be equated with God.

Could you disprove them for me?

 

[tarasan]

Ah, but Santa could be fooling you all and modifying your memories to make the parents think that they did it! And since he's so powerful etc., to be able to deliver presents in one night, he could easily avoid all of that...

Secondly, I never said santa. I said unicorns. The reason being unicorns can more easily be equated with God.

Could you disprove them for me?

ahhh but that would still not equate for the pressure pads, teh vision of him flying around the village etc. also you would have to show me material of santa being able to modify minds.

and of course i could disprove unicorns in the same way, firstly we would expect to find their corpses after they die, we would expect to find hoofprints, sightings, horns, hair, all manner of things.

remeber lack of evidence cannot be used against such a thing unless we would expect to find such evidence.