• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I guess this is the current state of creationism

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
How so?

"And what is its current state? Judging by the consistent theme I see from creationists in this and other forums, it seems to have been reduced to the rather simplistic argument of "challenge evolutionists to prove their claims to a 100% degree of certainty, and when they don't do that declare it to be a faith, no different than any other belief system".

First, science requires empirical and verifiable facts. Why should creationists trust positions that don't support it with enough empirical and verifiable facts? After all, evolutionists require it of creationists. Why just one sided requirements?

Second, those in the arena of debating both sides of the issues, hardly use your simplistic declaration as their "standby" answer. (at least not in the ones that I have seen)

Last, it is a "faith" when people declare something that has no empirical and verifiable evidence. That is why (at this point) any position of creationism (whether by spontaneous evolution or God) is a faith position.

ALTHOUGH your statement that positions that some Creationists have changed over time has some factual points to it, your statement remains quite simplistic.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
First, science requires empirical and verifiable facts. Why should creationists trust positions that don't support it with enough empirical and verifiable facts? After all, evolutionists require it of creationists. Why just one sided requirements?
Not sure what you're talking about. Some specificity would help.

Second, those in the arena of debating both sides of the issues, hardly use your simplistic declaration as their "standby" answer. (at least not in the ones that I have seen)
Again, not sure what you're talking about.

Last, it is a "faith" when people declare something that has no empirical and verifiable evidence. That is why (at this point) any position of creationism (whether by spontaneous evolution or God) is a faith position.
I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise.

ALTHOUGH your statement that positions that some Creationists have changed over time has some factual points to it, your statement remains quite simplistic.
Were you expecting some sort of comprehensive treatise on the history of creationism or something?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
noun
noun: evolutionist; plural noun: evolutionists
  1. 1.a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
"Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist" "Evolutionist"
.
Quick hide it! I got nailed for spamming when I did something like that a while back! "0)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not sure what you're talking about. Some specificity would help.


Again, not sure what you're talking about.


I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise.


Were you expecting some sort of comprehensive treatise on the history of creationism or something?

By your answers, I guess you just left me out in left field as to exactly what you were trying to say in the first place.

No biggy.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
First, science requires empirical and verifiable facts.
Yes, and the basic ToE has more than enough of them to confirm it. And it really does stand to common sense as it appears all material things change over time, and genes are material things.

What I have found to be a problem with many self-proclaimed "creationists" is that they believe that the ToE posits that there was/is no deity, but it really doesn't. According to a survey of Christian theologians that I ran across several decades ago ("decades", not "centuries" btw :p), something like 70% basically were what some call "theistic evolutionists", namely those who accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood God was behind it all.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Yes, and the basic ToE has more than enough of them to confirm it. And it really does stand to common sense as it appears all material things change over time, and genes are material things.

What I have found to be a problem with many self-proclaimed "creationists" is that they believe that the ToE posits that there was/is no deity, but it really doesn't. According to a survey of Christian theologians that I ran across several decades ago ("decades", not "centuries" btw :p), something like 70% basically were what some call "theistic evolutionists", namely those who accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood God was behind it all.

Yes... true. And if ToE is correct, I certainly would still see God in it.

To be honest, although I know that genes change, I still have some logical questions within that scope and within archaeological positions. I definitely have no problems with micro E... it's the macro that gives me second thoughts.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I think this is a simplistic viewpoint.
It is odd that many creationists and IDers seem to mistakenly think that poking holes in the theory of evolution (which, btw, I've never seen a single one actually pull off) somehow magically creates evidence for creationism or the existence of God in general. It is obviously logically fallacious and seems to be a very juvenile way of thinking.

The ONLY way to provide evidence for creationism is to provide evidence for God creating the universe.
Poking holes in competing theories doesn't do it for obvious reasons.
Pointing to things like complexity, beauty, etc. don't do it because these things don't evidence a creator.
Pointing to personal experiences, revelations, etc. don't do it, as they are just anecdotal.
And, finally, the god of the gaps argument, attempting to use the current lack of scientific explanations as evidence for God's existence is fraudulent.

So, is there any evidence for creationism apart from these things?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Yes... true. And if ToE is correct, I certainly would still see God in it.

To be honest, although I know that genes change, I still have some logical questions within that scope and within archaeological positions. I definitely have no problems with micro E... it's the macro that gives me second thoughts.
Why specifically does macroevolution give you second thoughts?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
First, science requires empirical and verifiable facts. Why should creationists trust positions that don't support it with enough empirical and verifiable facts? After all, evolutionists require it of creationists. Why just one sided requirements?
Evolution is supported by a plethora of verifiable evidence. Actually, all findings support the theory of evolution. There has not yet been any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Last, it is a "faith" when people declare something that has no empirical and verifiable evidence. That is why (at this point) any position of creationism (whether by spontaneous evolution or God) is a faith position.
Not really, as evolution is supported and confirmed by thousands of pieces of evidence. And, again, nothing has been found that contradicts the theory.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes... true. And if ToE is correct, I certainly would still see God in it.
:hugehug:

I definitely have no problems with micro E... it's the macro that gives me second thoughts.
But there really isn't a shred of evidence that suggests there's some sort of magical wall that stops the process.

Most of those that have a problem with this do so out of a literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts that really don't fit into what the scientific evidence shows in multiple areas. And these accounts appear to be "borrowed" from a rather lengthy Babylonian epic that predates the writing of Genesis by around a thousand years, but we took it and significantly edited it to reflect Jewish folkways and mores. A tablet of this Babylonian epic has been discovered in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis, so we know the early Jews were familiar with these narratives.

As you well know, the importance of these accounts (and most others, imo) are not so much whether they're historically accurate but more along the line of what morals and values do they teach that could be usable today. At least that's my take.

Anyhow, gonna be gone for a few days because we're moving from out place in da U.P. to da one near Detroit. See ya then, so take care.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It is odd that many creationists and IDers seem to mistakenly think that poking holes in the theory of evolution (which, btw, I've never seen a single one actually pull off) somehow magically creates evidence for creationism or the existence of God in general. It is obviously logically fallacious and seems to be a very juvenile way of thinking.

The ONLY way to provide evidence for creationism is to provide evidence for God creating the universe.
Poking holes in competing theories doesn't do it for obvious reasons.
Pointing to things like complexity, beauty, etc. don't do it because these things don't evidence a creator.
Pointing to personal experiences, revelations, etc. don't do it, as they are just anecdotal.
And, finally, the god of the gaps argument, attempting to use the current lack of scientific explanations as evidence for God's existence is fraudulent.

So, is there any evidence for creationism apart from these things?

It just seems like there isn't real dialogue here. I see you have your position quite firmly established and I am completely comfortable with you possessing it. My self worth isn't bothered by someone having a different perspective.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I remember in 4th grade us doing a skit about a newspaper reporter doing interviews right before Noah's flood.
I would get an F for sure:

Reporter: So, Noah's boat is really big. When are you getting on?
Random spectator: Oh, I'm not.
Reporter: I have heard many think he's a crackpot. You?
Random spectator: No one else is getting on.
Reporter: How can you be sure?
Random spectator: How can we be invited? The boat fits 8 humans and a crap load of animals, food, water (for some reason), steel beams, concrete, air conditioning, electric wiring --
Reporter: I think you're confusing the Ark with a theme park.
Random spectator: Oh yeah...

I remember in middle school and high school us not covering evolution in science classes because (according to the teachers) it was "too controversial" and some of them specifically saying that since it contradicted the Bible, it was necessarily wrong.
Mine did too, and that was the 80s and 90s.

No one "believes" the sun rises in the East. It's silly to say we "believe" that, because it has been proven to be true millions and millions of times over.
Technically the Earth just spins and makes it seem that way *nitpick*, LOL.

I think this is a simplistic viewpoint.
An example of simplistic viewpoints would be an entire thread somewhere else on the forum consisting largely of page after page of cute animal pics. I don't think you do that. :)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I can't wait until it's so dead and gone we can finally shed this silly "evolutionist" term that is just completely absurd because not one electrician is an ohmist, no more than anyone is a magnetist or gravitationist or a germist.

The reason why there are no ohmists, magnetists, gravitationalists or germists is because all of these have proof of their existence.
Electricians are taught to understand how to generate electricity....how to direct it via cable to power machinery and appliances....and what the dangers are in misusing it.
Magnetism is also provable and well understood. Experiments in labs can demonstrate its existence and its properties. Things like compasses have been utilizing the magnetic properties of the magnetic poles for centuries. The first compass was invented in China 200 years BC.
Gravity is testable in everyday life. It is proven to exist. All I have to do is drop something heavier than the air around it....or jump off a building.
Germs can be observed under a microscope, and found in the bloodstream of victims of the various diseases caused by them. There is no "belief" required.

Now, tell me how macro-evolution fits into this scenario? All science has as evidence for "evolution" is adaptation, which is not at issue in these discussions. Adaptation can be verified in lab experiments ,but macro-evolution is an 'assumption' based on that process continuing on a grand scale over an infinite period of time....so there is no way to test it or to verify it, except to pretend that it "might have"....."could have".....or even "must have" happened. The power of suggestion could sell ice to Eskimos.

No one "believes" the sun rises in the East. It's silly to say we "believe" that, because it has been proven to be true millions and millions of times over.

Exactly....we see with our own eyes every day that the sun rises in the same place every day according to where we live in this world. There is no "belief" required. It is provable and astronomers tells us why it happens that way.

At least Creationists acknowledge evolution as a theory, even if they don't understand what a scientific theory actually entails and why it isn't at all like the way the word is used by many people in everyday life.

The very fact that science needed to change the definition of the word "theory" to not mean a theory at all is very telling IMO. When is a theory not a theory? When you can't prove it and you need to sell it. This is why discussions of this topic invariably end with name calling and personal insults....its all evolutionists have left after you expose the fact that they have no substantiated evidence for what they claim.
42kmoig.gif


Yes, saying evolution happened is ridiculous, because evolution is a current and ongoing process.

Actually, there is only proof for "adaptation" as an ongoing process. Man keeps changing the environment so creatures must adapt to survive his impact on their habitat. There is no proof however, that adaptation leads to macro-evolution at all. It is a "suggestion" based on very biased interpretation of "evidence" like fossils. They can't speak for themselves, so scientists have to put words in their bony mouths to support what they "think" might have happened all those millenniums ago when there was no one to document a thing.....I hope people understand the difference. Science students are never taught that difference.
sigh.gif


Germs are a theory and a fact.

Which is why God told the Israelites to wash their hands before a meal and after using the toilet. He even told them about touching dead bodies and how to practice quarantining. How long did it take medical science to get those memos?
stretcher.gif


Louis Pasteur proved the germ theory of disease though he was not the first to propose that diseases were caused by microscopic organisms. His view was controversial in the 19th century, and opposed the accepted theory of “spontaneous generation”. Imagine! The Israelites knew something thousands of years before science "discovered" "germs". Go figure.
mornincoffee.gif
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
An example of simplistic viewpoints would be an entire thread somewhere else on the forum consisting largely of page after page of cute animal pics.

You betcha.....nothing like being confronted face to face with something that exhibits exquisite design and then claim it is all "just accidental".

I don't think you do that. :)

He doesn't dare.....it would undo his whole theory.

images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images


Sorry....couldn't help myself....
171.gif
Just look at these "accidents" of evolution......
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The reason why there are no ohmists, magnetists, gravitationalists or germists is because all of these have proof of their existence.
Evolution has the fossil record, biology, and more to back it up. It's actually one of the most well understood and strongly supported theories in science.
The very fact that science needed to change the definition of the word "theory" to not mean a theory at all is very telling IMO.
Science changed nothing. Non-scientists who didn't know the definition of theory did.
Which is why God told the Israelites to wash their hands before a meal and after using the toilet.
If god had any knowledge of germs, he wouldn't have had his book including a ritual for when someone is cured of leprosy to include having bird's blood slung all over the place.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Evolution has the fossil record, biology, and more to back it up. It's actually one of the most well understood and strongly supported theories in science.

Evolution has nothing. All it has its its interpretation of the fossil record (which is far from conclusive) And biology can be made to fit the theory too if you are creative enough.

Science changed nothing. Non-scientists who didn't know the definition of theory did.

You mean that humans had no ability to theorize before science commandeered the word and gave it a completely different meaning?

According to an online thesaurus.....THEORY means......noun hypothesis, belief.

Here are some of the synonyms....
I found great synonyms for "theory" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I think we get the meaning of a "theory". It doesn't come anywhere near a fact.

If god had any knowledge of germs, he wouldn't have had his book including a ritual for when someone is cured of leprosy to include having bird's blood slung all over the place.

To understand the procedure for having leprosy declared by a priest as "cured", would involve knowledge of what the blood offered in the sacrifice actually symbolized. Most of what the Israelites did in performing their sacrifices had a very deep meaning.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
It just seems like there isn't real dialogue here. I see you have your position quite firmly established and I am completely comfortable with you possessing it. My self worth isn't bothered by someone having a different perspective.
So, are you saying you admit that there is no evidence for creationism apart from these things?
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
I'm 50 years old, which means I've seen how creationism has evolved (HAH) over the last several decades. I can remember elementary school in the 1970's where teaching Christianity and the Bible in a public school was just assumed and there was little if any controversy. I remember in 4th grade us doing a skit about a newspaper reporter doing interviews right before Noah's flood. I remember in middle school and high school us not covering evolution in science classes because (according to the teachers) it was "too controversial" and some of them specifically saying that since it contradicted the Bible, it was necessarily wrong. I even remember in high school a couple of mandatory assemblies where "scientific creationists" would give presentations on young-earth creationism and how "true science" supported it.

As I was finishing up college the ID creationism movement was just beginning and by the time I started working it was getting a fair bit of interest from the media. Of course ID creationism died a quick death in the Dover, PA trial in 2005.

So over my lifetime, I've seen creationism go from overtly teaching "this is what the Bible says so it's true", to "the accounts in the Bible are scientifically supported", to "teach the controversy", to "complexity = a designer", to it's current state.

And what is its current state? Judging by the consistent theme I see from creationists in this and other forums, it seems to have been reduced to the rather simplistic argument of "challenge evolutionists to prove their claims to a 100% degree of certainty, and when they don't do that declare it to be a faith, no different than any other belief system".

That appears to be it. I've honestly not seen much of anything else from creationists in quite a while. I think we science advocates should take this as a positive development. This really is all they have left, which means the current declining trend is very likely to continue.

You guess at lots of things, I would think you would be pretty good at guessing by now. ;)
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Evolution has nothing.
Then you haven't looked over the evidence. Germs becoming treatment resistant is a pretty big thing it has.
You mean that humans had no ability to theorize before science commandeered the word and gave it a completely different meaning?
No, scientifically a theory is a process, a system, something with evidence to back it up. Non-scientists, taking a more liberal use of the word, have taken it and made it mean something else. But that is the nature of language.
To understand the procedure for having leprosy declared by a priest as "cured", would involve knowledge of what the blood offered in the sacrifice actually symbolized. Most of what the Israelites did in performing their sacrifices had a very deep meaning.
It is absolutely extremely stupid and ungodly unsanitary to have bird's blood (or any blood) slung around. All such a ritual proves is those who wrote the book had no idea about blood born pathogens, and apparently neither did god or he would have included such an important thing to be aware of.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
You mean that humans had no ability to theorize before science commandeered the word and gave it a completely different meaning?

Most words in the English language are polysemic - that is, they have multiple meanings and definitions. The sciences did not usurp the word "theory" any more than football fans usurped the phrase "pig skin" to refer to football instead of the actual skin of a pig. Specialized usages of terms within specific cultures or academic disciplines isn't just normal, it's routine. I tend to stay away from this subforum entirely, but I am truly baffled by this line of argumentation. While I expect anti-evolution arguments to demonstrate a poor understanding of biological evolution, I don't expect such arguments to demonstrate a poor understanding of language too. :sweat:
 
Top