What is creationism?

[rusra02]

No, it is not.

Secondly, if any scientist bases their religious belief on science, then they ain't much of a scientist. "Faith" is believing without evidence, but science lives or dies on the basis of evidence or the lack thereof. They may believe for another reason, but science cannot be one of them because there simply ain't any objective evidence for a theistic causation.

I do not believe true faith is "believing without evidence." To the contrary, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith this way; "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration [convincing evidence] of realities that are not seen." So I believe true faith is evidence based. What evidence? The genius manifest in the design and function of living things, small and great, is proof positive to me they had a supremely intelligent and powerful Designer. And not just to me but to millions of others, including many scientists.

 

[rusra02]

No they do not.

They pervert science by using credible parts to support their faulty methodology already classified as factual pseudosceince




Evolution Is fact. get over it

You are free to choose to believe that. Obviously, I do not believe either assertion you made.

 

[rusra02]

Macro-evolution is just accumulated micro-evolution. Do you think small changes stop, at some point, so as not to become too different from the prototype? How would that happen?
Both micro and macro-evolution have been observed.

Indeed, that is what I believe and believe this has been demonstrated to occur. Sterility seems to mark the boundary that cannot be transgressed. Thus, a fruit fly is forever a fruit fly, a finch forever a finch, etc.

 

[metis]

I do not believe true faith is "believing without evidence." To the contrary, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith this way; "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration [convincing evidence] of realities that are not seen." So I believe true faith is evidence based. What evidence? The genius manifest in the design and function of living things, small and great, is proof positive to me they had a supremely intelligent and powerful Designer. And not just to me but to millions of others, including many scientists.

No, that's not evidence. One simply cannot logically conclude that if we supposedly cannot find some sort of natural causation, then God (or Gods) must have done it. There are other possibilities, and as long as there are, one cannot conclude that only one possibility must somehow be the cause.

Secondly, "faith" simply is not "evidence based" because it would then no longer be "faith".

I gotta go for now, so I'll wait for your response and kill two birds with one stone-- that's what they get for keeping pooping on me.

 

[rusra02]

No, that's not evidence. One simply cannot logically conclude that if we supposedly cannot find some sort of natural causation, then God (or Gods) must have done it. There are other possibilities, and as long as there are, one cannot conclude that only one possibility must somehow be the cause.

Secondly, "faith" simply is not "evidence based" because it would then no longer be "faith".

I gotta go for now, so I'll wait for your response and kill two birds with one stone-- that's what they get for keeping pooping on me.

I can conclude, when I see someone's name carved in a tree, that someone intelligent created that carving. What am I to conclude when I see the instructions for creating a living creature written in DNA chemical code? The evidence that convinced Antony Flew the famous once-atheist of an intelligent Designer, convinces me also.

 

[viole]

I can't help you there .. if you see no difference between them, then "that's what you see"..

I can only say that I can see a HUGE difference .. I don't think that fairies and Almighty God have the same status .. one is fiction and not claimed to be anything else, and the other is claimed to be about things that actually happened, about the nature of life, spiritual guidance, mortality and why we are here

From evidence, they are the same. What people claim does not make one more plausible than the other. However, there were, and probably are, people who believe in fairies. The head of the Royal Air Force during WW2 believed in garden fairies.

A disbeliever claims that the Bible and Qur'an are fiction, and made up. It's all about our experiences in life .. nobody likes excessive suffering, and yet without it, there probably wouldn't be even ONE believer in this world! That's our nature .. you know, "I'm alright Jack, I don't need to be told"

I am not sure whether this is an argument in favor or against God. That people look for help where nobody can help, is simple psychology. Such motivations actually decrease the plausibility of god, gods, if any. If it had any merit, then Apollo was plausible too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

I can conclude, when I see someone's name carved in a tree, that someone intelligent created that carving. What am I to conclude when I see the instructions for creating a living creature written in DNA chemical code? The evidence that convinced Antony Flew the famous once-atheist of an intelligent Designer, convinces me also.

I literally have not one problem that you believe in God, nor do I have a single problem with you believing that God created all. But what I do have a problem with is when one takes their belief based on faith and then claim that this is somehow the only scientific position that can be taken. But that's neither here nor there because the issue I originally responded to dealt with the issue of evolution.

I know it's been said over and over again on these threads, but let me say it again: the basic ToE does not in any way deny the theoretical possibility that God created all. On this matter, the ToE is neutral. Most Christian theologians do not have any difficulty accepting it as long as it's understood that God created all. This also holds true with the vast majority of us in Judaism, as we accept the reality of the ToE.

 

[Skwim]

I think you know that is not true; it is common for evolutionists to lump creationism and ID theory together, in order to discredit ID theory.

Only because it's true. And I'm glad to see that you think "creationism" is a discrediting idea. But try looking into the derivation of today's use of ID to bring yourself up to speed. Heck, let me do it for you so everyone will know the truth..

"The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula.

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term." In drafts of the book [Of Pandas and People], over one hundred uses of the root word "creation," such as "creationism" and "Creation Science," were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design," while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic]. In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement. Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent design came up.

Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and in addition to including all the current arguments for ID, was the first book to make systematic use of the terms "intelligent design" and "design proponents" as well as the phrase "design theory," defining the term intelligent design in a glossary and representing it as not being creationism. It thus represents the start of the modern intelligent design movement.

"Intelligent design" was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language. It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A. Buell,and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
Source: Wikipedia​

​

Ah, those sneaky creationist devils, got caught with their pants down, so they did.

.​

 

[rusra02]

Whether a creationist (I,e.someone who believes the earth was created in 7 24-hour days),used the term does not invalidate to me that ID is a valid scientific theory based on evidence and accepted by some in the scientific field. This in the face of unremitting vilification by evolution supporters of anyone who dares challenge their theory on the basis of scientific research.

 

[rusra02]

I literally have not one problem that you believe in God, nor do I have a single problem with you believing that God created all. But what I do have a problem with is when one takes their belief based on faith and then claim that this is somehow the only scientific position that can be taken. But that's neither here nor there because the issue I originally responded to dealt with the issue of evolution.

I know it's been said over and over again on these threads, but let me say it again: the basic ToE does not in any way deny the theoretical possibility that God created all. On this matter, the ToE is neutral. Most Christian theologians do not have any difficulty accepting it as long as it's understood that God created all. This also holds true with the vast majority of us in Judaism, as we accept the reality of the ToE.

So is it your position that God directed evolution and not natural selection and random mutations?

 

[metis]

Whether a creationist (I,e.someone who believes the earth was created in 7 24-hour days),used the term does not invalidate to me that ID is a valid scientific theory based on evidence and accepted by some in the scientific field. This in the face of unremitting vilification by evolution supporters of anyone who dares challenge their theory on the basis of scientific research.

I.D. simply is in no way a scientific theory, let alone somehow being "valid".

There's the adage that "When in Rome, do as the Romans"; so let me vary that a bit and say "When dealing with science, do science". I.D. is in no way science, neither being a theory nor a hypothesis, and any attempt to call it "science" is like calling a "grape" the "moon" just because they're both round.

 

[metis]

So is it your position that God directed evolution and not natural selection and random mutations?

It's neither a belief nor is it erroneous in my book as there's no way for me to tell-- insufficient information. Whatever happened, happened.

 

[rusra02]

I.D. simply is in no way a scientific theory, let alone somehow being "valid".

There's the adage that "When in Rome, do as the Romans"; so let me vary that a bit and say "When dealing with science, do science". I.D. is in no way science, neither being a theory nor a hypothesis, and any attempt to call it "science" is like calling a "grape" the "moon" just because they're both round.

Obviously, I disagree.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Indeed, that is what I believe and believe this has been demonstrated to occur. Sterility seems to mark the boundary that cannot be transgressed. Thus, a fruit fly is forever a fruit fly, a finch forever a finch, etc.

A mammal is forever a mammal. A vertebrate is forever a vertebrate. A cat is forever a cat. Evolution doesn't predict that squirrels will turn into eagles. However, clades branch off into different subsets. It's why a monkey and a cat are both still considered mammals. It's why a mammal is still considered a vertebrate. It's why a tiger and a lion are both considered cats. And it's why there are 5,000 species of fruit flies.

If you're gonna debate against Evolution, debate against what it really claims.

 

[Skwim]

Whether a creationist (I,e.someone who believes the earth was created in 7 24-hour days),used the term does not invalidate to me that ID is a valid scientific theory based on evidence and accepted by some in the scientific field. This in the face of unremitting vilification by evolution supporters of anyone who dares challenge their theory on the basis of scientific research.

Are you aware that science, scientists, and evolution supporters wouldn't care what creationists think if it wasn't for the fact that creationists continually try to undermine evolution and get creationism taught in public schools?

BTW, care to share some of this scientific research that underpins the validity of the ID scientific theory?

 

[rusra02]

A mammal is forever a mammal. A vertebrate is forever a vertebrate. A cat is forever a cat. Evolution doesn't predict that squirrels will turn into eagles. However, clades branch off into different subsets. It's why a monkey and a cat are both still considered mammals. It's why a mammal is still considered a vertebrate. It's why a tiger and a lion are both considered cats. And it's why there are 5,000 species of fruit flies.

If you're gonna debate against Evolution, debate against what it really claims.

Both the finch and the fruit fly have been used to support macro-evolution, as I suspect you know already.

 

[rusra02]

Are you aware that science, scientists, and evolution supporters wouldn't care what creationists think if it wasn't for the fact that creationists continually try to undermine evolution and get creationism taught in public schools?

BTW, care to share some of this scientific research that underpins the validity of the ID scientific theory?

You may believe that evolutionists are unbiased and base their actions solely on science. I do not, and I suspect neither do those scientists and educators who have suffered career damage for even acknowledging the possibility that ID has merit. As to the scientific basis for ID, simply Google Intelligent Design to find websites both pro and anti-ID.

 

[metis]

You may believe that evolutionists are unbiased and base their actions solely on science. I do not, and I suspect neither do those scientists and educators who have suffered career damage for even acknowledging the possibility that ID has merit. As to the scientific basis for ID, simply Google Intelligent Design to find websites both pro and anti-ID.

Oh yes, the "all these scientists are either ignorant and/or dishonest" argument. Yep, the "international scientist's conspiracy". As a scientist, nothing could be further from the truth. If your church teaches you that, let me recommend that you leave and find one that tries to deal with both truth and reality.

 

[metis]

Obviously, I disagree.

Of course I suspected you would, but let me give you an example of what you've allowed yourself to slip into:

From now on, let us use the name "Mohammed" to stand for "Jesus", and the "Qu'ran" to stand for the "Bible". Is that OK with you? Probably not, right? Why not?

If words, such as "hypothesis" and "theory", mean only what a particular person may want it to mean, then what's the problem with using "Mohammed" and the "Qu'ran" to stand for "Jesus" and the "Bible"?

Much like within the language of theologians, in science we have our own vocabulary along with what the words stand for. In medicine, you run across the same, so if you tell your doctor you have a "cold", your doctor may get the general idea of where you're coming from but may correct you and tell you that you actually have the "flu" or a "sinus infection".
In science, "hypothesis" and "theory" have specific meanings that are at times not exactly the same as found with the general public. Besides having specific definitions that we use, there are also mandatory steps to be taken when writing a scientific study to prepare for peer- review. Many moons ago, I was involved in that process on a study, and it was very time consuming and very tedious and most of the time very boring-- but it has to be done. Terms had to be carefully defined. What we were looking for had to be carefully defined. How we were to get to our conclusion had to be spelled out in advance. And the next part is key: we had to put forth some evidence that what we were proposing could possibly be true. Saying "this is what we believe" or "I think...", without supporting evidence, is neither a scientific "hypothesis" nor a scientific "theory".

So, my point is that "When dealing with science, use science". Theologians do much the same in their own field, and sometimes their terminology can be misleading or hard to understand for a person reading or hearing the words they use.

 

[rusra02]

Oh yes, the "all these scientists are either ignorant and/or dishonest" argument. Yep, the "international scientist's conspiracy". As a scientist, nothing could be further from the truth. If your church teaches you that, let me recommend that you leave and find one that tries to deal with both truth and reality.

I did not accuse scientists of being ignorant nor dishonest. Consider what a believer in evolution says; " Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.” (Was Life Created?)