What is creationism?

[muhammad_isa]

"Creationism" is a term used by atheists to belittle people who believe in God

They do so by suggesting that 'evolution did it' somehow proves that the universe was not created. It does no such thing!

 

[Skwim]

"Creationism" is a term used by atheists to belittle people who believe in God

That's why there are organizations like

The Creation Research Society

The Institute for Creation Research

Antelope Valley Creation Science Museum

Creation Adventures

Creation Association of Puget Sound

Creation Concepts

Creation Connection

Creation Truth Foundation

Project Creation

Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship

Twin Cities Creation Science Association

etc.

etc.
​

All organizations created by atheists to belittle people who believe in God.

They do so by suggesting that 'evolution did it' somehow proves that the universe was not created. It does no such thing!

You're absolutely right.

 

[outhouse]

"Creationism" is a term used by atheists to belittle people who believe in God

They do so by suggesting that 'evolution did it' somehow proves that the universe was not created. It does no such thing!

IT IS SAD in this modern age when education is at everyone's fingertips, that people refuse education, truth and knowledge and fact.

Because of faith in what many call primitive mythology

 

[McBell]

"Creationism" is a term used by atheists to belittle people who believe in God

They do so by suggesting that 'evolution did it' somehow proves that the universe was not created. It does no such thing!

ouch

creationism (n.)
1847, originally a Christian theological position that God immediately created a soul for each person born; from creation + -ism. As a name for the religious reaction to Darwin, opposed to evolution, it is attested from 1880.James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 B.C. ... Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC "on a Wednesday". [Craig, G.Y., and E.J. Jones, "A Geological Miscellany," Princeton University Press, 1982.]

Source
​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Without environment mutations are irrelevant. Why do you claim that one vital component is more important than other vital components? What's the most important component of fire? Oxygen, heat, or fuel? Or are they all equally necessary?

The question is about the source of design changes, the source of significant design improvements, and hence origin of species, diversity, adaptation, and everything that follows from those changes. Random mutations are that source according to classical evolution, no way to duck this, and the root of the problem in the theory for most skeptics.

Evolution shows such jumps. Cambrian explosion, anyone?

exactly, not the smooth gradual changes the theory originally predicted.

There's no evidence of the universe being "guided" or that there are any "instructions."

Well that is certainly what some used to think 100 years ago under classical physics:

see universal constants for starters. Tweak any parameter infinitesimally, and you don't even get space/time- far less life
The precise formation of the functional universe we see around was absolutely determined by specific parameters and values at the subatomic level- hardly controversial these days.

I don't know what you're talking about "chance" for. Improbable I ties occur all the time. Every hand of cards you deal has a very small chance of being dealt, yet there it is...a function of numbers and probability.

so if a gambler in a casino plays 5 royal flushes in a row, you don't suspect cheating? of course you do, but why? IF the odds are all the same, why not write it off as chance?

I don't think it's coincidence that he never proved the existence of any gods nor ever attempted to do so within a logical framework.

exactly. He separated his faith from his work, because he could.
i.e. it was not his belief in God, but his skepticism of atheism that allowed him to approach the subject impartially.

How does an atheist separate his beliefs when he doesn't even acknowledge he has any?

Evolution doesn't have a single thing to do with God or God belief or God disbelief. Evolution is proven fact and one of the best scientific theories we have. Much more complete and understood than the theory of gravity.

The most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'. Another complete coincidence I suppose?
And both Dawkins and Darwin were of the opinion that evolution being helped over hurdles by God was no kind of evolution at all, so absolutely the two are connected.

As above, Planck, Lemaitre, never wrote a book called 'the atheist delusion' they focused on the science, not personal beliefs, because they knew the difference.

:"It's as if they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history' Dakwins- complete? in the imagination perhaps

Yes, "you think." But it's just your biased speculation. What else?

Me, myself and 81 % of the US population according to the most recent Gallup poll, and for the same fundamental reason as I am trying to explain to you, whether you agree or not.

The majority of people, non academics/atheists, the 'ignorant masses' were absolutely correct about classical physics being inadequate to account for physical reality, and for precisely the right reason:

The theory was too simple, it didn't account for the observed complexity.

You are telling me this rationale is not at all familiar to you re. evolution? you don't have to agree with it, but you really still don't see the parallel here?

 

[leibowde84]

"Creationism" is a term used by atheists to belittle people who believe in God

They do so by suggesting that 'evolution did it' somehow proves that the universe was not created. It does no such thing!

Well, this is obviously false. Creationists use the word to describe themselves. And, the Theory of Evolution doesn't even speak to how the universe was created or how life came from non-life, for that matter. I think you need to actually learn about evolution before you knock it.

 

[prometheus11]

The question is about the source of design changes, the source of significant design improvements, and hence origin of species, diversity, adaptation, and everything that follows from those changes. Random mutations are that source according to classical evolution, no way to duck this, and the root of the problem in the theory for most skeptics.

No, it's no problem at all. Because of the other factors. You're not paying attention.

exactly, not the smooth gradual changes the theory originally predicted

.


No. The theory shows both and it's perfectly explained by the theory.

Well that is certainly what some used to think 100 years ago under classical physics:

see universal constants for starters. Tweak any parameter infinitesimally, and you don't even get space/time- far less life
The precise formation of the functional universe we see around was absolutely determined by specific parameters and values at the subatomic level- hardly controversial these days.

Nothing to do evolution.

Yes there are specific parameters. That's not an argument for or against anything.

so if a gambler in a casino plays 5 royal flushes in a row, you don't suspect cheating? of course you do, but why? IF the odds are all the same, why not write it off as chance?

The odds aren't the same. Don't misunderstand statistics. However, sometimes a person wins several times in a row. That's chance/statistics.

exactly. He separated his faith from his work, because he could.
i.e. it was not his belief in God, but his skepticism of atheism that allowed him to approach the subject impartially.

No. I don't accept that at all and you can't prove it. He obviously recognized he had no proof of at gods.

How does an atheist separate his beliefs when he doesn't even acknowledge he has any?

Atheists have loads of beliefs, just none about the existence of any gods. Don't be silly.

The most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'. Another complete coincidence I suppose?
And both Dawkins and Darwin were of the opinion that evolution being helped over hurdles by God was no kind of evolution at all, so absolutely the two are connected.

What coincidence?

I don't understand what you are attempting to assert.

As above, Planck, Lemaitre, never wrote a book called 'the atheist delusion' they focused on the science, not personal beliefs, because they knew the difference.

Atheists don't put forward a hypothesis about God for it to be true or delusion, so such a book would be founded in error. I wouldn't expect Lemaitre or Planck to write a book based on erroneous foundations.

:"It's as if they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history' Dakwins- complete? in the imagination perhaps

The science of genetics took care of this perceived problem. No worries.

Me, myself and 81 % of the US population according to the most recent Gallup poll, and for the same fundamental reason as I am trying to explain to you, whether you agree or not.

What? That's not even a grammatical statement. Try again?

The majority of people, non academics/atheists, the 'ignorant masses' were absolutely correct about classical physics being inadequate to account for physical reality, and for precisely the right reason:

Why is that important?

The theory was too simple, it didn't account for the observed complexity.

And who fixed the theory? Not the people you mention but scientists with science. Right?

You are telling me this rationale is not at all familiar to you re. evolution? you don't have to agree with it, but you really still don't see the parallel here?

You're imagining a parallel because you haven't studied evolution enough to understand its claims and proofs.

.....

Just do you know, you're not very good at expressing yourself. Poor grammar, poor construction of arguments, poor rejoinders. Please list your claims separately as specific criticisms of specific parts of theory. I can't guess at what you wish your argument was.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it's no problem at all. Because of the other factors. You're not paying attention.

Think about it
'other factors' do not influence the random mutation, that's why it's random.

you're talking about the natural selection of mutations, not the source of them. Once again without the 'random' mutation in the first place, there is nothing to select- is there? and there is no getting around this problem, only ignoring it.

Nothing to do evolution.

Yes there are specific parameters. That's not an argument for or against anything.

A long list of specific parameters and values which were essential to account for the complexity of observed reality, the simple laws were not enough- ring a bell?

The odds aren't the same. Don't misunderstand statistics. However, sometimes a person wins several times in a row. That's chance/statistics.

Absolutely they are the same, the odds of being dealt 5 royal flushes in a row (assuming a new shuffled deck) are exactly the same as any particular sequence of 25 cards.

Yet we would obviously be crazy not to suspect cheating if we worked in the fraud dept. at the casino- why?

No. I don't accept that at all and you can't prove it. He obviously recognized he had no proof of at gods.

As do I, it's called faith

And who fixed the theory? Not the people you mention but scientists with science. Right?

A notable skeptic of atheism: Max Planck, proved them right. this isn't science v religion, it's science v atheism

You're imagining a parallel because you haven't studied evolution enough to understand its claims and proofs.

Perhaps, but I used to believe in evolution, I had my first seeds of doubt while working on computer simulations to try to replicate the process- to demonstrate to skeptics.

So I know the theory is not nearly as 'undeniable' as I once believed. The devil is in the details, not the superficial observations and simplest explanations-

just like classical physics...

 

[prometheus11]

Think about it
'other factors' do not influence the random mutation, that's why it's random.

you're talking about the natural selection of mutations, not the source of them. Once again without the 'random' mutation in the first place, there is nothing to select- is there? and there is no getting around this problem, only ignoring it.

And? The random mutations only matter in an environment. What is it that you're asking for?

A long list of specific parameters and values which were essential to account for the complexity of observed reality, the simple laws were not enough- ring a bell?

No. Science discovered principles not yet known. That's the job of science.

Absolutely they are the same, the odds of being dealt 5 royal flushes in a row (assuming a new shuffled deck) are exactly the same as any particular sequence of 25 cards.

And? What needs to be explained?

Yet we would obviously be crazy not to suspect cheating if we worked in the fraud dept. at the casino- why?

Statistical probability of such a possibility and player motives.

A notable skeptic of atheism: Max Planck, proved them right. this isn't science v religion, it's science v atheism

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such dynamic as "science vs atheism."

Perhaps, but I used to believe in evolution, I had my first seeds of doubt while working on computer simulations to try to replicate the process- to demonstrate to skeptics.

No you didn't. Until you prove that ridiculous claim I'll not accept it.

So I know the theory is not nearly as 'undeniable' as I once believed. The devil is in the details, not the superficial observations and simplest explanations-

just like classical physics...

You don't understand the theory. It's like you are saying dogs are bad pets because of their fiery burps that cause house fires.

If you understood the theory, your criticisms would be much more sophisticated. As it is, you just keep proving how little you know about it. IC youd Walt like to accomplish your goal of dismantling the TOE, then you'll need to study it--know your enemy. Your first step is to understand what evolution is. Until then, you're just chucking pebbles at a mountain and claiming your pebbles are nuclear bombs. Realists are chuckling.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. And, the Theory of Evolution doesn't even speak to how the universe was created or how life came from non-life, for that matter...

I'm glad we are in agreement

 

[leibowde84]

I'm glad we are in agreement

No one disagrees with that other than those who don't know what the Theory of Evolution is. It only explains speciation.

 

[gnostic]

It's all down to whether everything we see, got here by design as opposed to chance, intelligent design v spontaneous naturalistic mechanism, guided v random, whatever terms you prefer.

Mutations are often described by evolutions as 'random' are they not? So I don't think that's a pejorative term.

Not all evolution are the result of mutations.

Natural Selection involved changes to the changes in environment they lived in, like changes in climate, terrain, food availability or scarcity, and even new predators. Here, the changes biologically are directed by external but natural forces. If the changes are guided by change in environment, then it is not "random".

Darwin's theory deal with most evolution through natural selection.

Mutation is not the only cause for evolution.

Then there is not evolutionary mechanism, called Gene Flow, in which the existing population of species, breed with another species that have migrated into the area, producing genetic characteristics that are slightly different to the two different populations. Here, the changes occur not because of the change in environment (not natural selection). The changes through Gene Flow is the result of two different populations, so this evolution process is also naturally guided or directed, not random.

Both Natural Selection and Gene Flow don't involve Mutation or "randomness". Not all evolution involved mutations.

You have a very limited view of what evolution is.

 

[viole]

"Creationism" is a term used by atheists to belittle people who believe in God

They do so by suggesting that 'evolution did it' somehow proves that the universe was not created. It does no such thing!

To be honest, that is not what all atheists claim. The universe can be very well be created. It is, at least, still logically possible that it is created. Alas, many things are logically possible. It could even be that evolution is tweaked by little invisible fairies and the whole Universe originated from the sneeze of a giant and immaterial turtle. Who knows?

What they claim is that the process of evolution makes the idea of a creator superflous. The same applies to invisible fairies, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

exactly, not the smooth gradual changes the theory originally predicted.

It depends on timescale. On the timescale of half a billion years, the Cambrian Explosion seems like a sudden jump.

Many would describe the change of Latin into Italian to be gradient, which is on the timescale of a few centuries. Compared to the Cambrian Explosion, which spans the time of around 25 million years, and suddenly the transition of Latin to Italian basically becomes a singular point in time.

Even still, no one could ever point out the first individual Italian speaker, nor the exact day, hour, or minute the first Italian speaker spoke Italian. Even if they had a time machine to go back and search for such a person and such a day. Likewise, even with a time machine, no one would ever find an individual organism that is the very first vertebrate, or the first eukaryote, or first tetrapod.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What they claim is that the process of evolution makes the idea of a creator superflous..

I know what you mean .. it's not superflous, though
Theism provides answers to "why" .. evolution only explains "how" ..
Furthermore, "fairies" are usually found in children's story books

 

[viole]

I know what you mean .. it's not superflous, though
Theism provides answers to "why" .. evolution only explains "how" ..
Furthermore, "fairies" are usually found in children's story books

The definition of "children" and "their story books" is just a question of perspective

Joking aside, from my vantage point, I cannot sense a difference in plausibility between their books and other adults books. They seem to contain claims wth exactly the same evidence, or lack thereof. So, how would I tell the difference if I had no clue which ones are for kids and the others for adults?

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

..from my vantage point, I cannot sense a difference in plausibility between their books and other adults books. They seem to contain claims wth exactly the same evidence, or lack thereof. So, how would I tell the difference if I had no clue which ones are for kids and the others for adults?

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

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"

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

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

That's not entirely true. Fairies didn't start out as fictional. They're mythological creatures. People use to (and possibly still do) believe they exist. Likewise, there are plenty of fictional monotheistic gods that parallel the God of Abraham. The One-Above-All from Marvel Comics, The Presence from DC Comics, The Christian-like god from the Demon's Souls videogame, etc...

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's not entirely true. Fairies didn't start out as fictional. They're mythological creatures. People use to (and possibly still do) believe they exist..

I suppose..

 

[Parsimony]

That's not entirely true. Fairies didn't start out as fictional. They're mythological creatures. People use to (and possibly still do) believe they exist.

Plenty of people on YouTube seem to still believe in them.