Creation Vs Creationism

a reply to: iSomeone
Of course there is a difference between believing in a creator and believing in creationism. However your op is arguing that your particular choice of creation myth is true and that this somehow refutes evolution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There's no way of knowing that. In any event it ignores the fact that it would take lifespans beyond the age limit of our universe for life to have evolved as it did according to your blind theory of some fairy-tale Chance made everything come about by accident.

This is statistical fact. But again, I am not here to argue. You have have your beliefs. They are respected. The OP was to state the difference between Creationism and Creation. Not to start a debate or argument.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Thank you for acknowledging the difference. That is all I wanted to get across. Not all acknowledge this understanding.

a reply to: iSomeone
Well if all you want is to confirm is that belief in creation and creationism (in the common understanding of the term) are different I think most people can easily acknowledge this. However when you the try and refute evolution by talking about creation there is a small logo fail as (takes deep breath) EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE GOT MADE OR HOW LIFE BEGAN.
Apologies for the caps but people keep missing that part.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is statistical fact.

Then cite a scientific source for this claim.

But again, I am not here to argue.

Ah, the old "hit n run". Make a bunch of baseless claims then retreat when challenged to back them up with evidence.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There's no way of knowing that. In any event it ignores the fact that it would take lifespans beyond the age limit of our universe for life to have evolved as it did according to your blind theory of some fairy-tale Chance made everything come about by accident.

This is statistical fact. But again, I am not here to argue. You have have your beliefs. They are respected. The OP was to state the difference between Creationism and Creation. Not to start a debate or argument.

That is not a statistical fact. That is just a made up assumption that has no baring on reality or statistical sampling. Saying it is fact or true doesn't necessarily make it so. Stop misrepresenting science with your bogus claims.

Creation or Creationism, it doesn't matter. God is an assumption that hasn't been proven yet. To interject god into science is to create confirmation bias which you clearly have since you are defaulting to standard YEC debunking fallacies to try to discredit evolution. You would know that these claims are bogus if you'd actually stop and study the science behind evolution. Heck you don't even have to believe it, but to put forth inaccuracies like they are truth is just ignorance at the least and straight up dishonesty at the most.

The only difference between creationism and creation or whatever is what family and its religious beliefs you were born into and indoctrinated/conditioned for. If you were born a muslim and believed that evolution wasn't true, I'd be having a conversation with you about how Allah created the universe, and you'd have the same amount of proof for that story. All religions around the world make assumptions about the divine with zero proof backing up their claims.

Always be leery of anything or one that tries to tell you that they have all the truths. They are probably lying.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I don't know the norse creation myth seems pretty well thought out. Humans as the sweaty underarm offerings of a frost giant. We have the science to proof this to be true!

the huge overarching problem with theism is that more often than not, god is a place holder for someones ignorance. context many times reveals god-belief to be a symptom of intellectual stagnance, a refusal to find an actual answer, and thats what stinks. my two cents. feel free to refute.

both evolution and creation had been monitored by scientists and all humans.

the evolution was seen in the mutations that lead to disease and ultimately death of species like the catalogue of diseases mutations at the national institutes of health website.

creation is seen by the intelligent design made by intelligent humans like dog breeds, inventions, Geneticsally modified foods or plants.
the difference between the two is evolution leads to death while creation prevent death caused by death-bound evolution (degradation). Humans managed to revive and rehabilitate species endangered. cloned extinct species back to life.
etc.

so it is very scientific to prove creation while it is unscientific to say evolution (beneficial mutation) had been seen or even seen happening.

final tally

there is no evolution macro or micro.

creation exist.
species including humans are being syncronised (monitored and fixed) by superior intelligent being.

the religions and prophets already mentioned that even though they had no scientific means.
unless if they were told directly by the creator himself.

a reply to: Starbucks

This post is an example of someone who doesn't know how science works and knows little about what it says and explains. It is positioned around a gross confirmation bias that denies reality while substituting his conditioned response of "god" into it to explain things he refuses to educate himself on even though he has the resources at his fingertips to do just that. I'd refute your points Starbucks, but it is more efficient to just refute the entire post. You are 100% wrong about your claims. I also know that you won't be able to prove me wrong because I've seen your posts in other threads, you use zero links to back up your ramblings and your credibility is close to zero if not at zero.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Starbucks

This post is an example of someone who doesn't know how science works and knows little about what it says and explains. It is positioned around a gross confirmation bias that denies reality while substituting his conditioned response of "god" into it to explain things he refuses to educate himself on even though he has the resources at his fingertips to do just that. I'd refute your points Starbucks, but it is more efficient to just refute the entire post. You are 100% wrong about your claims. I also know that you won't be able to prove me wrong because I've seen your posts in other threads, you use zero links to back up your ramblings and your credibility is close to zero if not at zero.

only evolutionists know how science works because they bought it.
or because it turned out science was a long forgotten member of your family and science confided to you his dislike of people you don't like. then in this case you are the spitting image of science, and all what we need to do to find out if we deviated from the straight line of science is to ask you!

a reply to: Starbucks

creation exist.
species including humans are being syncronised (monitored and fixed) by superior intelligent being.

could you please provide your proof of this claim? i want to see how science has verified such a statement as indisputable fact. include scientific documentation of this superior intelligent being, its nature and its origin, and its current whereabouts. also include scientific documentation of its interaction with our world and its inhabitants. also include scientific definition of the term "creation" in the context of this superior intelligent being. please and thank you.

originally posted by: Starbucks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Starbucks

This post is an example of someone who doesn't know how science works and knows little about what it says and explains. It is positioned around a gross confirmation bias that denies reality while substituting his conditioned response of "god" into it to explain things he refuses to educate himself on even though he has the resources at his fingertips to do just that. I'd refute your points Starbucks, but it is more efficient to just refute the entire post. You are 100% wrong about your claims. I also know that you won't be able to prove me wrong because I've seen your posts in other threads, you use zero links to back up your ramblings and your credibility is close to zero if not at zero.

only evolutionists know how science works because they bought it.
or because it turned out science was a long forgotten member of your family and science confided to you his dislike of people you don't like. then in this case you are the spitting image of science, and all what we need to do to find out if we deviated from the straight line of science is to ask you!

Yes evolutionists (whatever they are) bought science. That totally makes sense. Why didn't I think of that outstanding logic?

I'm not sure why you don't know why science works. It's well known that science uses the scientific method which I believe is taught in school as early as 4th grade. Did you fail 4th grade?

It is beyond outstanding the lengths you will go to deny reality all to get your book of fairy tales to be true.

a reply to: Starbucks

Remember to pass to your left, some of us would like a toot on the crazy stuff you've been huffing all evening.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Starbucks

creation exist.
species including humans are being syncronised (monitored and fixed) by superior intelligent being.

could you please provide your proof of this claim? i want to see how science has verified such a statement as indisputable fact. include scientific documentation of this superior intelligent being, its nature and its origin, and its current whereabouts. also include scientific documentation of its interaction with our world and its inhabitants. also include scientific definition of the term "creation" in the context of this superior intelligent being. please and thank you.

it has to be to prevent evolution to death. since we see all species are alive and well in spite of evolution towerds death can only explained by intelligent desighn which had already been seen and existant.

this is called deductive logic in science terms

a reply to: Starbucks

it has to be to prevent evolution to death. since we see all species are alive and well in spite of evolution towerds death can only explained by intelligent desighn which had already been seen and existant.

the number of species alive today are HEAVILY outweighed by the number that have gone extinct since the birth of life on this planet. and more species are lost with every hour that passes. thousands of endangered lifeforms will be extinct by this time tomorrow. evolution does not guarantee survival. you would know that if you did your research.

thanks krazy. not sure it will do any good though.

a reply to: TzarChasm

99% of all species on the planet have gone extinct

Does that help?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Starbucks

it has to be to prevent evolution to death. since we see all species are alive and well in spite of evolution towerds death can only explained by intelligent desighn which had already been seen and existant.

the number of species alive today are HEAVILY outweighed by the number that have gone extinct since the birth of life on this planet. and more species are lost with every hour that passes. thousands of endangered lifeforms will be extinct by this time tomorrow. evolution does not guarantee survival. you would know that if you did your research.

thanks krazy. not sure it will do any good though.

and three thousand new species are added every day in recent years out of a sudden after scientists categorized all species 70 years ago. does not sound like evolution, but creation

originally posted by: Starbucks

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Starbucks

it has to be to prevent evolution to death. since we see all species are alive and well in spite of evolution towerds death can only explained by intelligent desighn which had already been seen and existant.

the number of species alive today are HEAVILY outweighed by the number that have gone extinct since the birth of life on this planet. and more species are lost with every hour that passes. thousands of endangered lifeforms will be extinct by this time tomorrow. evolution does not guarantee survival. you would know that if you did your research.

thanks krazy. not sure it will do any good though.

and three thousand new species are added every day in recent years out of a sudden after scientists categorized all species 70 years ago. does not sound like evolution, but creation

are you suggesting that these organisms are popping out of thin air? again, please define "creation". are we talking about the magical process wherein a species is supernaturally manifested from a pile of nothing whatsoever? or evolution as viewed through a theology-tinted lens?

a reply to: iSomeone

Baptism does symbolize immersion into the water of life. This is every human's chance to repent. We are here now, baptized into the flood of Noah as beasts in an ark.

1 Peter 3

19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

In Peter's own words, baptism symbolizes what it means to be born again. Jesus said it in John 3. You MUST be born again. He was the firstfruits of those who rise form the dead. He made proclamation to them in the pit, then brought them out again on dry land in the waters of life. Baptism symbolizes this. We symbolize this when we are baptized in church, but the fact of the symbol is our on involution and evolution in the material world.

Read my linked thread on the letters and words of creation.