What does creationism mean to you?

reply to post by Kayzar

And where does this come from?

From the fact that before Darwin there was no scientific theory competing with Creation myths in Darwin's day until he published The Origin of Species. It would be entirely meaningless to call yourself a Creationist BEFORE Darwin, it wouldn't happen.

So you are now in charge of writting the rules of what creationists are and are not allowed to believe in? lol @ the irony of using the intelligent design of dog breeds as an example of evolution.

When did I ever say that I was "in charge" of writing the rules? These criteria just happen to fit nearly all Creationists and indeed fit 100% of Creationists I've ever interacted with. If you think you can find a Creationist who doesn't fit these guidelines than by all means but I certainly have never come across one or even heard of one. Also, guided evolution is STILL evolution, evolution would need to work independent of that guidance in order to be guided.

You should really write a thread about all this, because there are many creationists here that really need someone like you to lay down the law of what they are allowed to think and what not.

This thread is already about personal opinions on Creationism. I don't need to do that thread because Creationists already fit within the criteria I set out without any guidance from me.

YOU were deceuved because YOU are easily persuaded, get over it.

All creationists are.

We know that Creation is a myth, we know that Evolution happens, the only way that someone can believe in Creationism is if they are lied to. And for the record it wasn't because I was "easily persuaded" it was because I was a CHILD when this stuff started getting drilled into my head and it carried on into my teens because I never bothered to look at the actual evidence for Evolution. In order to have any sort of case against Evolution Creationists must lie and be deceptive.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

From the fact that before Darwin there was no scientific theory competing with Creation myths in Darwin's day until he published The Origin of Species. It would be entirely meaningless to call yourself a Creationist BEFORE Darwin, it wouldn't happen.

Wrong,
Immanuel Kant believed in a common ancestor before darwin
Carolus Linnaeus believed that new species could be created
Erasmus Darwin believed in a common ancestor
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had a different version of evolution
Most scientific theories come from earlier ones the theory of relativity did not come out of no where science builds upon science, it evolves. Charles darwin was not the first one with this line of thinking.

reply to post by Kayzar


But he was the first one to present credible evidence!! Before him, all reasoning was based on either philosophy or pure speculation...

It means there is order and intelligent design in what makes up the building blocks of our existence. It didn't all come together by chance.

Originally posted by Chrysalis
reply to post by TheWill

 

Well, I'm sorry, but that's the way it goes.
For example, if you look at a US success : UFC. There, you have two fighters that are about to beat the crap out of each other. And Jesus is on both sides, they seem genuinly convinced that they've received a special ointment of some sorts.
After the fight, they're both bloodied, but they still both thank the lord for whatever they just did that they feel is deserving.
I don't even wanna know on which side do you think God is. It just doesn't make sense.
Creationismis a mad invention, by mad men, because it takes the spiritual out of the intimate, inner sphere to put it out in the open like a salesman would sell his brand new washing machine.

edit on 8-1-2011 by Chrysalis because: (no reason given)

Seems you do not research what to speak against, God would never justify either one for their exploits.

As for your other post it was creation that was always taught until the more recent Like president Eisenhower is one who put the most of tax payers money into the faith based belief the theory of evolution.
This shows to me that like most they parrot the sayings that the government wants them to as they were trained in a governmental indoctrination center (public school) .

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38

Originally posted by Chrysalis
reply to post by TheWill

 

Well, I'm sorry, but that's the way it goes.
For example, if you look at a US success : UFC. There, you have two fighters that are about to beat the crap out of each other. And Jesus is on both sides, they seem genuinly convinced that they've received a special ointment of some sorts.
After the fight, they're both bloodied, but they still both thank the lord for whatever they just did that they feel is deserving.
I don't even wanna know on which side do you think God is. It just doesn't make sense.
Creationismis a mad invention, by mad men, because it takes the spiritual out of the intimate, inner sphere to put it out in the open like a salesman would sell his brand new washing machine.

edit on 8-1-2011 by Chrysalis because: (no reason given)

Seems you do not research what to speak against, God would never justify either one for their exploits.

And of course you know god's will/plan, and what he would or would not do

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


I think he was saying that people on both sides CLAIM that god is on their side, not that god actually is taking sides.

Anyway, seeing as you are in this thread, and by your sub-title a creationist, how would you define creationist beliefs?



PS - Creation scientist is an oxymoron. A true scientist is neutral in matters where evidence is lacking.

reply to post by shasta9600


Huh, interesting. From the vagaries, it sounds like your definition of a creationist is pretty much my non-creationist theist - one that firmly believes that all is intended, but does not reject evidence. Is this a correct interpretation of your definition?

Starred for being one of the few (well, growing number, now) who answered the question.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Kayzar

 

But he was the first one to present credible evidence!! Before him, all reasoning was based on either philosophy or pure speculation...

wrong again
Patrick Matthew wrote about the mechanics of natural selection as evolution before darwin. Natural selection does not require credible evidence as it is more based on common sense than anything else.
Philosophie Zoologique- A book about the very subject written before darwin.
Carolus Linnaeus' whole concept of evolution came about by the hybridization of plants, in other words changing a species over time.
Erasmus Darwin developed a theory of sexual selection much like the way natural selection was come up with. Your line of reasoning is flawed it would be like me saying that "Video Killed the Radio Star" by The Buggles was the first music video ever made because it was the first one put on MTV.

Misinformative post, I went and checked up on Linnaeus, turned out my memory had mixed up the timelines.

Never mind.

reply to post by Kayzar


The keyword here is SCIENTIFIC. While the idea of common ancestry did exist they didn't have the evidence to back it up quite yet and it certainly wasn't a prevalent SCIENTIFIC theory. The idea may have existed but it wasn't until Darwin that Evolution was a scientifically viable and tenable theory.

If creationism refers to the unknown force that caused the big bang, then I can see how it has some value.

If it means that a god made things pop out of nowhere, then that's just silly.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Kayzar

 

The keyword here is SCIENTIFIC. While the idea of common ancestry did exist they didn't have the evidence to back it up quite yet and it certainly wasn't a prevalent SCIENTIFIC theory. The idea may have existed but it wasn't until Darwin that Evolution was a scientifically viable and tenable theory.

Sure whatever you say.
Steve Owen (before darwins evolution) - Through his studdies came up with the term homology
Patrick Matthew (before darwins evolution) - Accused Darwin of stealing his concept of Natural Selection which was founded by his work with trees and selecting which ones would be the best to use the offspring of, which led to the theory of natural selection in Nature
I could go on naming more scientist but for you to call their studdies unscientific just displays your ignorance on the subject. Darwin like nearly all scientists before him used the works of others to create their own. Just because a piece of work is not 100% accurate does not mean that it is unscientific. Your insistance that every pre-evolution theory was wild guesses only shows you lack of knowledge of the theory its self, its history and a general non-comprehension of how science works.

reply to post by Kayzar

Your insistance that every pre-evolution theory was wild guesses only shows you lack of knowledge of the theory its self, its history and a general non-comprehension of how science works.

I never said they were only "wild guesses", please do not put words into my mouth. The point is that the idea did not gain any traction until Darwin, there were those that had bits and pieces of it, ideas and evidences that were on the right track, but Darwin was the catalyst that made it a serious theory and sparked the controversy that ended up creating Creationists. When was the last time you heard a Creationist say anything about the scientists who had similar ideas to Darwin? When was the last time you heard an angry creationist tirade against Gregor Mendel's discoveries? In order to be a Creationist you have to reject Evolution and before The Origin of Species there was no good solid scientific evidence that was worth rejecting. None of the older ideas gained scientific prevalence or consensus and even Darwin's idea didn't gain consensus until much later.

The entire point of this is that one cannot be a Creationist pre-Darwin.

You know what, here, let's finish this pointless discussion once and for all. I looked up the word Creationism and searched for the etymology of the word.

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.

The etymology of the word traces back to Darwin's day and while originally it referred to souls but from 1880 on it was used primarily in regards to Darwin.

Source