Creationism: Is it New? Are creationists by default dishonest& ignorant in basic science?

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think that?

This has been explained to you countless times. Why should I try again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

no, God didn't lie.

I don't understand "God magic" - do you mean miracles?

The problem is either there was no flood or God lied. The evidence against the flood is endless. The world has a history written in its geology. If it is a false history then you are claiming that God lied.

And yes, miracles are "God magic".

 

[firedragon]

Oh try again. I did not say send a picture. This sort of obfuscation indicates that you know that you are wrong. It appears that you made an error in transliteration. This site might do the trick or it might work backwards:

Arabic Keyboard ™ لوحة المفاتيح العربية

ثورة سورية على بشار الاسد

Check with someone who knows the language. If you think I am your paid maid to do your bidding you are sadly mistaken.

Do some research.

Have a blast.

 

[firedragon]

This has been explained to you countless times. Why should I try again?

Why not?

 

[thomas t]

The problem is either there was no flood or God lied. The evidence against the flood is endless.

I think, there was a flood and the evidence just needs to be reinterpreted. No lie.
In my view, the evidence as you see it, could equally well point to God tidying up the place after the flood happened.
It's just a matter of reinterpretation, no need to shout lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Check with someone who knows the language. If you think I am your paid maid to do your bidding you are sadly mistaken.

Do some research.

Have a blast.

You have made claims. That puts a burden of proof upon you. You have never supported them. By the way, if you do not support your claims even the weakest source refutes them. Demanding that you support your claims is not asking you to be a "paid maid".


And running away from one's responsibility to support one's claims is the same as admitting that one is wrong. I have supported my claims about creationism with links. More than one. You . . . not so much.

 

[firedragon]

You have made claims. That puts a burden of proof upon you. You have never supported them. By the way, if you do not support your claims even the weakest source refutes them. Demanding that you support your claims is not asking you to be a "paid maid".


And running away from one's responsibility to support one's claims is the same as admitting that one is wrong. I have supported my claims about creationism with links. More than one. You . . . not so much.

You should know that what you are referring to as creationism is a new definition that you like to use where some creationists in the 20th century, especially after the 60s who made up a whole new wave of campaigning against evolution because of a circular Van Der kamp sent on the geo centric theory to some number of Christian Institutions and many others followed suit. Its a silly theory even according to much older observable evidence but this triggered another wave of these so called new creationist movements that was waving their red flag against evolution and even simple things like Heliocentrism. But this is a new phenomena and this where you are getting this idea of creationism being anti evolutionary, and that God created every single thing, one at a time, at different intervals in time, and that the earth is half a millennium old.

This is not the creationism of other worlds. This is an American phenomena. America is not the whole world. So come out of your bubble and understand the rest of the world and its history.

In the 17th century James Ussher wrote on creationism and he wrote in English. Not arabic or Swahili. And it was not written as a campaign against evolution where as you have this perception that "creationism arose as a campaign against evolution". Thats the wrong perception. In the United States during Darwins emergence very few people were conceptualising evolution though Darwins own grand father was an evolutionary biologist of his own rite. So during that time everyone took up evolution in the U.S, but that does not mean evolution as a science did not exist elsewhere. It existed for a millennium which most of these people who speak of a new creationism never knew. Their whole world and the whole universe is the United States and its history. Thats it. Its too shallow and too narrow. You should come out of it. Also with so many people writing in English before Darwin on creationism at different levels prove that even your theory that "the English term creationism was invented as a response to evolution" is absolutely false.

What actually took place was that in the United States after Darwin, creationism almost vanished but did not die completely. But that defeat was unbearable for dogmatic Christian movements throughout and the revival of the creationist movement came up with new arguments against Heliocentrism and evolution, so you think that "this is it. This is creationism".

No way. Thats too shallow and is good for TV education.

It was in the late 1900's when the evolution debate became a public affair that Christians got their shock of a lifetime in the U.S. So all kinds of people started writing books against evolution. They were well funded as well. This, is not the definition of creationism. That is your anecdotal view of it.

Creationism is a general term, with some people like these new earth propagators and the geo centric theory proponents along with the atheists who refute them adopting varying definitions to suit their needs and paths. That does not mean we in this modern day and age need to be constricted by that level of shallow exploration.

Peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think, there was a flood and the evidence just needs to be reinterpreted. No lie.
In my view, the evidence as you see it, could equally well point to God tidying up the place after the flood happened.
It's just a matter of reinterpretation, no need to shout lie.

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for a flood. There is all sorts of evidence that tells us that it did not happen. It is not a matter of "interpreting" the evidence. There are rules of evidence and creationists do not seem to be able to follow them.

To even have evidence on must have a reasonable test to show if one was wrong in one's claims. If that is not part of one's hypothesis all that one has is an ad hoc argument, and those are worthless. In your mind what reasonable test would show your beliefs to be wrong?

Oh, and you did not tell us when the God magic ended.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should know that what you are referring to as creationism is a new definition that you like to use where some creationists in the 20th century, especially after the 60s who made up a whole new wave of campaigning against evolution because of a circular Van Der kamp sent on the geo centric theory to some number of Christian Institutions and many others followed suit. Its a silly theory even according to much older observable evidence but this triggered another wave of these so called new creationist movements that was waving their red flag against evolution and even simple things like Heliocentrism. But this is a new phenomena and this where you are getting this idea of creationism being anti evolutionary, and that God created every single thing, one at a time, at different intervals in time, and that the earth is half a millennium old.

This is not the creationism of other worlds. This is an American phenomena. America is not the whole world. So come out of your bubble and understand the rest of the world and its history.

In the 17th century James Ussher wrote on creationism and he wrote in English. Not arabic or Swahili. And it was not written as a campaign against evolution where as you have this perception that "creationism arose as a campaign against evolution". Thats the wrong perception. In the United States during Darwins emergence very few people were conceptualising evolution though Darwins own grand father was an evolutionary biologist of his own rite. So during that time everyone took up evolution in the U.S, but that does not mean evolution as a science did not exist elsewhere. It existed for a millennium which most of these people who speak of a new creationism never knew. Their whole world and the whole universe is the United States and its history. Thats it. Its too shallow and too narrow. You should come out of it. Also with so many people writing in English before Darwin on creationism at different levels prove that even your theory that "the English term creationism was invented as a response to evolution" is absolutely false.

What actually took place was that in the United States after Darwin, creationism almost vanished but did not die completely. But that defeat was unbearable for dogmatic Christian movements throughout and the revival of the creationist movement came up with new arguments against Heliocentrism and evolution, so you think that "this is it. This is creationism".

No way. Thats too shallow and is good for TV education.

It was in the late 1900's when the evolution debate became a public affair that Christians got their shock of a lifetime in the U.S. So all kinds of people started writing books against evolution. They were well funded as well. This, is not the definition of creationism. That is your anecdotal view of it.

Creationism is a general term, with some people like these new earth propagators and the geo centric theory proponents along with the atheists who refute them adopting varying definitions to suit their needs and paths. That does not mean we in this modern day and age need to be constricted by that level of shallow exploration.

Peace.

No, it is not a "new definition". The word was not even used before that. In fact it was first used in the 1840's to 1850's:


Definition of creationism | Dictionary.com

A similar word in another language does not mean that it is the same word at all.

And no, Ussher wrote about the creation event. He did not write about "creationism". If you want to claim that you need to find a quote and a link to a valid source.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are right. Only thing is, it is not "common" like you said to refer it to YEC's and what not that's going on in the U.S for some time, that's common to your vicinity, not to the whole world. But you made a fair assessment.

I very much disagree that it's not the common usage of the term.

Dictionaries aren't actually meant to define the meaning of words. Instead, they are meant to list the meaning of words as they are being used at any given time.
So a word may change meaning over time.

When we look up the word creationist in the dictionary today, we'll see something like this:

The two first definitions, both are in explicit opposition to evolution. The third one doesn't have an explicit opposition, but it certainly can be argued that one can interpret it in such a way that it is in opposition to it.


As dictionaries define words according to their most common usage, and not according to their original etymology, this underlines my point that the common usage of the term, is exactly that: to distinct someone as being an evolution denier who instead believes that a deity created all species. And in most cases, that deity will be the christian god specifically.

 

[thomas t]

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for a flood.

(I'm not a geologist...) if it's as you say... then God cleaned up the place really really well.
So the facts that you count... I could take as evidence for an orderly God having created earth #2 neatly.

There is all sorts of evidence that tells us that it did not happen.

if something is a new creation... it's questionable if you could find evidence for what happened in the old version of it at all.
If you rebuild a building... will you find evidence of the old one to begin with? Not necessarily.
Same thing here.

God still performs miracles I believe, today. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow I believe.

I don't accept a test for my beliefs to be wrong. Yet I personally don't consider them useless. They belong to me as a person.

 

[firedragon]

I very much disagree that it's not the common usage of the term.

Dictionaries aren't actually meant to define the meaning of words. Instead, they are meant to list the meaning of words as they are being used at any given time.
So a word may change meaning over time.

When we look up the word creationist in the dictionary today, we'll see something like this:

View attachment 44635

Since this has already come to pass, I will cut and paste.

The two first definitions, both are in explicit opposition to evolution. The third one doesn't have an explicit opposition, but it certainly can be argued that one can interpret it in such a way that it is in opposition to it.

As dictionaries define words according to their most common usage, and not according to their original etymology, this underlines my point that the common usage of the term, is exactly that: to distinct someone as being an evolution denier who instead believes that a deity created all species. And in most cases, that deity will be the christian god specifically.

You should know that what you are referring to as creationism is a new definition that you like to use where some creationists in the 20th century, especially after the 60s who made up a whole new wave of campaigning against evolution because of a circular Van Der kamp sent on the geo centric theory to some number of Christian Institutions and many others followed suit. Its a silly theory even according to much older observable evidence but this triggered another wave of these so called new creationist movements that was waving their red flag against evolution and even simple things like Heliocentrism. But this is a new phenomena and this where you are getting this idea of creationism being anti evolutionary, and that God created every single thing, one at a time, at different intervals in time, and that the earth is half a millennium old.

This is not the creationism of other worlds. This is an American phenomena. America is not the whole world. So come out of your bubble and understand the rest of the world and its history.

In the 17th century James Ussher wrote on creationism and he wrote in English. Not arabic or Swahili. And it was not written as a campaign against evolution where as you have this perception that "creationism arose as a campaign against evolution". Thats the wrong perception. In the United States during Darwins emergence very few people were conceptualising evolution though Darwins own grand father was an evolutionary biologist of his own rite. So during that time everyone took up evolution in the U.S, but that does not mean evolution as a science did not exist elsewhere. It existed for a millennium which most of these people who speak of a new creationism never knew. Their whole world and the whole universe is the United States and its history. Thats it. Its too shallow and too narrow. You should come out of it. Also with so many people writing in English before Darwin on creationism at different levels prove that even your theory that "the English term creationism was invented as a response to evolution" is absolutely false.

What actually took place was that in the United States after Darwin, creationism almost vanished but did not die completely. But that defeat was unbearable for dogmatic Christian movements throughout and the revival of the creationist movement came up with new arguments against Heliocentrism and evolution, so you think that "this is it. This is creationism".

No way. Thats too shallow and is good for TV education.

It was in the late 1900's when the evolution debate became a public affair that Christians got their shock of a lifetime in the U.S. So all kinds of people started writing books against evolution. They were well funded as well. This, is not the definition of creationism. That is your anecdotal view of it.

Creationism is a general term, with some people like these new earth propagators and the geo centric theory proponents along with the atheists who refute them adopting varying definitions to suit their needs and paths. That does not mean we in this modern day and age need to be constricted by that level of shallow exploration.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

No, it is not a "new definition". The word was not even used before that. In fact it was first used in the 1840's to 1850's:


Definition of creationism | Dictionary.com

A similar word in another language does not mean that it is the same word at all.

And no, Ussher wrote about the creation event. He did not write about "creationism". If you want to claim that you need to find a quote and a link to a valid source.

Ussher wrote on creationism, and was a creationist. Read his book annals. Not look for a word. Its pathetic.

 

[firedragon]

And no, Ussher wrote about the creation event. He did not write about "creationism".

Did you just pretend you have read it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ussher wrote on creationism, and was a creationist. Read his book annals. Not look for a word. Its pathetic.

You made the claim. You need to support it. I already posted a link that refutes your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you just pretend you have read it?

Nope. There is no need for me to do so. Didn't you check my latest link?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should know that what you are referring to as creationism is a new definition that you like to use where some creationists in the 20th century, especially after the 60s who made up a whole new wave of campaigning against evolution because of a circular Van Der kamp sent on the geo centric theory to some number of Christian Institutions and many others followed suit. Its a silly theory even according to much older observable evidence but this triggered another wave of these so called new creationist movements that was waving their red flag against evolution and even simple things like Heliocentrism. But this is a new phenomena and this where you are getting this idea of creationism being anti evolutionary, and that God created every single thing, one at a time, at different intervals in time, and that the earth is half a millennium old.

This is not the creationism of other worlds. This is an American phenomena. America is not the whole world. So come out of your bubble and understand the rest of the world and its history.

In the 17th century James Ussher wrote on creationism and he wrote in English. Not arabic or Swahili. And it was not written as a campaign against evolution where as you have this perception that "creationism arose as a campaign against evolution". Thats the wrong perception. In the United States during Darwins emergence very few people were conceptualising evolution though Darwins own grand father was an evolutionary biologist of his own rite. So during that time everyone took up evolution in the U.S, but that does not mean evolution as a science did not exist elsewhere. It existed for a millennium which most of these people who speak of a new creationism never knew. Their whole world and the whole universe is the United States and its history. Thats it. Its too shallow and too narrow. You should come out of it. Also with so many people writing in English before Darwin on creationism at different levels prove that even your theory that "the English term creationism was invented as a response to evolution" is absolutely false.

What actually took place was that in the United States after Darwin, creationism almost vanished but did not die completely. But that defeat was unbearable for dogmatic Christian movements throughout and the revival of the creationist movement came up with new arguments against Heliocentrism and evolution, so you think that "this is it. This is creationism".

No way. Thats too shallow and is good for TV education.

It was in the late 1900's when the evolution debate became a public affair that Christians got their shock of a lifetime in the U.S. So all kinds of people started writing books against evolution. They were well funded as well. This, is not the definition of creationism. That is your anecdotal view of it.

Creationism is a general term, with some people like these new earth propagators and the geo centric theory proponents along with the atheists who refute them adopting varying definitions to suit their needs and paths. That does not mean we in this modern day and age need to be constricted by that level of shallow exploration.

Peace.

Nope, not an American phenomenon. It became strongest here, but it appears that the term first arose in England.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, not an American phenomenon. It became strongest here, but it appears that the term first arose in England.

Okay. so a British phenomenon. If you like.

So who do you think in England used this word the first time ever? Interesting.

 

[firedragon]

Nope. There is no need for me to do so. Didn't you check my latest link?

But you didnt read the book but you said what it contains?

 

[firedragon]

You made the claim. You need to support it. I already posted a link that refutes your claim.

A link to a dictionary is not good analysis. You have to study the subject.

But see, you dont read a book, but you talk about it. How? Doesnt that book speak of a creationists point of view throughout?

 

[Subduction Zone]

(I'm not a geologist...) if it's as you say... then God cleaned up the place really really well.
So the facts that you count... I could take as evidence for an orderly God having created earth #2 neatly.

The problem is that he did far more than that. He planted a false history according to your beliefs. In other words you are claiming that God is a liar.

if something is a new creation... it's questionable if you could find evidence for what happened in the old version of it at all.
If you rebuild a building... will you find evidence of the old one to begin with? Not necessarily.
Same thing here.

God still performs miracles I believe, today. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow I believe.

I don't accept a test for my beliefs to be wrong. Yet I personally don't consider them useless. They belong to me as a person.

If you do not accept such a test then by definition you have no evidence.