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

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Incorrect. We are discussing a specific term that you have misused. It is key to this thread. Ussher wrote about the creation of this world, but he didn't use the term "creationism" or "creationist".

 

[firedragon]

Incorrect. We are discussing a specific term that you have misused. It is key to this thread. Ussher wrote about the creation of this world, but he didn't use the term "creationism" or "creationist".

So creationism is defined by only those who use the term creationism in English, not in any other language, and not in length explanation or books but the one single English word should be used. Am I correct?

 

[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 "creationists" the first time ever? Please enlighten.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So creationism is defined by only those who use the term creationism in English, not in any other language, and not in length explanation or books but the one single English word should be used. Am I correct?

Correct. It is an English term. It has a specific meaning. The term "creation" is more general. Surely there are similar terms in Arabic where a word has a meaning derived from its root word, but is more.specific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. so a British phenomenon. If you like.

So who do you think in England used this word "creationists" the first time ever? Please enlighten.

Because the history of the usage of words is studied in English. When words first appear is often known.

I provided a link that gave the date. Dictionaries often do that.

 

[firedragon]

Correct. It is an English term. It has a specific meaning. The term "creation" is more general. Surely there are similar terms in Arabic where a word has a meaning derived from its root word, but is more.specific.

See, when you dont understand a language, dont make assumptions about it.

Anyway, Okay. so a British phenomenon. If you like.

So who do you think in England used this word creationist the first time ever? Enlighten please. Just asking since you made that claim for the third time. I am interested to know who it is.

 

[firedragon]

Because the history of the usage of words is studied in English. When words first appear is often known.

I provided a link that gave the date. Dictionaries often do that.

Yeah. But who was it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah. But who was it?

I am not sure. Does it matter?

 

[firedragon]

Because the history of the usage of words is studied in English. When words first appear is often known.

I provided a link that gave the date. Dictionaries often do that.

But who was it in England? Why are you avoiding that simple question? You dont know who?

 

[firedragon]

I am not sure. Does it matter?

Okay. So you are not sure. Nevermind. At least you were honest.

So tell me. How did you say that it was in England the term "creationist" was first used? Since you dont know by whom, why?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So each thinks the other is a dishonest liar telling lies.

That is a very ancient problem. The Stoics talk about it. I'm sure other philosophers talk about it.

On RF its actually a rule when it comes to other posters not to accuse them of malice, stupidity or misinformation. This is purely a matter of practicality. Staff will often consider it breaking rule 1 if one poster is claiming the other is dishonest. Sometimes not, but its rare. Its too much work figuring out who is actually trying to lie and who thinks they are being honest, so to keep conversation going we just suggest everybody play nice and ignore anyone that they think is a troll or a liar, aside from reporting their posts. Usually lying is not against the rules but calling someone out on it is very often against the rules. The exception is if its someone not in the forum, such as a public figure. "Michael Landon is a lying hair bush." is not breaking rule 1, provided nobody is signed up as Michael Landon or close family. As soon as Michael, himself or his son etc, makes an account he gets treated as a non public person. That's my understanding of things. So then we stop telling either truths or lies about him, since he's a member and represents himself.

Creationists and 'Creation scientists' start from the assumption of creation and from there look for clues as to how it may have happened. Its purely philosophical, not scientific, to pursue investigations based upon unalterable assumptions about something. Hence they are not pure scientists. They are philosophers with an engineering bent to prove something. They are like Alchemists who proceed on the assumption that plumbum can be made into gold in spite of no indication of that being true, so they are philosophical engineers not scientists.

Science requires pairing down assumptions to the minimum and only investigating what evidence suggests. This places most philosophical positions outside of its scope. Pursuit based on mere philosophical axioms is opposed to and by the scientific movement. Its not scientific to begin with a premise such as "We need to prove that liberals are not as smart as conservatives, so how can we do so?" or vice versa. Creationism, which I think was formulated against Evolution as a scarecrow to scare Christians and to keep them cowed by ministries, sometimes claims to be a science called 'Creation Science'. Its a philosophical position though, not a scientific one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But who was it in England? Why are you avoiding that simple question? You dont know who?

I answered. Please, no false accusations. I am not the one that avoids answering simple questions here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. So you are not sure. Nevermind. At least you were honest.

So tell me. How did you say that it was in England the term "creationist" was first used? Since you dont know by whom, why?

At that time England was the center of scientific advancement. The theory of evolution was formed by an Englishman.

 

[firedragon]

I answered. Please, no false accusations. I am not the one that avoids answering simple questions here.

No no please. You claimed that the word creationism was first used in England. If you want let me quote your post so that you just dont claim "false accusation".

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

So dont worry. Just give an indication why you said that. you dont know who said it. Thats fine. But there has to be a reason you said that. So why?

 

[firedragon]

At that time England was the center of scientific advancement. The theory of evolution was formed by an Englishman.

The theory of evolution is millenniums old. So I think you should use your terms better. Formed? How could you form something that already was formed before?

These are not specific answers. But still fine. What you are saying is that you assume the creationist word was first developed in England. Am I correct? You are not sure, you are making an assumption based on deduction. Right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No no please. You claimed that the word creationism was first used in England. If you want let me quote your post so that you just dont claim "false accusation".



So dont worry. Just give an indication why you said that. you dont know who said it. Thats fine. But there has to be a reason you said that. So why?

No, I gave a qualifier. You missed the word " appears ".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of evolution is millenniums old. So I think you should use your terms better. Formed? How could you form something that already was formed before?

These are not specific answers. But still fine. What you are saying is that you assume the creationist word was first developed in England. Am I correct? You are not sure, you are making an assumption based on deduction. Right?

No, it is not. Again you are misusing terminology. The theory of evolution began with Darwin. The concept is much older than that. Concepts are not theories.

And accusing someone of making an assumption puts a burden of proof upon the accuser. I did not "assume". I already linked several articles on the origin of the term. An assumption cannot be based upon a deduction. Deductions are based upon evidence, assumptions are not. It is a bit of a personal attack to say that someone assumed something.

 

[firedragon]

No, it is not. Again you are misusing terminology. The theory of evolution began with Darwin. The concept is much older than that. Concepts are not theories.

Again, before Darwin, it was also called the mohammedan theory. But well, if you want to you could hold on to Darwin.

And accusing someone of making an assumption puts a burden of proof upon the accuser. I did not "assume". I already linked several articles on the origin of the term. An assumption cannot be based upon a deduction. Deductions are based upon evidence, assumptions are not. It is a bit of a personal attack to say that someone assumed something.

Okay. Then please tell me who used it first time in history in England.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, before Darwin, it was also called the mohammedan theory. But well, if you want to you could hold on to Darwin.



Okay. Then please tell me who used it first time in history in England.

One person used that term. But the concept of a theory has a different meaning today.

Tell me, what test existed that could have refuted "mohammedan theory"? If there was no such test then it was not a theory.

As to who first used " creationist" go back and read the links that I provided.

 

[firedragon]

As to who first used " creationist" go back and read the links that I provided.

I did. It doesnt answer the question.

You said you are not sure. Now are you retracting that and saying that you are?