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

[Goddess Kit]

Theists be like cats: *sitting there nonchalantly*

Meow: "You got it all wrong"

 

[thomas t]

He planted a false history according to your beliefs. In other words you are claiming that God is a liar.

no he did not and he isn't a liar, I think.

The problem is that he did far more than that.

I gave you an example how to reinterpret the neatly arranged fossiles that you perceive in the layers of the ground.

If you still come up with your accusation... the onus is on you to bring something to the table to back you assertion up. If you can't or you won't, I consider your post as mere presumption.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Christians are as good at reinterpreting as my friend is at understanding what I am attempting to convey through a meow.

 

[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".

You know something? With this definition, Charles Darwin was not talking about "evolution" in his book Origin of species when he compiled it in 1859.

So are you saying that Charles Darwin did not write about evolution in the book? Try and answer that objectively.

 

[firedragon]

Christians are as good at reinterpreting as my friend is at understanding what I am attempting to convey through a meow.

I am still waiting to see a Christian make general comments about atheists like you have about Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. It doesnt answer the question.

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

I am not absolutely sure, but the indication was there. Context helps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no he did not and he isn't a liar, I think.

Then you are back to saying there was no flood.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP

I gave you an example how to reinterpret the neatly arranged fossiles that you perceive in the layers of the ground.

If you still come up with your accusation... the onus is on you to bring something to the table to back you assertion up. If you can't or you won't, I consider your post as mere presumption.

That was an ad hoc explanation. It was wrong. Geology tells us a coherent story, and there was no flood. You need to learn the basics of science, evidence, etc. I would be glad to help.

Once again to even have evidence one must have a testable concept. If one is too afraid to put one's ideas to the test it is tantamount to admitting that one's ideas are wrong. Scientists have to put their ideas to the test. It is how we advance in this world.

EDIT: I just checked the thread and could find no such explanation. And as you admitted, you have no evidence for your non existent explanation.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

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.

Calling people names with negative associations, or in a hostile way, is an almost sure way to aggravate people and instigate conflict, fights, retribution, and all sorts of hostility. I think that those sorts of activities definitely make an experience or an environment where they are thrown around and anyone can get "hit" by one of them or "shot" at any moment, makes for a lot of stress, a lot of nastiness. I think the RF rules appear to be good, and the work the moderators and administration is doing has kept the people really decent in comparison to other mismanaged forums I have been to.

I personally, most likely, rarely ever think about things which are very unpleasant, but I do believe that people logically harbor negative thoughts and ideas about others that differ from them in even the most petty and pointless ways, but often don't admit this to themselves or pursue it in their minds much, so that it just remains in their subconscious and does not get revealed except through passive hostility, which is even more puzzling for many people to experience, as it seems to come out of nowhere and people wonder "what did I do?".

Some of my, sort of baddish, activities and statements are intended at least to try to trigger people to face those things, perhaps their shadow or dark-side in Jungian sort of terms, so that they realize where their ideas might actually be poisonous, even for themselves, or more about their true natures and activities that they haven't even noticed are running in the background of their systems. The consequence of this "rogue amateur psychotherapy" is that it may trigger people facing parts of themselves they thought would be better off held back, besides also being potentially unethical (to present dialogue intended to get people who may fall for it to face their dark sides and worst thoughts and nature), but mainly it just makes me look bad. I practice this on myself to expose the "radical ends" of any sort of thoughts and statements by anyone, including my own, or those of the scriptures.

What one finds is that, like the Atheists claim, religions are certainly a great tool in suggesting to people causes to differ, causes to scoff, causes to hate, and while they may also provide certain relief and benefits, can be extremely negative in the way that they influence the thinking and behaviors, either passive or actively of people.

They are also quite frequently part of the background of some of the most disturbing and destructive conspiracy theories, doubts, paranoias, panics, and other things, and have been a thorn for humanity when organized efforts are made which are bolstered by religious interpretations to cause harm to other humans or the progress and benefit of human beings.

The organizations like the YEC, and then beyond them the Flat-Earthers and others, and those who reject and oppose medical care for themselves and their children, are quite frequently claiming backing by religions and religious interpretations of things, and work harm in the word, probably ultimately far more harm than might be caused by identifying their beliefs as unworthy of attention, illogical, destructive to progress and the success and health of the human race through science and technology.

In short, calling people "stupid" is without a doubt a way to get into a fight with them, and some things are potentially worth fighting and getting into fights about, but of course, not at the expense of messing up the peaceful and friendly nature of one of the very best forums on all the internet!

 

[firedragon]

I am not absolutely sure, but the indication was there. Context helps.

Whats the indication that creationism as a term was first used in England, after Darwin, as an opposition for evolution?

Please provide the "indication".

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Theists be like cats: *sitting there nonchalantly*

Meow: "You got it all wrong"

This is not meant to be offensive, and feel free to not answer if you don't want to, but how old are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whats the indication that creationism as a term was first used in England, after Darwin, as an opposition for evolution?

Please provide the "indication".

About: Creationism

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Then you are back to saying there was no flood.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP



That was an ad hoc explanation. It was wrong. Geology tells us a coherent story, and there was no flood. You need to learn the basics of science, evidence, etc. I would be glad to help.

Once again to even have evidence one must have a testable concept. If one is too afraid to put one's ideas to the test it is tantamount to admitting that one's ideas are wrong. Scientists have to put their ideas to the test. It is how we advance in this world.

EDIT: I just checked the thread and could find no such explanation. And as you admitted, you have no evidence for your non existent explanation.

Behold Subduction Zone, Messenger of the True God!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Behold Subduction Zone, Messenger of the True God!

LOL! Just having fun pointing out logical inconsistency.

 

[firedragon]

About: Creationism

Charles Darwin used the word Creationist addressing who? Let me tell you a tiny background. Darwin was writing a letter in 1863 and he inquires about a review of Augustin. In that he makes the statement about creationists.

So providing that link about Darwin, are you claiming that it was Darwin who created that word in England for the first time in history?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

LOL! Just having fun pointing out logical inconsistency.

I'm here for having fun and de-stressing as well and getting my mind stimulated or directed here and there by various little interesting statements and ideas. For example, simply the use of the word "dishonest" in the original post or something, set my mind on this whole journey about how we might not admit it but actually must think that people who say things we don't think are true are really dishonest! For me, that was pretty cool to think about and realize! It has nearly gotten me into a lot of trouble here as well as I try to work it out in text and digital slaps how it might be justified.

 

[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".

I presume you missed this post. So let me cut and paste for you to see.

You know something? With this definition, Charles Darwin was not talking about "evolution" in his book Origin of species when he compiled it in 1859.

So are you saying that Charles Darwin did not write about evolution in the book? Try and answer that objectively.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Some of my, sort of baddish, activities and statements are intended at least to try to trigger people to face those things, perhaps their shadow or dark-side in Jungian sort of terms, so that they realize where their ideas might actually be poisonous, even for themselves, or more about their true natures and activities that they haven't even noticed are running in the background of their systems. The consequence of this "rogue amateur psychotherapy" is that it may trigger people facing parts of themselves they thought would be better off held back, besides also being potentially unethical (to present dialogue intended to get people who may fall for it to face their dark sides and worst thoughts and nature), but mainly it just makes me look bad. I practice this on myself to expose the "radical ends" of any sort of thoughts and statements by anyone, including my own, or those of the scriptures.

I suspect you aren't the only one. Is it the same thing as 'Button pushing', perhaps? They have classes about that: how to push, how not to have one's buttons be pushed, how to know your own buttons. You'd probably enjoy reading about identity formation, which (according to the doctors) happens when people are very young up to their pre-teen years.

Calling people names with negative associations, or in a hostile way, is an almost sure way to aggravate people and instigate conflict, fights, retribution, and all sorts of hostility. I think that those sorts of activities definitely make an experience or an environment where they are thrown around and anyone can get "hit" by one of them or "shot" at any moment, makes for a lot of stress, a lot of nastiness. I think the RF rules appear to be good, and the work the moderators and administration is doing has kept the people really decent in comparison to other mismanaged forums I have been to.

Some people are tough and don't feel things heard right away and choose when to let something impact them. It all depends on the person and whether the words directly reach them or not. There are advantages and disadvantages to that, and there is not a particular solution which is superior in all situations. Sometimes it pays to feel the words, so yes to me its seems good if we're not constantly ducking from flying objects. On the other hand things can get very robotic if speech is entirely methodical and safe. Not everything works for everybody. It can feel unreal or maybe surreal.

What one finds is that, like the Atheists claim, religions are certainly a great tool in suggesting to people causes to differ, causes to scoff, causes to hate, and while they may also provide certain relief and benefits, can be extremely negative in the way that they influence the thinking and behaviors, either passive or actively of people.

I suspect that if the world were atheist then we'd still have divisions, but the thing is religion is supposed to end hate and heal division. Therein I think is the criticism.

They are also quite frequently part of the background of some of the most disturbing and destructive conspiracy theories, doubts, paranoias, panics, and other things, and have been a thorn for humanity when organized efforts are made which are bolstered by religious interpretations to cause harm to other humans or the progress and benefit of human beings.

LIke prognostication books about Revelation or that snake Isis trying to end the world by sucking all the Muslims into a war? That kind of thing? No, never heard of it. Don't know what you're talking about. Try next door. Best of luck!

The organizations like the YEC, and then beyond them the Flat-Earthers and others, and those who reject and oppose medical care for themselves and their children, are quite frequently claiming backing by religions and religious interpretations of things, and work harm in the word, probably ultimately far more harm than might be caused by identifying their beliefs as unworthy of attention, illogical, destructive to progress and the success and health of the human race through science and technology.

Yes, the religious excuses are shocking. This may also shock you but I once or twice met a very ignorant atheist who was quite opinionated. They were like Zorba the Greek but with no life experience. I think that as men age we get a little smarter and a little cooler headed, probably due to hormonal and brain chemistry changes. (Maybe women, do, too I've no idea.) The trick is to get people to be cool headed and wise when we are young, and that's difficult whether its an atheist or a religious kid. Some seem like they are born fighting and with fists on both feet no matter what. The YEC are sincerely, very religious. The flat Earthers I have never believed and think they are just trying to change the minds of the YEC. Maybe there could be a person who really believes in a flat Earth, but no. I will always believe they're just doing a parody of YEC. I'll be polite about it and won't go so far as to claim they are lying, but I won't believe otherwise.

In short, calling people "stupid" is without a doubt a way to get into a fight with them, and some things are potentially worth fighting and getting into fights about, but of course, not at the expense of messing up the peaceful and friendly nature of one of the very best forums on all the internet!

There are other forums? For a while I thought the forums were going to start vanishing, but they seem to be hanging in there. There were mergers, closings things like that. Now they just sell them instead of closing them. I think the post content alone has value enough to keep most forums open, even if they're dead and not accepting new members. Actually you may encounter a lot of those where if you sign up just nothing happens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Charles Darwin used the word Creationist addressing who? Let me tell you a tiny background. Darwin was writing a letter in 1863 and he inquires about a review of Augustin. In that he makes the statement about creationists.

So providing that link about Darwin, are you claiming that it was Darwin who created that word in England for the first time in history?

Why does it matter? You got your answer.

 

[firedragon]

Why does it matter? You got your answer.

Nope. I didnt get my answer. If you dont know the answer own up.

Charles Darwin used the word Creationist addressing who? Let me tell you a tiny background. Darwin was writing a letter in 1863 and he inquires about a review of Augustin. In that he makes the statement about creationists.

So providing that link about Darwin, are you claiming that it was Darwin who created that word in England for the first time in history?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presume you missed this post. So let me cut and paste for you to see.

You know something? With this definition, Charles Darwin was not talking about "evolution" in his book Origin of species when he compiled it in 1859.

So are you saying that Charles Darwin did not write about evolution in the book? Try and answer that objectively.

Nit picking and of course wrong again. Darwin did not abuse any terms. That is what you did. He avoided the word "evolution" because it had been used in a precious idea. Avoiding using a term is very different from abusing one.

evolution | Origin and meaning of evolution by Online Etymology Dictionary