• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Creationists


  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What do you personally take the point of this thread to be? I've been wondering about it.
I have a strong feeling that the OP is a creationist that tried to redefine the word "creationism" to try to falsify the claim that there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist (which he got wrong of course).
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So like everything else, you assume that I am an Arab and English is some foreign language to me. Loooool.

I was only responding to you because your insults and ad hominem, bigotry in calling a section of the world as ignorant, superiority complex thinking that same section of the human species are liars, is absolutely childish. I dont know how old you are, but this has been one of the worst displays of character I have come across.

Ciao.
No, it is a deduction based upon your poor English skills in specific areas along with an assumption that you are trying to be honest. Perhaps my assumption is wrong.

By the way, I made no insults. I never used ad hominem. Nor did I display any bigotry. Let's watch the personal attacks. Your error was explained to you multiple times with multiple links.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Also, there are people who I think are just tiptoeing around admitting how they really feel and think (which I also think can be stated civilly, but more important than admitting to it might be finding out why or what it is based on or what it came from), I think that people are not telling the truth when they say "they respect people with totally different opinions, and views, and tastes", it is hard for me to understand how that could be possible.
I can explain that one, perhaps; but we digress.

The Flat-Earthers I have dealt with and interrogated a lot, insisted they were not satirizing anyone or anything but were being real, have genuine doubts about the actual shape of the Earth, and that it wasn't at all a joke, and this was more than one, and it made me so sad, they seemed like earnest and sincere people, sincere in all their other writing, they were both males and females claiming to subscribe to this, also there are documentaries about some of the proponents of this and a lot of them seem to dedicate a lot of time and energy to it and insist that they are being serious and don't appear to be joking at all about it, which is TERRIBLY TRAGIC in my view, it makes me want to cry, its like having a sibling living with a severe mental problem that they are just lost in delusions or whatever, which is also what I feel about a lot of people sometimes, which is why I try to get them to start on the journey of self-discovery if possible, by seeing how different events and mechanisms might have led to their current beliefs that they insist upon and test out if they are willing to take them through some rigorous testing or questioning, but most people are not willing to do any of that, which is why I wonder why they even come to religious forums as representatives of this or that, I think it just gives them something to do, maybe like how I use these exchanges to explore ideas for myself and de-stress by beating up on religions and ideas, but for me it actually leads me to a lot of creative thinking quite often. I also suspect that some people, even I, feel "empowered" by taking a view and defending it or promoting it with a lot of force and vehemence, almost like a performative exercise or ritual.
Perhaps they are just very good at seeming to believe it and deeply wish to change minds. Some people are spring steel. You can't shine an xray through them, and that's Ok. Its a gift. Maybe its their gift. Or they could really be flat earthers, but I think that's impossible.

I think they are generally correct also for what they are trying to say, which I think is basically that ideas similar to evolution existed before Darwin, and that there are people who believed God is the Creator and also that there was something like evolution too and that these don't conflict.
Evolutionary ideas are ancient, but what people lacked until recently was the explanation which Darwin provided -- the mechanism of survival. That explained why creatures could evolve without someone breeding them. That much was not known or foreseen before Darwin who was one of the early natural philosophers. People could see dinosaur bones and the similarity of snakes and lizards, but that didn't explain the 'How'. Who bred them? Must have been God, so nobody looked further into it.

Then I came and rained on the paradise with my focus on the idea that "people who proliferate false or misleading information are dishonest even if lying is not their intention or they are not deliberately trying to mislead or they think they are right, they are still "telling lies" and that their activity is also worth concern as it can create problems almost immediately or ultimately". Which never seems to have been whatever they were trying to get at, which was probably perceived as likely to be boring, but I liked hearing or seeing some history stuff and wouldn't mind some more history on ideas that are like the evolution idea before Darwin if someone could list those and discuss those, that is cool!
People could see that plants and people though we died could live through seeds. Men had seed. Plants had seed. This, they reasoned, was where the regenerative secret of life lay and perhaps even immortality. It was thought that in humans this power resided in the Sacral vertebra. Today we know through any microscope that every cell has this power of reproduction, so we put behind us the mystical obsession with seeds and sacra for a new one. Now we are obsessed with cellular reproduction.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There has always existed both literalists and those who have seen Genesis 1 as a myth. The thing with the literalism is, however, that it now lacks credibility since it is repudiated by science. Scientific method, as we all know, has really delivered. Our lives have much less suffering, more comfort, greater health, and we lie longer, due to the tech and modern medicine scientific medicine has given us. It is downright foolish not to go along with the latest information that science offers, especially knowing that science will always self correct.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Then you are back to saying there was no flood.
no, I'm saying there was one. Yet God din't lie. It's as I explained in my last posts.
Geology tells us a coherent story, and there was no flood
But we had this, already. I wrote: if someone builds a new building where the old was... it's questionable if you could find evidence of what went on in the old house. Since it isn't there, it was replaced by the new one. Same happened with earthes, according to the Bible, see 2 Peter 3:5,6. I told you in posts #165 and #170.

To you, the story geology is telling is coherent.
However, it is not forbidden to make an attempt of reinterpreting the data and opening up another, alternative interpretation. That one can also be very coherent, as I see it. Just as coherent as yours. Geology certainly is coherent, but there may be more than just one coherent story you could draw from it, as I see it.



I still maintain that there was a flood.
I'm not afraid of anything here.
And as you admitted, you have no evidence for your non existent explanation.
never admitted so.
I admitted to not putting my (general) belief in a Creator God to the test. That's all. If it's just interpretations of the data concerning one particular event - I'm open to changing my mind.

edited for clarity.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You should know that what you are referring to as creationism is a new definition that you like to use...

Dictionaries list the meaning of words according to their most common usage. Not according to how I personally "like" to use them. :rolleyes:

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.

Dude....................................

I explained all this to you already. I addressed all this myself.
And I explicitly told you that the word AS IT IS USED TODAY is relatively new.

None of this changes the fact that the most common usage of the term today, is what it is. As the dictionary defines it.

You can argue about that all you like, but it's not like you will accomplish anything.

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.

No, it's what the word means in english. It's also what the literal translation means in Europe.
I don't know about other continents.

But since on this forum we are speaking english......


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".

That is not at all what I said.
Perhaps you should take a small dose of intellectual honesty.


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.

Again not at all what I said. I wonder why you put it in between quotes. As if you are quoting me. Which is bizar, because I never said such a thing.

Once again, I find myself having to advice you to take a dose of intellectual honesty.

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".

*I* don't think anything in particular about this. I'm just informing you of what the term's most common usage and meaning is TODAY.

I explicitly even informed you that dictionaries don't care about etymology of a word. A dictionary lists meanings of words according to how they are most commonly used.

This is how the brand name "google" also became a verbe, btw. No "commission of the english language" decided that english needed a new verbe. Instead, PEOPLE started using it as a verbe and it catched on, and spread. To the point where it became part of everyday english. And that's when it was taken up in the dictionary.

Dictionaries follow trends, they don't set them up.

I explicitly also told you that this process is how words change in meaning.

Yes, 2 centuries ago, the word "creationist" had a LOT less baggage and thus a different meaning then it does today.

I don't see the point in using a word in an everyday conversation, how it was understood 500 years ago. It will only make sure that you are misunderstood. It will only sow confusion.

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.

I have given you exactly zero anecdotes in the post you are replying to.
Instead, what I gave you, was a dictionary definition of the word


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.

:rolleyes:

I'm using the dictionary definition.
It is completely unclear what definition you are using.


That does not mean we in this modern day and age need to be constricted by that level of shallow exploration.


If we do not restrict us to the common usage of terms as defined by dictionaries, that is fine as long as one is clear about it. Otherwise, we'll end up talking past eachother.

But the common usage is what it is, and you'll find it in the dictionary.

You can argue about it till you are blue in the face, it won't change the common usage and meaning of words.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
no, I'm saying there was one. Yet God din't lie. It's as I explained in my last posts.

But we had this, already. I wrote: if someone builds a new building where the old was... it's questionable if you could find evidence of what went on in the old house. Since it isn't there, it was replaced by the new one. Same happened with earthes, according to the Bible, see 2 Peter 3:5,6. I told you in posts #165 and #170.

To you, the story geology is telling is coherent.
However, it is not forbidden to make an attempt of reinterpreting the data and opening up another, alternative interpretation. That one can also be very coherent, as I see it. Just as coherent as yours. Geology certainly is coherent, but there may be more than just one coherent story you could draw from it, as I see it.



I still maintain that there was a flood.
I'm not afraid of anything here.

never admitted so.
I admitted to not putting my (general) belief in a Creator God to the test. That's all. If it's just interpretations of the data concerning one particular event - I'm open to changing my mind.

edited for clarity.
The problem is that you appear to have a very low level of science education If you understood the sciences you would understand how you called God a liar. That is why some sects try to avoid reality. Reality refutes their literal interpretation of Genesis.

I would think that a real Christian would want to learn the truth. It is only the weak in faith that cannot handle the fact that a good part of their beliefs are wrong.

And your "explanation" is not an explanation. It is a poor excuse for your version of God's dishonesty. You need to approach this rationally. Why would an all powerful God make the Earth look like it was old when it was not? Why would he lie?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Dictionaries list the meaning of words according to their most common usage. Not according to how I personally "like" to use them. :rolleyes:



Dude....................................

I explained all this to you already. I addressed all this myself.
And I explicitly told you that the word AS IT IS USED TODAY is relatively new.

None of this changes the fact that the most common usage of the term today, is what it is. As the dictionary defines it.

You can argue about that all you like, but it's not like you will accomplish anything.



No, it's what the word means in english. It's also what the literal translation means in Europe.
I don't know about other continents.

But since on this forum we are speaking english......




That is not at all what I said.
Perhaps you should take a small dose of intellectual honesty.




Again not at all what I said. I wonder why you put it in between quotes. As if you are quoting me. Which is bizar, because I never said such a thing.

Once again, I find myself having to advice you to take a dose of intellectual honesty.



*I* don't think anything in particular about this. I'm just informing you of what the term's most common usage and meaning is TODAY.

I explicitly even informed you that dictionaries don't care about etymology of a word. A dictionary lists meanings of words according to how they are most commonly used.

This is how the brand name "google" also became a verbe, btw. No "commission of the english language" decided that english needed a new verbe. Instead, PEOPLE started using it as a verbe and it catched on, and spread. To the point where it became part of everyday english. And that's when it was taken up in the dictionary.

Dictionaries follow trends, they don't set them up.

I explicitly also told you that this process is how words change in meaning.

Yes, 2 centuries ago, the word "creationist" had a LOT less baggage and thus a different meaning then it does today.

I don't see the point in using a word in an everyday conversation, how it was understood 500 years ago. It will only make sure that you are misunderstood. It will only sow confusion.



I have given you exactly zero anecdotes in the post you are replying to.
Instead, what I gave you, was a dictionary definition of the word




:rolleyes:

I'm using the dictionary definition.
It is completely unclear what definition you are using.





If we do not restrict us to the common usage of terms as defined by dictionaries, that is fine as long as one is clear about it. Otherwise, we'll end up talking past eachother.

But the common usage is what it is, and you'll find it in the dictionary.

You can argue about it till you are blue in the face, it won't change the common usage and meaning of words.

I see that he has circled the wagons and has gone back to his old refuted claims. He cannot stand the fact that the words "creationist" and "creationism" are new And not "American".
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
you would understand how you called God a liar
no, I did not call God a liar, I think. Even if I would be the best scientist in the world: my stance does not or would not call God a liar in my opinion.
Please debate the topic, not the person?

I could handle that part of what I believe is wrong, I think. But again, this is debating the person as opposed to debating the topic.

I don't promote a version of God's dishonesty here.
Why would an all powerful God make the Earth look like it was old when it was not? Why would he lie?
he does not lie.

Things looking older than they are according to the Bible is a matter of fact and not a lie.
Take the wedding of Cana: Jesus turned water into wine. The wine, according to the Bible, was minutes old. Yet it tasted like old one. Older wines taste better. Wine producers know that wine needs to be at least 6 months old for the alcohol to have developed. Wine is not wine if it's younger, so the drink looked older: like it was old.

Same with creation: only old looking universes can have perceivable galaxies. Galaxies are more than 6000 light years away. Imagine God saying "I must not add a corona/ distanced light to the galaxies lest man thinks I am a liar!" - no human would ever have noticed a galaxy apart from their own.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
no, I did not call God a liar, I think. Even if I would be the best scientist in the world: my stance does not or would not call God a liar in my opinion.
Please debate the topic, not the person?

I could handle that part of what I believe is wrong, I think. But again, this is debating the person as opposed to debating the topic.

I don't promote a version of God's dishonesty here.

he does not lie.

Things looking older than they are according to the Bible is a matter of fact and not a lie.
Take the wedding of Cana: Jesus turned water into wine. The wine, according to the Bible, was minutes old. Yet it tasted like old one. Older wines taste better. Wine producers know that wine needs to be at least 6 months old for the alcohol to have developed. Wine is not wine if it's younger, so the drink looked older: like it was old.

Same with creation: only old looking universes can have perceivable galaxies. Galaxies are more than 6000 light years away. Imagine God saying "I must not add a corona/ distanced light to the galaxies lest man thinks I am a liar!" - no human would ever have noticed a galaxy apart from their own.
If God does not lie then there was no Flood. You can't have it both ways if one is honest and informed.

And no, the creation myth has nothing to do with the wine at Cana myth. Try to come up with an actual explanation. Remember how you said that you had no evidence? You made that claim when you said that you would not test your beliefs.

If one runs away from knowledge that indicates a weak faith. Why run away from knowledge?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
If God does not lie then there was no Flood.
here we disagree. God does not lie and there was a flood, even for honest and informed people, I think.
And no, the creation myth has nothing to do with the wine at Cana myth.
it was an analogy to show you that God did not "lie" either at that occasion. A substance looking older than it actually was does not turn God into a lying being. It was not a myth, I think.
Remember how you said that you had no evidence? You made that claim when you said that you would not test your beliefs.
I answered this. I wrote this: I admitted to not putting my (general) belief in a Creator God to the test. That's all. If it's just interpretations of the data concerning one particular event - I'm open to changing my mind. # 246

I don't run away from knowledge.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
here we disagree. God does not lie and there was a flood, even for honest and informed people, I think
.

You might think that. You would be wrong. Did you watch the videos in the link that I provided? Would you like to learn so that you are informed? T

it was an analogy to show you that God did not "lie" either at that occasion. A substance looking older than it actually was does not turn God into a lying being. It was not a myth, I think.

No, it was an excuse and a very poor one. It still amounts to God lying since there is no reason at all for him to make the Earth look old. For him to make life look as if were the product of evolution and not of creation.

You see, a recent worldwide flood makes several key predictions, and all of them are false. Why do we not see a universal population bottleneck? The flood predicts that.

I answered this. I wrote this: I admitted to not putting my (general) belief in a Creator God to the test. That's all. If it's just interpretations of the data concerning one particular event - I'm open to changing my mind. # 246

I don't run away from knowledge.

And yes, that is an admission that you do not have any reliable evidence. Like most creationists the concept of evidence eludes you. But it is good to hear that you do not run away from knowledge. Would you care to tackle the idea of evidence first?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
To you, the story geology is telling is coherent.
However, it is not forbidden to make an attempt of reinterpreting the data and opening up another, alternative interpretation. That one can also be very coherent, as I see it. Just as coherent as yours. Geology certainly is coherent, but there may be more than just one coherent story you could draw from it, as I see it.
You are forgetting that any interpretation should also be tested too.

Because if you are making contrary claims to the one that have already been accepted, then any alternative must be further tested and analyzed.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
here we disagree. God does not lie and there was a flood, even for honest and informed people, I think.

There have been histories of many floods and evidence for many floods, but none of them are as Genesis 7 & 8 described COVERING HIGH MOUNTAINS and KILLING EVERYONE and every animals that didn't board the Ark.

There are also never any evidence that existed, let alone on Mount Ararat.

Every claims that they found the Ark, turn out to be either mistaken or worse, they turn out to be fake.

Creationists don't have good track record for their honesty.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There's no reason to read the post again. I addressed it all. Multiple times.

Get over yourself.

So what do you want to argue about now? Fishing for opportunities to make some cheap ad hominem mate? You want to speak about my family or my child and insult one of them so you are trying your best to find some argument when there is none?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
The analogy between the age of the earth and the age of the wine when Jesus tranformed water into wine... was a good analogy, I think.
It shows you a reason of why God does have a reason to make things that happen to look older than they are sometimes. Without applying a lie whatsoever.
There is no logical inconsistency.
The concept of evidence does not elude me, I think.
Why do we not see a universal population bottleneck? The flood predicts that.
that's a good one. However, even this one can be reeinterpreted, in my opinion.
According to the Bible, geology can be subject to drastic changes. Still as recently as 2000 years ago, see Matthew 17:20.
So I suppose that Jesus changed geology over time. Even way after the flood was over. Including the layers in which there are archeological finds. When man started to settle earth again, this could have been the moment when God saw a need to create the soil of where they settled.

Note that this is my hypothesis. I could be wrong here. I'm writing this with the intention to refute your idea that the biblical flood account can be disproven by science.


I stay with my opinion: it is not forbidden to make an attempt of reinterpreting the data and opening up another, alternative interpretation that also looks coherent.

Did you watch the videos in the link that I provided?
For instance the second one about geology?
But I wrote something in this regard. I said, in my opinion it is questionable if there is any geological evidence of the flood at all, because God recreated the whole thing afterwards, 2 Peter 3:5,6.

edited to add blue sentence. Changed brown paragraph.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So what do you want to argue about now?

There's nothing left to argue.

You keep claiming demonstrably false things about the word "creationism" and what its most common usage is.
I exposed your error and provided you with sufficient explanation.

Yet instead of acknowledging your error, you're doubling down on it.

That is your choice.
I see no point in continuing when that is the attitude.

Fishing for opportunities to make some cheap ad hominem mate?

Not once have I used an ad hominem in this entire conversation.
I have been on point the entire time and even went out of my way to make the point clear.

This is a clear case of leading the horse to water. It's the horse that needs to drink in the end.
The horse is refusing it seems.

You want to speak about my family or my child and insult one of them so you are trying your best to find some argument when there is none?

I have literally no idea where that nonsense came from.

You seem rather desperate now, tbh.
 
Top