• 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!

Sources vs Science

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why the conflation of creationists with those who do not believe in evolution? I don't know the numbers but probably most creationists do believe in evolution.
You're using the terms differently than most of us understand them, then.
Could you clarify/define, SVP?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Is there scientific evidence for a naturalistic answer to how the universe got here?
How does evolution fit into this evidence?
The physical cosmology (eg the Big Bang cosmology) confined its scopes to that of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets and other astronomical objects...hence the focus remained within astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and other related fields...it doesn’t focus on biology.

While Evolution focused on biology...meaning LIFE ON THIS PLANET EARTH.

And while science do seek life elsewhere in this galaxy, they are yet to find any, so as of now, they can only study life here, and not on some other planets.

So it pointless studying something that we have no way of examining and testing.

And there are evidence of naturalistic explanation to Evolution independent of the evidence of the Big Bang theory.

My advice to you that you keep astronomy/astrophysics separate from biology.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Because that is the definition of "creationist".

This is an equivocation error on your part. Creationism arose as an opposition to the theory of evolution.

The concept that a god or gods created everything had been around for thousands of years prior to the ToE. YOUNG EARTH creationism came about as a response to the ToE.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The concept that a god or gods created everything had been around for thousands of years prior to the ToE. YOUNG EARTH creationism came about as a response to the ToE.
So what? It is a grammatic error to be overly literal. For example a NASCAR fan is not a racist because he likes and goes to automobile races. The term "creationist" has a definition. It arose as an opposition to the theory of evolution. If someone claims to be a "creationist" then he is saying that he opposes the theory of evolution.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
So what? It is a grammatic error to be overly literal. For example a NASCAR fan is not a racist because he likes and goes to automobile races. The term "creationist" has a definition. It arose as an opposition to the theory of evolution. If someone claims to be a "creationist" then he is saying that he opposes the theory of evolution.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Catholics all believe that a creator god created the universe and everything in it. Thus they are creationists. They ALSO believe that evolution is the method that this creator being used to create the diversity of life found on Earth. So obviously believing in a creator god and believing in evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. MOST people who believe in a creator god ALSO believe in the ToE. It's a small subset of creationists - YOUNG EARTH creationists - who object to the ToE because it contradicts their claim that the earth is only between 6 and 10 thousand years old.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sorry, but you are incorrect. Catholics all believe that a creator god created the universe and everything in it. Thus they are creationists. They ALSO believe that evolution is the method that this creator being used to create the diversity of life found on Earth. So obviously believing in a creator god and believing in evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. MOST people who believe in a creator god ALSO believe in the ToE. It's a small subset of creationists - YOUNG EARTH creationists - who object to the ToE because it contradicts their claim that the earth is only between 6 and 10 thousand years old.


Repeating an error does not make it correct. It does not matter if you believe in a creator, that is not what the word "creationist" refers to any more than my example of calling a NASCAR fan a racists because he likes races. This is a case where the use of a dictionary is appropriate:

Definition of CREATIONISM

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo). It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory, which explains the diversity of life without recourse to the doctrine of God or any other divine power. It may also reject the big-bang model of the emergence of the universe. Mainstream scientists generally reject creationism.

Catholics are not "creationists". Yes, they believe in a creator, but you are abusing the term.

Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists are both creationists and they both reject the theory of evolution. You need another term for standard Catholic beliefs.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Repeating an error does not make it correct. It does not matter if you believe in a creator, that is not what the word "creationist" refers to any more than my example of calling a NASCAR fan a racists because he likes races. This is a case where the use of a dictionary is appropriate:

Definition of CREATIONISM

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo). It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory, which explains the diversity of life without recourse to the doctrine of God or any other divine power. It may also reject the big-bang model of the emergence of the universe. Mainstream scientists generally reject creationism.

Catholics are not "creationists". Yes, they believe in a creator, but you are abusing the term.

Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists are both creationists and they both reject the theory of evolution. You need another term for standard Catholic beliefs.

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

Nothing about the above definition excludes a Catholic who has concluded that the method that this creator god chose to create life on Earth out of nothing was the process of evolution. The Pope most definitely believes that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a creator God out of nothing. He ALSO believes that the method this creator god used to create the variety of life of Earth was the process of evolution.

You sir are abusing the term by falsely claiming that ALL creationists believe in a young Earth. That's simply not true. As I said before, YOUNG EARTH creationists are just a small subset of all creationists. A creationist by definition simply believes in a god being that created everything.

created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo). It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory,

Where did you get the ridiculous idea that religions didn't claim that God created everything out of nothing prior to the discovery of the ToE? The entire concept of ex nihilo was around for HUNDREDS of years prior to the ToE.

Saadia Gaon introduced ex nihilo creation into the readings of the Jewish bible in the 10th century CE in his work Book of Beliefs and Opinions where he imagines a God far more awesome and omnipotent than that of the rabbis, the traditional Jewish teachers who had so far dominated Judaism, whose God created the world from pre-existing matter. Wikipedia
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

Nothing about the above definition excludes a Catholic who has concluded that the method that this creator god chose to create life on Earth out of nothing was the process of evolution. The Pope most definitely believes that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a creator God out of nothing. He ALSO believes that the method this creator god used to create the variety of life of Earth was the process of evolution.

You sir are abusing the term by falsely claiming that ALL creationists believe in a young Earth. That's simply not true. As I said before, YOUNG EARTH creationists are just a small subset of all creationists. A creationist by definition simply believes in a god being that created everything.

created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo). It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory,

Where did you get the ridiculous idea that religions didn't claim that God created everything out of nothing prior to the discovery of the ToE? The entire concept of ex nihilo was around for HUNDREDS of years prior to the ToE.

Saadia Gaon introduced ex nihilo creation into the readings of the Jewish bible in the 10th century CE in his work Book of Beliefs and Opinions where he imagines a God far more awesome and omnipotent than that of the rabbis, the traditional Jewish teachers who had so far dominated Judaism, whose God created the world from pre-existing matter. Wikipedia
Catholics tend to accept the theory of evolution. A Catholic may be a creationist, but most are not.

And you seem to be making false claims about me. I never said that Christians did not believe the creation myth before the theory of evolution. We were discussing the term "creationist". There were no "creationists" before Darwin's theory. Once again the belief with that name was a reaction to the theory of evolution. Now many Christians before Darwin's time had the same beliefs as creationists today, but since once again creationism was a reaction to the theory of evolution they were not properly called "creationists".

Think of the Flat Earthers. There have been people that believed in a Flat Earth in the past, but very few of them believed as a reaction against the globe model. They were not "Flat Earthers".
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Catholics tend to accept the theory of evolution. A Catholic may be a creationist, but most are not.

And you seem to be making false claims about me. I never said that Christians did not believe the creation myth before the theory of evolution. We were discussing the term "creationist". There were no "creationists" before Darwin's theory. Once again the belief with that name was a reaction to the theory of evolution. Now many Christians before Darwin's time had the same beliefs as creationists today, but since once again creationism was a reaction to the theory of evolution they were not properly called "creationists".

Think of the Flat Earthers. There have been people that believed in a Flat Earth in the past, but very few of them believed as a reaction against the globe model. They were not "Flat Earthers".
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Catholics tend to accept the theory of evolution. A Catholic may be a creationist, but most are not.

And you seem to be making false claims about me. I never said that Christians did not believe the creation myth before the theory of evolution. We were discussing the term "creationist". There were no "creationists" before Darwin's theory. Once again the belief with that name was a reaction to the theory of evolution. Now many Christians before Darwin's time had the same beliefs as creationists today, but since once again creationism was a reaction to the theory of evolution they were not properly called "creationists".

Think of the Flat Earthers. There have been people that believed in a Flat Earth in the past, but very few of them believed as a reaction against the globe model. They were not "Flat Earthers".

Think of the Flat Earthers. There have been people that believed in a Flat Earth in the past, but very few of them believed as a reaction against the globe model. They were not "Flat Earthers"

Yes, let's take flat Earthers as an example. People who believe that the world is flat are by definition flat Earthers. We started calling them flat Earthers when there was a spherical theory for the Earth, simply because we now had a new theory to compare them to, but that doesn't change the fact that prior to the spherical theory people who thought the Earth was flat or were flat Earthers. The fact that we started giving them that title at a certain point doesn't mean that they weren't people who believed in a flat Earth prior to the term being coined.

In the 20th century the word "creationism" became associated with the anti-evolution movement of the 1920s and young Earth creationism, but this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the scientific community. Wikipedia

Just because in the 1920's creationism because associated with anti-evolution movement does not mean that there weren't creationist prior. Yes there WERE creationists prior to the ToE and when people started associating creationism strictly with those who were ant-evolution they argued against the notion. Your assertion that creationists didn't exist prior to the ToE is just plain wrong.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The concept that a god or gods created everything had been around for thousands of years prior to the ToE. YOUNG EARTH creationism came about as a response to the ToE.
I thought YEC came about because an Irish archbishop 370 years ago had too much time on his hands.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I thought YEC came about because an Irish archbishop 370 years ago had too much time on his hands.

The concept of a young Earth came about centuries ago, but the concept of young Earth creationism didn't come about until after the ToE in order to distinguish between them and old Earth creationists.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
But there is evidence that no world flood occurred. No big boat is a deduction based on the evidence.
How was that tested and observed?


Who? There is plenty of evidence that lots of people lived 3000 years ago.
Yes.


By checking fracture lines and destruction.
Fracture lines and destruction from which earthquake? You can tell that the fracture lines and destruction belong to two earthquakes? How?


No, we should first ascertain the location of a quake and check how far away from the author they were. Do you feel every quake that occurs on earth? Why do you expect people in history to do what you can't?
I beg your pardon?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What examples are we talking about?
Correct historical and geographical citations are to be expected. These are common knowledge and common to most ancient writings. "Correct" Prophesies are common, as well. People are wired to pattern-seek, and see patterns connections even when there are none. Christianity has no monopoly on this.
Don't all religious find reason to trust their particular holy books?
Archaeology, geology, dating, corroboration and consilience from unrelated sources and research methods.
Please explain how each of those - Archaeology, geology, dating, corroboration and consilience from unrelated sources and research methods, can detect earthquakes occurring within a short time span.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
They're wedded to their doctrine of magic poofing, which they somehow find 'reasonable'. Unlike science, they reject new or contrary evidence.
Come to think of it, they reject pretty much all empirical evidence.
Who does? Can you enlighten me on this.
Who rejects "pretty much all empirical evidence", and can you list all the empirical evidence please?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Also possible: "World flood" was not there, but still "Big Boat" might have been;)

Not the dimensions described in the bible made of materials available at that time.

There are of course modern boats of those dimensions built to prove the ark could have existed. What is not shown (in fact what is well hidden behind wood facing) is steel, unavailable in noahs time
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
How was that tested and observed?

Geology


So the source of jack jack is "yes" thanks for the enlightenment



Fracture lines and destruction from which earthquake? You can tell that the fracture lines and destruction belong to two earthquakes? How?

One the fractures radiate out from the epicenter
Two the destruction reduces the further away.

If you want to argue this stuff then i suggest you take a crash course in seismology



I beg your pardon?

Didn't think you would answer that one
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Quite a vague answer.
I know of no geological test carried out to determine if a boat survived a worldwide flood, where it was verified by observation.
Perhaps that's a secret only skeptics possess.

So the source of jack jack is "yes" thanks for the enlightenment
I don't know what you are trying to say, honestly.

One the fractures radiate out from the epicenter
Two the destruction reduces the further away.

If you want to argue this stuff then i suggest you take a crash course in seismology
I asked questions.
Is that arguing stuff?
If you don't know, just say so.
I don't pretend to know.
How do you determine the magnitude for an earthquake that occurred prior to the creation of the magnitude scale?
For earthquakes that occurred between about 1890 (when modern seismographs came into use) and 1935 when Charles Richter developed the magnitude scale, people went back to the old records and compared the seismograms from those days with similar records for later earthquakes. For earthquakes prior to about 1890, magnitudes have been estimated by looking at the physical effects (such as amount of faulting, landslides, sandblows or river channel changes) plus the human effects (such as the area of damage or felt reports or how strongly a quake was felt) and comparing them to modern earthquakes.

Many assumptions have to be made when making these comparisons.
For example, how do you compare the shaking for people living in log cabins or tents in the early 1800s with shaking for people living in high-rise steel and concrete buildings (with waterbeds!) in the 1990s? Because different researchers can get widely varying magnitudes from using different assumptions on how to make these comparisons, many of the old earthquakes have big differences in the magnitudes assigned to them. For example, magnitude estimates for the quakes that occurred near New Madrid, Missouri in 1811 and 1812 vary from the upper magnitude 6 range to as high as 8.8, all because of the choices the researchers made about how to compare the data.

Didn't think you would answer that one
Whatever it was.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I know of no geological test carried out to determine if a boat survived a worldwide flood, where it was verified by observation.

@ChristineM wasn't talking about boat, when mentioning “geology”.

It means that excess water will show evidence on rocks, like flooding.

Ancient trees will also show signs of drought, flooding and forest fire on the tree rings.

Likewise, ice core samples and bog peats will show similar evidence, whether there were droughts or floods.

And at archaeological sites, presence of excess waters would be found on walls of buildings and fortifications, as well as flood debris that are commonly found.

All these are date-able evidence.

Flooding often leave evidence. And with a flooding that Genesis described, that should leave even more evidence, everywhere, pointing a single date.

But the absence of such huge event, can only mean one thing: Genesis Flood never happened.
 
Top