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

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Wrong again. You got your answer and then changed the question.

Right now you owe me at least five answers before you can demand another one.

 

[firedragon]

Wrong again. You got your answer and then changed the question.

Right now you owe me at least five answers before you can demand another one.

No I did not. If you dont know just 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?

 

[firedragon]

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.

Wrong analogy.

You said that anyone who wrote any book on the concept of creation by God was not writing on creationism because the word "creationism" did not exist. And you then you said the book annals that I quoted was not on creationism because "the word didnt exist in that book"

So in the case of Darwin, after all the research, all you could come was excuses. Darwin didnt use the word "evolution" in it, so in your own standard, it cannot be a book on "evolution" because the word doesn't exist in the book.

No other reason, because of this, because that is acceptable because this is your own standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong analogy.

You said that anyone who wrote any book on the concept of creation by God was not writing on creationism because the word "creationism" did not exist. And you then you said the book annals that I quoted was not on creationism because "the word didnt exist in that book"

So in the case of Darwin, after all the research, all you could come was excuses. Darwin didnt use the word "evolution" in it, so in your own standard, it cannot be a book on "evolution" because the word doesn't exist in the book.

No other reason, because of this, because that is acceptable because this is your own standard.

Nope, we were discussing the abuse of a term, not the use of one. And I even pointed out that Ussher wrote about the creation myth. I do not think that I wrote that he was s creationist. You wrote that.

 

[firedragon]

evolution | Origin and meaning of evolution by Online Etymology Dictionary

See. You said that "calling something theory of evolution" doesnt mean it is the theory of evolution simply because you had to discard any evolution prior to Darwin, especially an arabic one. But suddenly, to justify Darwin and your error in analogy, you adopted a medical book prior to Darwin to justify the usage of the word evolution.

Nope. That'd double standards. Have a standard.

tell me. If that is evolution as you discarded the Muhammedan theory because it was not "tested", who tested "homunculus" and his mention of evolution?

No standards in your need to refute things by hook or crook?

 

[firedragon]

Nope, we were discussing the abuse of a term, not the use of one.

Well, another persons use is "abuse" to you. So you are playing semantics because you cannot answer a question with an objective answer even after hours of research. Its difficult when you are talking about books you have never read in your life. I understand.

This is your standard. No term used in the book, then its not talking about that subject. No word "creationism" in a 16th century book, means its not about creationism. Even if the subject is absolutely the same.

So practicing the same standard, Darwin did not write on evolution in his book in the mid 19th century because though his subject was the same, he didn't use it in his book. Thats your own standard. No term, wrong subject.

I know its a silly standard, but its yours.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

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.

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.


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.

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!

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.

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.

I enjoyed reading all that you wrote. I don't perceive it as really trying to push buttons to get a reaction just by pushing buttons so much as trying to pressure people to face the logical conclusions that would be derived from their possibly not fully formed or concluded religious thinking or even their suggestions. 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. 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.

I think in the case of this thread, my biggest curiosity is what in the world firedragon's motives are in making these and what they are getting at ever, I am able to explain my many objectives and prospects and what I hope for and what I expect from these or am trying to do, but in the case of firedragon, I am always curious as to what drives them, inspires them, what they get out of any of it.

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.

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!

I believe in all the standard science stuff, but I also believe all such things can be taken as illusory and "made up right now" by the Ultimate Power as well, but having that second belief does not make me able to support dangerous loons who try to throw people back into the stone-age or something or claim that "medicine kills, don't take medicine, don't receive medical treatment" for any reason, including "You're not trusting in God or the Bible, only God can heal in a certain way after you pray, medicine can never help you, and God didn't make medicine", as an example, but that also doesn't have anything to do with the thread directly, except that people who are Biblical Literalists and Fundamentalists from various religions sometimes gravitate to dangerous extremist ideologies and views which end up harming lots and lots of people, the people who are tricked by them might have something wrong with their mental faculties or some reason that makes them susceptible to things that other people may be less susceptible to.

 

[firedragon]

Someones standard is equal to "the Bible is not a book of theology, because the English word THEOLOGY is not mentioned in it".

Super standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See. You said that "calling something theory of evolution" doesnt mean it is the theory of evolution simply because you had to discard any evolution prior to Darwin, especially an arabic one. But suddenly, to justify Darwin and your error in analogy, you adopted a medical book prior to Darwin to justify the usage of the word evolution.

Nope. That'd double standards. Have a standard.

tell me. If that is evolution as you discarded the Muhammedan theory because it was not "tested", who tested "homunculus" and his mention of evolution?

No standards in your need to refute things by hook or crook?

Nope, this is merely another logical fail on your part. Once again we were discussing the abuse of a term. That is not at all the same as not using a term. When you try to use English you are overly literalistic and have trouble following context. Odds are that you do not have the same trouble in Arabic. But reasoning in another language can be difficult.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, this is merely another logical fail on your part. Once again we were discussing the abuse of a term. That is not at all the same as not using a term. When you try to use English you are overly literalistic and have trouble following context. Odds are that you do not have the same trouble in Arabic. But reasoning in another language can be difficult.

Someones standard is equal to "the Bible is not a book of theology, because the English word THEOLOGY is not mentioned in it".

Super standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someones standard is equal to "the Bible is not a book of theology, because the English word THEOLOGY is not mentioned in it".

Super standard.

Your sin not mine.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, this is merely another logical fail on your part. Once again we were discussing the abuse of a term. That is not at all the same as not using a term. When you try to use English you are overly literalistic and have trouble following context. Odds are that you do not have the same trouble in Arabic. But reasoning in another language can be difficult.

The book on evolution by Darwin is not a book on evolution because the word "evolution" was not used in it. So the so called "father evolutionary theory" did not write on evolution in his book. Why? Because he didnt use the "word".

Super standard.

 

[firedragon]

Your sin not mine.

In your world, the book called the Tanakh, written in Hebrew, is not a book on theology. Why? Because it written in Hebrew so the English word "theology" does not apply since its got to be in English, not Hebrew. Also, the English word "theology" has to written in the book. So in your theory, the Tanakh is not a book of theology.

Super standard. Very good.

 

[firedragon]

Your sin not mine.

In your standard, Dinosaurs never "ran" because the English word "ran" was not invented at the time.

Very interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The book on evolution by Darwin is not a book on evolution because the word "evolution" was not used in it. So the so called "father evolutionary theory" did not write on evolution in his book. Why? Because he didnt use the "word".

Super standard.

In your world, the book called the Tanakh, written in Hebrew, is not a book on theology. Why? Because it written in Hebrew so the English word "theology" does not apply since its got to be in English, not Hebrew. Also, the English word "theology" has to written in the book. So in your theory, the Tanakh is not a book of theology.

Super standard. Very good.

In your standard, Dinosaurs never "ran" because the English word "ran" was not invented at the time.

Very interesting.

Nope, my standard remains constant. You are the one all over the place. Once again, avoiding using a term, which is what Darwin did, is nowhere at all like abusing a term, which is what you did.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

In your standard, Dinosaurs never "ran" because the English word "ran" was not invented at the time.

Very interesting.

There is no way they ever said that or believe that though, but I've probably missed it where they ever suggested such a thing, could you clarify what they said that would make that the case? Would you consider a person who says "Dinosaurs never "ran" because the English word "ran" wasn't invented, a silly or foolish person? So isn't it just a long way of suggesting the wise Subduction Zone is a silly person or a fool or being a silly person or acting like a fool or suggesting what a fool might suggest?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Nope, my standard remains constant. You are the one all over the place. Once again, avoiding using a term, which is what Darwin did, is nowhere at all like abusing a term, which is what you did.

What do you personally take the point of this thread to be? I've been wondering about it.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, this is merely another logical fail on your part. Once again we were discussing the abuse of a term. That is not at all the same as not using a term. When you try to use English you are overly literalistic and have trouble following context. Odds are that you do not have the same trouble in Arabic. But reasoning in another language can be difficult.

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.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

In your world, the book called the Tanakh, written in Hebrew, is not a book on theology. Why? Because it written in Hebrew so the English word "theology" does not apply since its got to be in English, not Hebrew. Also, the English word "theology" has to written in the book. So in your theory, the Tanakh is not a book of theology.

Super standard. Very good.

Similarly, people say Allah is not referring to YHWH, even though they share many acts supposedly, because their names differ, and in the case of Allah, Allah even had the chance to refer to himself as YHWH and identify himself by the name which was already supposedly known, but did not do so.

Ideas similar to the idea of evolution have existed throughout the world and history. Ok, now what? Does that change the fact that most people who are yelling at "Creationists" are probably not talking about "every religious person/most religious people" and are more than likely specifically referring to people like the YEC types?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Nope, my standard remains constant. You are the one all over the place. Once again, avoiding using a term, which is what Darwin did, is nowhere at all like abusing a term, which is what you did.

Can everyone please restate their points? I'm pretty sure I just won the Universe but I want to make sure.