1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by firedragon, Nov 1, 2020.

?

Creationists

Poll closed Nov 11, 2020.
  1. Are ignorant of basic science

    66.7%
  2. Are by default dishonest

    26.7%
  3. Are a new phenomena

    30.0%
  4. None of the above

    26.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,438
    Ratings:
    +24,528
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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).
     
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,438
    Ratings:
    +24,528
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I may just put the OP on ignore. He all but learns from his mistakes and then goes off on a tangent so he does not have to own up to them.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,438
    Ratings:
    +24,528
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  4. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    31,356
    Ratings:
    +12,117
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    I can explain that one, perhaps; but we digress.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  5. IndigoChild5559

    IndigoChild5559 Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    5,823
    Ratings:
    +2,539
    Religion:
    Judaism
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,847
    Ratings:
    +537
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    #246 thomas t, Nov 3, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2020
  7. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +7,513
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  8. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,678
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    Maybe. But it was a cut and paste as I already said. Please read the post again.

    Cheers.
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,438
    Ratings:
    +24,528
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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?
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,438
    Ratings:
    +24,528
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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".
     
  11. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,847
    Ratings:
    +537
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,438
    Ratings:
    +24,528
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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?
     
  13. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,847
    Ratings:
    +537
    Religion:
    Christian
    here we disagree. God does not lie and there was a flood, even for honest and informed people, I think.
    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.
    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.
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,438
    Ratings:
    +24,528
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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

    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.

    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?
     
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +7,513
    Religion:
    Atheist
    There's no reason to read the post again. I addressed it all. Multiple times.

    Get over yourself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,565
    Ratings:
    +5,110
    Religion:
    Pi π
    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.
     
  17. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,565
    Ratings:
    +5,110
    Religion:
    Pi π
    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.
     
  18. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,678
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    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?
     
  19. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,847
    Ratings:
    +537
    Religion:
    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.
    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.

    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.
     
    #259 thomas t, Nov 4, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2020
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +7,513
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.

    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.

    I have literally no idea where that nonsense came from.

    You seem rather desperate now, tbh.
     
Loading...