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 Sources vs Science

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by nPeace, Oct 26, 2020.

  1. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    Show me. Provide the quote from the article that states the original definition the article provided for creationism is something that people use to try and abuse the concept.

    Again READ THE WORDS: Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs.

    So the article itself states that YOUR definition is a MORE RESTRICTED definition, which means there is a definition BEYOND the restricted definition you insist is the only definition. Do you honestly not comprehend something so basic or are you just trying to be obtuse?
     
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I read that and understood that. There is quite a bit of context that you are ignoring. That is why I said "nice cherry picking".

    Now if one is a creationist in the Christian sense can be answered in one simple question: Do you believe in the myths of Genesis or not? Do you understand that there never were only two people? That there never was a global flood that threatened the existence of humanity?
     
  3. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    So where's the quote from the article that indicates I'm ignoring context? You on the other hand are completely ignoring the definition that the article provided, just because you want to pretend that your restricted definition is the only definition. And creationists are not restricted to Christians... by definition its simply anyone who believes that some god being created everything.
     
  4. Left Coast

    Left Coast Happy Holidays!
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +6,422
    Religion:
    Buddhish
    @Subduction Zone @QuestioningMind

    ...why are you arguing about the meaning of a word? Is evolution true? Yes. Is there any evidence a God makes it happen? No.

    I'm pretty sure you both agree to that...right? So why are you fighting?
     
  5. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    Because the definition of words matter. Claiming that all creationists don't believe in the ToE is simply not true and I felt compelled to point that out.
     
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    There is nothing I don't understand ... :D from what you posted.
    Uzziah??? Not even close.
    See! You're totally clueless. ;)
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I am not ignoring it, I am paying attention to the disclaimer that you ignored. When an article opens up with "in the broadest sense" that is usually a disclaimer on how that term is not used. If you read the history of the word "creationism" you would see it was a reaction against the various sciences that showed that the Genesis myths are incorrect. And you are back to your "I'm a racist because I like to watch NASCAR" equivocation. One could stretch the definition the way that you want to but it simply is incorrect when one looks at the history of the term.

    By the way, why did you avoid asking the question that I gave to you?
     
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I think that @QuestioningMind may be a creationist in disguise. He has not answered my question that would tell us if he was an OEC. He is clearly not a YEC. An OEC still believes most of the myths of Genesis, they simply do not care about the timing of them that much. He avoided answering a question that would have settled it rather quickly.
     
  9. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Guess what LC is saying... Even though you are right, you'll be running the length of the thread trying to move a boulder up a mountain. :eek: I think at this point, you need Jesus. :D Or... just stop. :)
    What did Jesus say... Learn from the illustration. :smallredtriangledown:
    [​IMG]
    The rock looks like it's enjoying itself, doesn't it. ;)
     
  10. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    LOL... No, stating that 'in the broadest sense' is NOT a 'disclaimer' in any way. It's a way of distinguishing between the broad or 'full' definition of the word as apposed the the far for restrictive or narrower definition that YOU choose to give the word.

    Now if one is a creationist in the Christian sense can be answered in one simple question: Do you believe in the myths of Genesis or not? Do you understand that there never were only two people? That there never was a global flood that threatened the existence of humanity?

    Are you asking me why I didn't answer this? Because it isn't a question for me. It's a question that you claim creationists in the Christian sense answer.
     
  11. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    Now if one is a creationist in the Christian sense can be answered in one simple question: Do you believe in the myths of Genesis or not? Do you understand that there never were only two people? That there never was a global flood that threatened the existence of humanity?

    This isn't a question that you asked me. This is something that you claim creationists in a Christian sense answer. I'm not a creationist nor am I a Christian so it clearly doesn't';t apply to me.
     
  12. Left Coast

    Left Coast Happy Holidays!
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +6,422
    Religion:
    Buddhish
    Okay. It's just an odd hill to die on when I think you both agree on the substance of the matter. You're both atheists and you both believe evolution is true. Right?
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    33,630
    Ratings:
    +19,881
    Religion:
    Atheist
    There is no reason that an atheist cannot answer that question. For them it should be a clear "No". My problem with an overly inclusive definition is that it makes the word of no value. At the time that the word was coined many non-creationists were still Christians.
     
  14. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    All I can do is speak the truth. If others want to ignore it that's no skin off my nose.
     
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Okay, so they tested for a worldwide flood (barring the boat), and observed none occurred,.. was your answer? ..and they also know that there were no two earthquakes between 785 to 735 B.C.

    No. Your answer is, 'There is no evidence of...'
    My point exactly. Absence of evidence is not scientific evidence.
    I have heard the assumptions presented before, so I don't know why you referred me to hear that man again.
    Probably you forget you were the first person to introduce me to him. You seem to like him a lot. :)

    There are no ETs because there is no evidence of ETs. Scientific evidence? Not at all. Ask SETI if you doubt it.
    True, you could assume that the universe you "dug up" hint hint, reveal no evidence of ETs, but that is not scientific evidence against ETs.
    Please try to understand what is being said here.

    The fact that the question in the OP has been basically ignored, in order to run with a back and forth argument, which I don't understand why you like that (How many threads on the flood are they on RF? If I wanted to start a thread on the flood, I could easily have done that. See the OP), is evidence enough to show that science is limited in its ability to examine and verify, or deny the reliability of many historical sources.

    True, you could assume that the fault line, and damage belong to one earthquake, but that is not scientific evidence against another.

    I thought you knew... science is ongoing. So I don't consider the opinions of you, and your friend Aron.
    You get what I am saying? :)
     
  16. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    I'd hardly call a discussion about vocabulary definitions as any sort of a 'hill to die on'. If they are an atheist, then I agree with them on that. If they believe in evolution I also agree with them on that. But if they try and claim that all creationists do not believe in evolution, I'm going to point out that it's wrong.
     
  17. Left Coast

    Left Coast Happy Holidays!
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +6,422
    Religion:
    Buddhish
    Mkay. Keep arguing, don't let me stop you! :thumbsup:
     
  18. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,112
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    Religion:
    atheist
    If you had asked me the question I would have answered it. But all you did was state how Christians would answer the question. And the definition is only overly inclusive if you attempt to use it in the wrong context.

    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 Wikipedia

    Again note how it says the word BECAME ASSOCIATED with anti-evolution in the early 20th century. That means that BEFORE the 20th century the world already existed and simply meant a belief in a creator god and it wasn't UNTIL the 20th century that ,many people started associating it to strictly mean those who are anti-evolution.
     
  19. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,884
    Ratings:
    +3,978
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Well, let's get straight to the point ─ do you accept that the lack of evidence for a Genesis Flood ─ evidence such as I specified that MUST be there if there had been a Genesis flood in reality ─ is a demonstration satisfactory to science that no such flood occurred in reality?

    A simple yes or no answer will resolve the question of what you understand.
     
  20. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,884
    Ratings:
    +3,978
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    So you think that at some time in the last ten thousand years the entire earth was flooded and the tip of Mt Everest was about 25 feet under water?

    Am I right in thinking that no amount of evidence-based and objectively reasoned demonstration to the contrary is capable of altering your view?

    And that's because it's written in a particular book to which you attribute magical qualities?
     
Loading...