• 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!

What is the difference between a Flat Earther and a Creationist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I agree with your definition.

I don't think they are necessary contrary to each other.
Evolution is the idea that natural selection, random variation, and inheritance are sufficient to explain the history of how life on Earth diversified and changed over time.

Creationism includes the idea that God is necessary to explain the history of life... i.e. that all natural factors and effects are insufficient to explain the history of life.

These two views are fundamentally incompatible.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Evolution is the idea that natural selection, random variation, and inheritance are sufficient to explain the history of how life on Earth diversified and changed over time.

Creationism includes the idea that God is necessary to explain the history of life... i.e. that all natural factors and effects are insufficient to explain the history of life.

These two views are fundamentally incompatible.
Ok... I don't interpret it the same way.

For me, random means eye's can appear on the front of a head as it could appear on one's chest or an extra one in the rear of the head to know what is creeping up behind you (a benefit).

What you describe can also be interpreted as intelligent design with purpose.

Scientific order, for me, means that something beyond random.

So, IMV, I see it as compatible.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Ok... I don't interpret it the same way.

For me, random means eye's can appear on the front of a head as it could appear on one's chest or an extra one in the rear of the head to know what is creeping up behind you (a benefit).
In the evolutionary sense, most random mutations are mutations of a single gene. The more genes mutated, the rarer the mutation.

Complete changes in body plan like you describe would be so rare that they can be effectively disregarded.

What you describe can also be interpreted as intelligent design with purpose.
Not by anyone who actually understands evolutionary theory.

Scientific order, for me, means that something beyond random.

So, IMV, I see it as compatible.
The results of natural selection aren't random. They're unguided, but not random.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
That's because you weren't familiar with their arguments. You had plenty of evidence; you just didn't realize it; starting with, for example, if the earth were flat, we would all see the same night sky ... but we don't. Can't see the Southern Cross at any time during the year where I am ....
I tried that one when my own family was having fun with the topic

and reply had something to do with great distance over flat land

but I prefer to ask firmly.....How big do you think the South pole circle is?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
and of course......going over South America to the Southern pole
seems the same as going to that pole ove Africa

but really?

would you end up on the Southern Circle?

and thousands of miles apart
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then again, there are those who didn't have it drilled into them and yet believe that God created it.
The problem is in how he created it. Creationists have the audacity to tell God how he had to create the universe. There are Christian scientists out there that are not creationists. They study how the universe got to its present state rather than insist that myths in an old book have to be taken literally.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
Evolution factually happens.
Evolution theory explains the process by which evolution occurs.

Consider gravity.
Gravity factually exists.
Theories of gravity addres how gravity works, by what processes gravity occurs.

Scientific theories, explain scientific facts.
Evolution is a fact. Evolution theory explains said fact.

Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
And if it were, the modern theory of evolution would be convincingly shown to be wrong.

Changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations-is accepted by Creationists. It is called microevolution. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened billions of times between bacteria and man.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations-is accepted by Creationists. It is called microevolution. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened billions of times between bacteria and man.

Not uniformly 'upward', no. But yes, an increase of complexity.

But we *don't* expect to see major increases of complexity as what you would call macroevolution in the short time periods we have been studying this stuff. Any time period less than the *short* period of, say, 50,000 years is going to be way too short to see major changes.

So, no, we don't expect to see such changes in our 'breeding experiments'.

On the other hand, we also see no *barriers* to the small changes adding up over time to produce big changes.

A good analogy is how languages change over time. If you go back 2000 years, there was no English language. Even if you only go back 800 years, the ancestor of English was so different as to be a different language.

In each generation, the change in the language was small enough that the speakers did not notice the changes. But, from the Old English (a very different language) came the Modern English we are writing in today.

And, for example, in the last 2000 years, we see the 'evolution' of Spanish and French from the old Latin language. At no point was there a first 'French speaker'. At each generation, everyone understood those around them. Yet, over longer periods of time, the languages change and new ones appear.

The same happens, only much slower, with biological evolution. The changes in each generation are small. In fact, even if you look over hundreds of generations, the changes are small. But, when you look at longer time periods, the changes are large and we see these changes in the fossil record.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
That completely depends on how you define "macro evolution", because contrary to what you seem to think, the term is completely arbitrary and its meaning dependend from the context of where it is used.

It can mean wolves diverging into poodles and chiuwawa's or a wild gabbage plant being bred into broccoli and brussel sprouts, or it can mean primates diverging into humans and chimps, or it can mean sea vertebrates divering into pretty much all land animals.

Macro evolution is not a seperate process in evolution.
Macro evolution is the inevitable result of continued micro evolution.

1+1+1+1+1+1+........+1+1+1 = big number.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations-is accepted by Creationists. It is called microevolution. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened billions of times between bacteria and man.

You might want to read the following.
It beautifully and efficiently illustrates the flaw in your argument.


upload_2019-8-13_19-30-43.png



Again.... macro evolution is not some seperate, special process.
The sooner you realise this, the sooner you can quite arguing that PRATT strawman.

Because think about it... what is it, that you hope to accomplish by arguing strawmen to try and argue against an established science?

Don't you understand that your argument is literally self-defeating, if it uses a misrepresentation of evolution theory as a premise??
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
Yeah it has. "Microevolution" is evolution below the species level, e.g., antibiotic resistance in bacteria. "Macroevolution" is evolution above that level, i.e., the evolution of new species, and that has been observed repeatedly.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I have been watching some YouTube videos lately where they try to explain to Flat Earthers how they are wrong. The flerfers always end up going through some massive cognitive dissonance and end up denying reality. I have noticed the same behavior from creationists.

Would any creationists care to try to explain how your beliefs are any different from theirs?

Sometimes they are the same person.......
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
In the evolutionary sense, most random mutations are mutations of a single gene. The more genes mutated, the rarer the mutation.

Complete changes in body plan like you describe would be so rare that they can be effectively disregarded.


Not by anyone who actually understands evolutionary theory.


The results of natural selection aren't random. They're unguided, but not random.
Universe is tuned to 1 part in 10 to 120...

If the last "0" it would have been 1 - life would not exist.

I don't call that random. Something/someone bring order to the system.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Universe is tuned to 1 part in 10 to 120...

If the last "0" it would have been 1 - life would not exist.

I don't call that random. Something/someone bring order to the system.
Life as we know it would not exist. But that is merely a Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy.

Also there are some unjustified assumptions in that claim. In the past there were constants that appeared to be "fine tuned" until we understood why they had those values. The odds may not be anywhere near that value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top