What's purpose to lable this DIR"Evolution Vs. Creationism"

[Godobeyer]

Hello everybody

I discuss this with some member, they told me theory of evolution had nothing to do with origin/start of life. it's abiogenesis.

I thought this DIR main goal is about how life appears,according to two different methods "believe in God is Creator, believe in nature is creator", yes or not ?

Since evolution had nothing to do with life appears why compare/oppose it to creation ?
So,What is the purpose of discuss evolution VS creationism ?

 

[Terese]

Because creationism opposes evolution

 

[Kirran]

It's about how life appears in its current forms. Were they produced ready made, or did they emerge over time via natural processes? That's the dichotomy.

 

[Tumah]

Because creationism opposes evolution

I think what you mean to say is that creation opposes abiogenesis. It doesn't necessarily oppose evolution.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

To be more specific: Creationism (with a capital C) opposes Evolution in that Creationists tend to believe God just zapped everything into existence as they are formed in a very short period of time. They Theory of Evolution explains that the evidence currently available says that the various species of animals (extinct and not) emerged over a very very long time period and that species are derivative. Creationists (with a small 'c') tend to be people who range from scriptural literalists to people who believe God could have used evolution by natural selection as well as other natural forces to create the Earth according to the timescale set forth by the various sciences (as in the timescale that says the formation of Earth & subsequent formation of life took billions of years).

Creationists (capitalised) tend to be scriptural literalists who view their beliefs as having an equal amount of veracity as those positions backed up by science and advocate (sometimes quite aggressively) for their unevidenced beliefs to be taught in science classes.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think what you mean to say is that creation opposes abiogenesis. It doesn't necessarily oppose evolution.

Creation doesn't. Creationism, which is inappropriately but very firmly defined as equivalent to "denial of Evolution", does.

 

[Terese]

I think what you mean to say is that creation opposes abiogenesis. It doesn't necessarily oppose evolution.

Creationism opposes abiogenesis and evolution. What A Greased Scotsman just said.

 

[Tumah]

To be more specific: Creationism (with a capital C) opposes Evolution in that Creationists tend to believe God just zapped everything into existence as they are formed in a very short period of time. They Theory of Evolution explains that the evidence currently available says that the various species of animals (extinct and not) emerged over a very very long time period and that species are derivative. Creationists (with a small 'c') tend to be people who range from scriptural literalists to people who believe God could have used evolution by natural selection as well as other natural forces to create the Earth according to the timescale set forth by the various sciences (as in the timescale that says the formation of Earth & subsequent formation of life took billions of years).

Creationists (capitalised) tend to be scriptural literalists who view their beliefs as having an equal amount of veracity as those positions backed up by science and advocate (sometimes quite aggressively) for their unevidenced beliefs to be taught in science classes.

I was thinking of an in-between. G-d zaps the world into being, but since then, there have been evolutionary changes across the board. Wouldn't you call that Creationism?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I was thinking of an in-between. G-d zaps the world into being, but since then, there have been evolutionary changes across the board. Wouldn't you call that Creationism?

I'd call it creationism with a small 'c' unless you want your beliefs taught as factual in school science classrooms. Then it'll be a big 'C'.

 

[Tumah]

I'd call it creationism with a small 'c' unless you want your beliefs taught as factual in school science classrooms. Then it'll be a big 'C'.

So you're saying the difference between Creationism and Evolution is: whoever wants their beliefs to be taught in school is called a Creationist, otherwise they're a creationist. Whoever wants science to be taught into school is an Evolutionist, otherwise they're an evolutionist.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So you're saying "the difference between Creationism and Evolution is: whoever wants their beliefs to be taught in school is called a Creationist, otherwise they're a creationist. Whoever wants science to be taught into school is an Evolutionist, otherwise they're an evolutionist. advocating the teaching of evolutionary science."

This is my position (I hope you don't mind me editing your post to do it). As far as I'm concerned there's no small case 'e' Evolutionist because I think the term is a misnomer.

 

[Tumah]

This is my position (I hope you don't mind me editing your post to do it). As far as I'm concerned there's no small case 'e' Evolutionist because I think the term is a misnomer.

From your description, it seems like Creationist is also a misnomer.

 

[Godobeyer]

I think what you mean to say is that creation opposes abiogenesis. It doesn't necessarily oppose evolution.

This is my point

since evolution had nothing to do with original of life,why it's oppose to creation ?!!

 

[Godobeyer]

Because creationism opposes evolution

In what exactly ?
in origin of life ? or what ?

 

[HonestJoe]

I thought this DIR main goal is about how life appears,according to two different methods "believe in God is Creator, believe in nature is creator", yes or not ?

I expect the main goal of this sub-forum was to shift all the petty arguments around the general areas evolution and creationism out of the general religious forums. The exact scope of topics in this sub-forum is going to be somewhat flexible and the choice of name is probably a poor one (though coming up with anything better is difficult).

Since evolution had nothing to do with life appears why compare/oppose it to creation ?

Some versions of divine creation have specifics that would be contradicted by evolutionary theory (timelines, creation of fully-formed animals etc.). There’s also a significant element of people on both sides feeding the conflict because they think it’s easier to discredit the opposite that support their own opinion.

So,What is the purpose of discuss evolution VS creationism ?

None what so ever as far as I’m concerned. There is purpose in discussing both and even purpose in discussing them in the context of each other but the pure “verses” arguments are a waste of time. Again, that’s why they’ve been pushing in to a sub-forum where they don’t need to bother normal people.

 

[Terese]

In what exactly ?
in origin of life ? or what ?

Typically the evolution of ape to man.

 

[Godobeyer]

To be more specific: Creationism (with a capital C) opposes Evolution in that Creationists tend to believe God just zapped everything into existence as they are formed in a very short period of time.

Here is my question again.

But Evolution don't say about how everything came to into existence! and don't mention to origin of life.

So it's not suppose to be oppose the Creationism.

 

[Godobeyer]

Typically the evolution of ape to man.

That's theory not proved.
apes are remain apes.
that's not how about life started anyway.

Creationism is about how life started.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's theory not proved.
apes are remain apes.

Uh, no, that is quite wrong actually.

Apes such as us will eventually become non-apes given enough generations and evolutionary pressure. That has been demonstrated for a long time.

that's not how about life started anyway.

True enough, although what is known about biology and the origin of life does strongly hint towards abiogenesis. Technically that does not touch the ToE, but it is very much in harmony with it.

Creationism is about how life started.

It should be, and if it were understood as such it would never have a need to oppose evolution, even if we had already managed to create fully functional vertebrates out of inanimate matter.

But that is just not how the word is usually defined. It is instead code for "denial of evolution".

 

[Kirran]

Uh, no, that is quite wrong actually.

Apes such as us will eventually become non-apes given enough generations and evolutionary pressure. That has been demonstrated for a long time.

Luis, I must quibble. The descendant of an ape can never not be an ape, as ape is a taxonomic category. It is only that the category 'ape' will become ever-broader as different lineages within it diverge. If the descendants of some orangutans ultimately become one-foot-long aquatic creatures and the descendants of some siamangs develop wings like bats, lose their brains and take on the biological role of pterosaurs, both will still be apes. Apes will just be a higher-level taxonomic grouping.