|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bridgebuilder, and welcome to the fray.
... Both are religious by any definition ... This is a hoary old PRATT:
quote: To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... Those that look to understand the universe through science, the scientific method, and objective evidence, can refer to mountains of objective evidence that shows the earth to be old. For an example of the evidence see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. To think that this kind of evidence can just be swept away because of personal belief is not just ridiculous but delusional:
If you disagree, then feel free to participate on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.
... They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... People of a scientific disposition will not accept any hypothesis or theory that is not only unsupported by evidence but contradicted by evidence. The rejection of all theories and hypothesis that are invalidated is specifically why science is not dogmatic.
... or ex nihilo creationism, which defies laws of thermodynamics. Demonstrating that you don't understand thermodynamics. This is another hoary old PRATT:
quote: If you want to build bridges, then I suggest you start from a realistic position. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bridgebuilder,
Don't tell me to start from a "realistic" approach when you didn't read my post. I am not a proponent of a new/young earth. I believe the earth is very old Curiously, it appears that you did not read my post with complete comprehension. An astute reader would know that I did not even imply you were a YEC, but was replying to your point:
To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... Those that look to understand the universe through science, the scientific method, and objective evidence, can refer to mountains of objective evidence that shows the earth to be old. For an example of the evidence see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. To think that this kind of evidence can just be swept away because of personal belief is not just ridiculous but delusional:
If you disagree, then feel free to participate on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.
... They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... People of a scientific disposition will not accept any hypothesis or theory that is not only unsupported by evidence but contradicted by evidence. The rejection of all theories and hypothesis that are invalidated is specifically why science is not dogmatic. This is how science works as opposed to religion. Now would you care to reply to the post (Message 21) rather than play games? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again bridgebuilder,
There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists ... As others have pointed out, "evolutionist" is a term used by creationists to try to categorize non-creationists, with the implication that it is some kind of 'ism = a belief system. In fact there are many people who are non-creationists that are also theists of various types, people who accept\trust science as providing testable concepts of reality, and who accept\trust the results of science as providing the best explanation of the evidence.
... unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe. Neither will happen. Yet it has already happened. As others have pointed out, this is not true. Personally, I am a Deist, one who believes that what we see (objective evidence) and how we think it works (physical 'laws' theories, etc) is due to the universe having been created that way. Thus science is in harmony\consilience with my faith - science is how we better understand how the created universe works. You should also look at: (1) http://www.clergyletterproject.net/
quote: Religious leaders of may faiths have signed this letter. (2) Radiometric Dating
quote: Dr Wiens is a christian. (3) Ken Miller's Evolution Page Dr Ken Miller has already been mentioned -- he is a catholic (4) Robert T. Bakker - Wikipedia Dr Robert Bakker is a paleontologist who was instrumental in molding latest theories about dinosaurs being warm blooded, and he is an Ecumenical Christian minister.
... So far not one creationist has responded to my initial post. That is the audience I was seeking when I made my initial post. I disagree with the creos who think God didn't create anything until 5000-6000 yrs ago. ... You will note that evolution does not date the age of the earth, that this information comes through geology, physics, and some other sciences. Using 'evolutionist' is thus misleading. The fact remains that creationism is in conflict with almost all branches of science in some way. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bridgebuilder,
Let me repeat this ... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy alternatively type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. I generally use the latter format for quoting from a linked article and the former format for replies. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Sid Williams, and welcome to the fray.
An Atheist [fool] ... ... The fool (Atheist ... ... The Fool (Atheist) ... Please note that when other people start to insult you and call you names that you began it, and you opened with it being on the table. Of course the ad hominem and strawman arguments are old invalid logical forms, arguments that fools might use.
... "This proves the Bible is full of errors -- and there is no God"; ... Curiously, I do not know of any atheists that make this claim -- perhaps you can substantiate your purported quote with a link to someone that did? Please note that I am not an atheist. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024