Ok, so right here - "creationists are stupid". Not a particular kind of creationists or whatever spin has been put on it in this thread, just "creationist". Now, was that so hard?
Watching X-Factor slink away from his first post in this thread is slightly satisfying. He lied about Dr. Edwin Conklin's position as an 'evolutionist'. He tried really hard to attribute the statements of others to my posts. Then he couldn't answer what his quote had to do with the issue. Then he got school on just which Christians accepted evolution. Then mbig called him out for engaging in further dishonest and trying to get people to insult his view. You gotta love just how his arguments have been bludgeoned to death but I'm not one to really enjoy jumping on people who don't know their stuff. So I'll bid you all adieu and observe as some of you demolishing X's uninformed statements.
eace
Who said that?
Watching X-Factor slink away from his first post in this thread is slightly satisfying. He lied about Dr. Edwin Conklin's position as an 'evolutionist'. He tried really hard to attribute the statements of others to my posts. Then he couldn't answer what his quote had to do with the issue. Then he got school on just which Christians accepted evolution. Then mbig called him out for engaging in further dishonest and trying to get people to insult his view. You gotta love just how his arguments have been bludgeoned to death but I'm not one to really enjoy jumping on people who don't know their stuff. So I'll bid you all adieu and observe as some of you demolishing X's uninformed statements.
eace
I've slunk away from it? Lol. Since I've posted it, I've gotten various responses to it. First, mbig was all he didn't really say it.
Then it became, ok, he said it but it's out of context. Then; ok he said it and he meant it but he's not credible because he was a devout Christian Scientist who lived a long time ago and he's not really an evolutionist anyway.
I believe we're curently at he said it, he mean it, he's actually probably correct about the odds but space is so vast that we are that one in many trillion chances where life came from nothing living.
I'm just waiting so see what's next.
I like how he is quoting me in his signature obviously without realizing the a majority of people would agree with my statement he is quoting.
Moderator's Warning: |
Even better is seeing it happen to a Dallas Cowboys fan.....
He is dishonestly conflating believing in a creator and being a creationist. The two are mutually exclusive. The fact that he thinks evolution and a creator were mutually exclusive and then got completely destroyed when he tried to claim all Christians were creationists-a-la-evangelicals just made me realize how little he knows about this topic. Then again... what else can we expect from someone who tried to pass off a devout Christian scientist as an evolutionist?
Creationists by definition are people that believe that the 2 creation stories in Genesis are literal accounts of the creation of man, all life, and the universe. Within creationism there are 2 sects, Old Earth and New Earth. Basically the division being whether the earth is 6 thousand years old or much older. However, regardless of how old they think the earth is, creationists by definition believe there was a literal Adam and a literal Eve that which all of humanity descends from.
Frankly I am beginning to think that despite your histrionic indignation, you don't even know what creationists believe.
Eh, I think the one caveat to this is I have encountered people who subscribe to the intelligent design style of thought that refer to themselves as creationists. While I agree with you in terms of the general definition, I deifnitely think there are people who self identify as "creationist" who dont necessarily believe the bibilical creation story is literal in nature but rather fall more in the ID side of things.
That is quite possible, although I doubt the "stupid" part, but there are people here that would be surprised that it came from you. I consider it a PSA for any believer who engages you so that they know, at the outset, where they stand with you. That's all.
I do appreciate your consent to keep it.
Yeah, except this was a coworker at ESPN.
Its like saying that accepting the laws of physics and the belief in a creator are mutually exclusive. Back when I was religious I would get really annoyed when a fundamentalist would paint challenges to their absurd beliefs (creationism, flood geology, tower of babel) as "attacks on Christians". I was raised Catholic, Roman Catholics constitute half of the world's 2 billion Christians and Catholics are not creationists and don't believe in such nonsense as Flood Geology. As an adult I became Episcopalian, and they don't believe such nonsense either, and the Anglican Communion, which they are apart of is the third largest Christian denomination on earth. Its actually a minority of Christians that hold such ridiculous beliefs such as creationism, flood geology and so on.
ID is basically creationism with modern marketing.
Most believers don't believe in literal creation, so I don't know what your point there is. I assure you that any actual creationist would quickly pick up where I stand in regards to their beliefs regardless of whether you have your PSA or not.
You've already said, repeatedly that you anyone who consider themselves a creationist is an idiot, doesn't matter what "type". That's grand. I'm not trying to dissuade you at all. I'm telling you that most Christians consider themselves creationists.
Eh, I disagree...specifically for the very reasons you laid out in your original post and then here as well.
It's far different to believe that there was/is some sort of entity/power beyond the natural world that either initially set the natural word in motion (and potentially, depending on ones view on the matter, continues to dictate the manner in which that motion proceeds)....and to literally believe in the biblical account of creation, both as a YEC or an OEC.
Most specifically, science does not inherently contradict the basic premises behind ID as it does with either of the creationist belief structures.
Honestly, many of those I've ran into that either are ardent supporters of ID, or more casual supporters, haven't really been what I'd deem "fundamentalist" but rather run of the mill religious types. I don't think the notion of ID really fits as well with a fundamentalist view, as ID opens itself up to any number of various "creator" entities as well as is feasible to work in concert with most of scientific theory.
So I kind of agree with your latter part, but somewhat disagree with the former...unless you're simply meaning "it's a more modern take on 'creation via a super natural method'".
Let's just keep the Cowboys out of this.
Eh, I think the one caveat to this is I have encountered people who subscribe to the intelligent design style of thought that refer to themselves as creationists. While I agree with you in terms of the general definition, I deifnitely think there are people who self identify as "creationist" who dont necessarily believe the bibilical creation story is literal in nature but rather fall more in the ID side of things.
ID is creationism. The problem is when they try to be scientific about it all, but they can't because all their creationism still has to rely on "...and then, a miracle happened" to prove their point. Supernatural miracles that flout the laws of physics is a nice McGuffin, but untestable, non repeatable, un provable, and rely on the heresay from a oft re written book from iron age times.
That is no foundation for anything even remotely resembling science.
I think it's basically a creationist-driven movement to supply a rather deistic explanation for the universe.
ID is creationism. The problem is when they try to be scientific about it all, but they can't because all their creationism still has to rely on "...and then, a miracle happened" to prove their point. Supernatural miracles that flout the laws of physics is a nice McGuffin, but untestable, non repeatable, un provable, and rely on the heresay from a oft re written book from iron age times.
That is no foundation for anything even remotely resembling science.
And it is pure garbage. Every religion has its own origin myth, but the creationists want their christian one to be the one taugh in schools, as science.
Maybe the yokels in Texas will eat that baloney, but they do so at the risk of furthering their ignorance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?