Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
June 9, 2009 — “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.” That statement is not being made by creationists, but by science reporters describing work at Oregon State University that cast new doubt on the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The main idea: their leg bones and lungs are too different.
Science Daily’s report has a diagram of the skeleton showing...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Yes, of course. All creationists believe in a creator God, but (IMO) not all those who believe in a crreator God are "creationists."
I'm almost afraid to ask, but what is it YOU think creationism or creationist means?
I think it means a belief, rooted in their interpretation of the Bible and opposed to evolution, that God made the plants and animals we see (and the ones we have fossil records of) (especially humans) fully formed, as individual and immutable (except for minor variation) "kinds."
I showed in post 243 that this is the sense used by the owners of creationist.org, creationists.org, and creationism.org, plus the author of a book on how he became a "creationist."
It's the sense used by participants in another thread going on at the moment. The person who starts all these threads has labeled the Gallup poll option, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," as the "creationist view." Another poster--one you often chime in in support of--wrote "Considering the numbers that keep showing up in polls, belief in creation is still ahead of belief in evolution." (I'm not going to use their names because I'm not going to bother to ping them to this old thread. If that's improper etiquette, let me know.)
Some believe in a creator that may have created all we know slowly over ga-jillions of years, perhaps used evolution/monkeys to men, humans are mere great apes,
See, you say that "creationists" can believe in evolution. I say nobody uses the word that way. I've found numerous examples, including here on FR, of people using the word to include anti-evolutionism. No one has shown me an example of the word being used in the more general sense you're talking about--except posters in these topics insisting it has that more general meaning.
One of course "can" believe in God and evolution, but to then assert He didn't know what He was doing by not having a plan or purpose and all this just happened willy-nilly without intelligence or design, seems utterly non-sensical and illogical at best.
Belief in evolution does not imply that God did not have a plan or purpose, or not know what He was doing. Did you ever play the kids' board game Mousetrap? If you assemble the machine properly, the boot kicks the ball and the man jumps into the tub and the cage comes down right where you want it. To believers in God and evolution, He created a wondrous machine that through the actions of the pieces of the machine itself achieved His plan. He didn't have to step in and place the cage in the right place as a special action (creationism) or give the ball a flick to keep it moving (ID). (Note please: I know these are caricatures of creationism and ID. The Mousetrap metaphor can only go so far.)
I hope that's clear, if long-winded.
Are you suggesting that the Pope is a Scientist, or just one of the “Masters of the Universe”?
I am not responsible for what language the Pope uses, and when he called evolution “a truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such” he was not speaking as a scientist, nor was he presenting a “creationist” philosophy, as the word is commonly used.
I hope you didn’t waste your time typing slowly. I’ve understood you from the beginning.
”. . . then I'll drop it.”
Do what you believe you must do. But, I must tell you that you will not move me. I’ll tell you why.
Creationism is a philosophical tenet of Christianity. Most people do not discuss philosophy or call it by various names; they simply live it. Before you start sneering, consider: many people live their lives conservatively, but when it comes to politics, they don’t talk conservative and they certainly don’t vote conservative.
You’ve cited several news puke publications to support your view of the ‘popular use’ and the common meaning of ‘Creationism.’ If I were to examine these same publications for their use of the term ‘Conservative,’ what might I find? I might find in popular use ‘Conservatism’ means bigot, racist, mean-spirited, hateful, indifferent, greedy, selfish, sexist, and on, and on, and on. Even if you are a Liberal and agree with all these appellations, you understand my point (although you might not want to admit it). If you are genuinely a Conservative, you would not want the term ‘Conservative’ subjected to the same standard of popular use with which you propose to judge ‘Creationist.’
Many dictionaries have not yet been politicized (I won’t say ‘all’; I haven’t read all dictionaries), and they are one of the few places in our society that is not corrupted by politics. Compare the dictionary definition of ‘conservative’ with what you will find in “popular use.” Like Jefferson, who proposed to retire to the Law as his last refuge, I propose to retire to the dictionary as my last refuge in the definition wars.
It may be that in your eagerness to press your point, you failed to appreciate the wider implications of what you are doing. If that is true, then I owe you an apology for questioning your motives. If you knew what you were doing; I owe you nothing.
You've understood me from the beginning?! Then all those places where you misrepresented my views about dictionaries were on purpose, and not because you didn't understand my point? Good to finally find out who I'm dealing with, I suppose.
I must tell you that you will not move me.
I know that! That's why I'm dropping it!
You’ve cited several news puke publications to support your view of the ‘popular use’ and the common meaning of ‘Creationism.’
Yeah, that Wall Street Journal is a real "news puke publication," all right. And you overlook the fact that I've cited several sources by people who call themselves creationists!
I might find in popular use ‘Conservatism’ means bigot, racist, mean-spirited, hateful, indifferent, greedy, selfish, sexist, and on, and on, and on.
Yeah, you might--if you could actually be bothered to look! Go ahead, find me a bunch of places in the WSJ, the LA Times-Picayune, or the New Yorker where "conservative" is used, without elaboration, as a synonym for racist or sexist.
you understand my point
I understand that you're making something up because you don't have any support for your original point.
you failed to appreciate the wider implications of what you are doing.
There are no wider implications of what I'm doing. If you have an argument with the fact that "creationism" is almost never used to mean just "a philosophical tenet of Christianity," take it up with the people who call themselves creationists or the people who set creationism in opposition to evolution right here on FR. I have no agenda in using their own term--in fact, I'm doing them a favor. Maybe I'll start demanding that they use "creationist" to refer to people who accept the theory of evolution too, and direct them to you when they object.
”Are you suggesting that the Pope is a Scientist?”
Figure it out for yourself. The Pope deals in the truth. Is it not true that in Science, there is no such thing as the truth (or the TRVTH as Masters of the Universe are so fond of saying mockingly)?
Otherwise, there are some gaps in our dialogue:
You’ve still not explained how “wanting to puke” has damaged science.
Nor have you demonstrated how Christian parents, having no power in the matter, can retard the ‘progress’ of science education.
Do you agree with my objection to the Webster’s Universal Dictionary, edition of 1937, definition of ‘Creationism, in that it makes no distinction between a philosophical tenet and a scientific theory, or demonstrates no appreciation for their dissimilar functions?
You’ve not specified whose values you prefer be included in public instruction in the place of the ‘moral instruction’ of which Jefferson and Adams spoke. Are you genuinely indifferent to what values are taught in government indoctrination centers so long as they are not Judeo-Christian?
Do you dispute that it is impossible to teach any discipline absent values?
You’ve not said how you would explain to parents why it’s perfectly appropriate that values inimical to their beliefs ought be enforced on their children, but that they may not have any voice in the values taught in government indoctrination centers.
You’ve not offered your views on what composes the values of government indoctrination center teachers.
Nor have you offered a theory on what values those teachers will pass on to their students. Nor have you offered an opinion on how the chaff is separated from the grain in determining those values. Nor have you suggested who it is that should make the determination if it is not the patrons of the respective government indoctrination center districts.
Other than that, I guess you’ve done pretty well in holding up your end of the conversation.
I don’t know of any Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe (the heavens and the earth). Do you?
OK, it is rather nutty for you to insist that we use a definition that is particular to yourself for “creationist” instead of using the definition for what over 99.9% of people MEAN when they say “creationist”; including those who call themselves “creationist”.
It is rather nutty for you to provide definitions for creationist that you then take objection to us using; such as Websters that pointed out that creationism usually means opposition to the theory of evolution.
The Pope would not call himself a creationist any more than I would, yet he would, as I do, insist that all things in this universe are created by God.
Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI said is a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such.”
Myself I would say that it is a “theory which enriches our understanding of life and being and such, which explains and predicts observations.”
That might avoid any traumatic feelings of being sneered at for you.
Exactly, when Hissy-Fit Matthews uses the term Creationist, it means something very different than when I use the term.
You mean other than DC?
You got sources to back up that statement to demonstrate that when 99.9% of the people outside DC use the term *creationist* that they specifically mean the term as allmendream defines it?
Well, then this is to mis-understand the terms 'creation' and 'creationists'. Alot of people on your side of the aisle try to define 'conservative' in a certain less than honest way also. I've seen it, same for "liberal/liberalism"....saying liberalism is an ideology of people that somehow care more about their fellow man, social problems, blah blah blah.
IIRC, one of their "citations" in bashing conservatives while putting positive spin on liberalism, was the NYT no less!
If the left had it their way, when one looks up the word creationist in the dictionary it would look something like:
"A retarded Bible-thumping person that hates science".
See, you say that "creationists" can believe in evolution. I say nobody uses the word that way. I've found numerous examples, including here on FR, of people using the word to include anti-evolutionism. No one has shown me an example of the word being used in the more general sense you're talking about--except posters in these topics insisting it has that more general meaning.
Yes, I understand it's a contentious subject, but mis-using a word over and over doesn't make it right.
For instance, I correct people everytime I'm able when I hear "occupation" or "invasion" of Iraq/Afghanistan, with the more accurate terminology "liberation" of Iraq. And yet I don't even hear people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or virtually ANYONE using liberation if Iraq. To this day.
The same point could be made of "homicide bomber" vs. "suicide bomber", IMO.
Wow...so no one else, perhaps let’s say a politician can say one thing and then say another thing and you agree with one position, but not the other?
That’s never happened?
Fascinating!
I’ve never watched Chrissssssy. Some things I don’t miss.
And it's just as non-sensical to assert that creation means: "an opposition to evolution". And create means exactly what it says in the webster's dictionary:
"create: make, or bring about". And does one find "evolve" as the opposite of create here? No.
And meanwhile, can any evo give us a definition of evolution?
Nope. It's like nailing jello to a wall. What a crock!
I can’t handle him...but once in a while the others...Hannity etc. will show him ranting.
It’s amazing.
Don’t put it off on me that you wanted to have your cake and eat it too . . . that you wanted to undercut the validity of dictionary definitions displeasing to you, and, at the same time, to pretend to honor their admirable but futile efforts at telling us what words really mean. I simply named what you were doing. You were the one doing it.
”That’s why I’m dropping it!”
So you say.
”Yeah, that Wall Street Journal is a real "news puke publication," all right.”
The news page? Or the editorial page? For years now there’s been a considerable difference in the philosophical stance of the Journal’s news page versus its editorial page. You didn’t know that? Whoops!
”. . . if you could actually be bothered to look!”
The propagandist habits of most news outlets is why I haven’t “bothered” to look for years.
”Go ahead, find me a bunch of places in the WSJ, the LA Times-Picayune, or the New Yorker where "conservative" is used, without elaboration, as a synonym for racist or sexist.”
It doesn’t work quite that way. Propagandists are a little more subtle than that, although not much. They refer to oppressive regimes as ‘conservative’ (like they did with the Afghan Taliban); they refer to conservative members of Congress as ‘ultra,’ but they would never use even Liberal, much less ‘ultra,’ to describe Ted Kennedy; they played up the assassination of a Kansas late-term abortionist for two weeks, giving full play to anyone who wanted to utter a pious statement about “hate,” but made the assassination of an Arkansas Army recruiter a one-day news item and kept it as brief as possible, because the event gave them no opportunity to pin ‘hate’ on a Conservative or a Christian. The Palin – Letterman dustup is a graphic indication of how Conservatives are treated by media pukes. FR is rife each day with examples of how Conservatives are treated by them. And I have to demonstrate to you how the Drive-Bys want desperately to associate ‘Conservative’ with bigot, racist, mean-spirited, hateful, indifferent, greedy, selfish, sexist, etc, etc, etc? Perhaps you agree, and approve of that behavior? Maybe that’s why you can’t bring yourself to admit to my point.
I owe you nothing.
OK. So I made a mistake in letting you out unsupervised.
You still aren’t doing very well holding up your end of the conversation. Your declarations have a whole lot of consequences. You’ve made it obvious that you’re unwilling to deal with any of them. Man up or end this discussion.
Now, now....He’s no worse than ground glass in the eyes.
Well, not much worse. maybe a little bit. some.
Some few dictionaries do so assert. Most do not. You may be thinking of one young fellow who took “opposed to evolution” as part of a definition rather than an illustrative offering as a different theory of how existence began to aid in understanding the definition. He has since forgotten the incident and is back at the same stand selling the same old snake oil.
”And meanwhile, can any evo give us a definition of evolution?”
Like Topsy, it just growed?
The end of the discussion is this.
I will continue to use the word creationist according to the definitions both you and I have provided and I refuse to adjust my behavior to suite your inclinations to adopt a new definition that suits you.
The Pope is a Christian. The Pope believes evolution is a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such”; and as such is NOT a creationist.
It seems that your confidence that you understood me was misplaced. It's really not that complicated:
I asserted that the word "creationist" as it's commonly used has a certain meaning.
You claimed it has other meanings that are just as common.
I produced several examples of the word used as I claim, from newspapers, magazines, scholarly works, the websites of self-described creationists, and from FR itself.
You have been unable to do the same for any other meaning.
That's really it. You can cast this as some great war of dictionaries vs. propaganda if you want, but it's not that grand an issue.
No one asserted that. The assertion is that "creationism" implies an opposition to evolution. If you don't think it should, I'd take it up with the self-described creationists. If they continue to describe their anti-evolution position as "creationism," I'll continue to use the word that way too.
And meanwhile, can any evo give us a definition of evolution?
The last sentence of this one is what I've read most often here on FR. Is there some reason you think "evos" don't agree on it?
evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.