Posted on 06/10/2005 9:40:20 PM PDT by orionblamblam
I've been having an offline debate with another Freeper on the topic of "Creationism," and there's been some friction over jsust what that term means. To me, especially on FR discussions, when someone proclaims themself a "Creationist," that means something akin to "I believe that (a) God created mankind pretty much as he is now, relatively recently, and there has been no macro-evolution." However, my pal claims to be a Creationist, but to her it means "I believe that God created man through scientifically discernable natural processes, including evolution from non-human forms over the scientifically accepted geological time spans."
So: while I accept that in general terms "Creationist" can include both "man created by God via evolution" and "man created basically as current by God 6000 years ago," to me the latter definition has always seemed to be the more widely accepted. Am I wrong?
I would prefer if this didn't turn into another cervo shouting match (I know, fat chance); I am interested in settling a debate on just what "Creationist" means to everyone. Perhaps if we settled this basic definition issue, some people might find they were argueing against people they actually agreed with.
101 prime and I'll buy 4 houses
Put me down as narrow.
Now you need to adjust your list, showing those who lean toward "E" and thier definition, and those leaning "C" as to how they define it.
(We needs a bunch more input, I think......)
I don't think so. Not this time ;^)
poof(ter)
Not in octal....
our hope in discovering a unifying theory and unlocking the secret to creation possibly lies in string theory (using extended objects as opposed to particles). if a unifying theory is ever uncovered (and I secretly hope it happens OUTSIDE of the physics world ;) ) then it will probaly spark a whole new debate on whether God created such a mathematically perfect universe - or that he simply doesn't exist. I lean towards the first possibility.
So I guess you could call me a math-creationist.
I personally do not dispute the age of the universe from our space/time coordinates, nor do I dispute that the age of the universe from God's inception space/time coordinates as creation week plus approximately 6000 years.
Take close a look at the structure of the first chapter of Genesis and you'll note some interesting things. The first couple of verses talk of God "Creating the heavens and the Earth...then speaking of the earth as having no form or void or of being empty and lifeless "and the spirit of God hovered OVER THE WATERS". Now how long form the initial creation of Heavens and Earth to the time of God's direct Terra forming of the planet and atmosphere the Bible doesn't say...perhaps billions of years(allowing time for much of the foundational geological development with in the crust, solar sytem dust froming the planets ect) so it seems to me the timing arguements start with God commanding.."Let there be light...!" It seems then that according to the Bible, that God secondly had to contend with a lot of water covering the earth with the distillation of an atmoshere from it.
Here is where the 7 days verses 7 creative periods arguements starts, here is where the secular minded scientists start to choke.
Creationism to me is defined as simply the belief that God created the heavens and Earth and all life and has monitored and often directly intervened when he deemed appropriate with his creation.
The timing questions are what the secular scientists have been using to beat the Creation minded over the head. they The assumption is that with the best dating methods and algorithms they have, that time has always been constant and that the various radiation dating methods used remain accurate beyond a few million years or so.
Yet algorthms need to applied in mixed sediment beds where very old things seemed to be surrounded by much younger things, and MATHEMATICAL assumptions(or best "scientific guesses") as to how best "age" the rocks and fossils they are examining. There again this assumes time remains a constant and assumes that there has been no Deus Ex Machina force working at the beginning of Earth's time.
The current accepted scientific method can not make such an assumption since such a force can not be examined or posited by any data known to exist(the dreaded tautologous). Where the seculars often go wrong is when they take up the bias that any tautologous notions of the Universe's creation(such as Deaus Ex Machina) must be seen as false and non existent. The tautologous must be seen in a neutral light neither accepted nor rejected for true science to remain true science)
Translation for those in Rio Linda: The Secular scientists need to retain the open(not necessarily skeptical either) mind that they would often accuse a Creationist for not having!
No, she tried lots of different flying mechanisms, bats, birds, fish, insects....
It would help clarify, IMO.....
Junior.........since you've obviously run away from our discussion (again), I would urge you to look at Alamo-Girl's post #43, and say again that you've never seen any positive evidence for the creationist position.
Actually, it's one of many positive posts on this thread doing what you claim has never been done.
Once again, your vision is limited to what you want to see.....
I haven't tracked all 112 posts, but in a nutshell, the argument regarding Creationism extends further than merely a 'Darwinist' and agnostic/atheist/materialist vs a literal fundamental Christian.
Within the group of Christian systematic theologians, difference has emerged in the interpretation of whats constitutes 'man'.
In some cases, man is perceived as body and soul. In other cases he is understood as body, soul and spirit (3 different aspects comprising the man that God has created).
The Creationist a century ago, was one who believed God created the body of man, which is perpetuated by genetic procreation, from generation to generation, while the soul is God breathed upon physical birth, and the spirit, once created in Adam, was separated from God and must be regenerated or rebirthed by God at the time of salvation closely associated to the time of faith alone in Christ alone. (tends to follow a St Augustianian interpretation)
The Traducianists , tended to believe the soul and the body were originally formed in Adam and then each individual man inherited both the body and soul genetically.
The discernment here wrt Creationism, touches upon the issue of whether the soul is created by God for each man upon birth or if it is a genetic consequence of conception.
Darwinism entered the scene and tended to obscure the argument by formulating a false argument between believers and unbelievers that the issues of Creationism were strictly associated with materialism.
Secondary arguments have then been bantered around which probably are nothing more than arguments for arguing sake.
IMHO, the essence of Creationism is recognizing God created all things and then once they are running, He also sustains all things. The rest of the issue might touch upon how we perceive the realm of our domain. I suspect more arguments on Creationism touch upon one form or another of arrogance. Intellectual arrogance of those insisting they live independent of God and crusader arrogance of those who fail to rest faithfully upon the grace of God.
When I hear the word 'creationist', I think of a Protestant (i.e believes in private interpretation of truth) who believes God 'poofed' the universe into existence pretty much just as it is.
I think Martin Luther and Jean Calvin (among others) might have a bit of trouble with that definition of who Protestants are and what we believe........
Do you believe scripture is the ultimate authority?
(Is that a trick question?)
Actually, I prefer, "Bang!"
Orionblamblam, since you are keeping score, I suppose I fit best in your "broad" category -- or somewhere in between -- because I am a born-again Christian, and firm believer in God's creation...who is also a physical scientist.
And I find no conflict betweeen the "brief outline" God gave us of His (miraculous) work of creation in Genesis, and the marvelous, detailed evidence of those mighty works (of creation and formation) He left behind for mankind to study and try to understand.
Read my posts here -- especially my exchange with AlamoGirl -- for a glimpse at where I stand re "creationism" (no capitalization needed, BTW).
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.