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.
I guess in your world "devious" is me not assuming I know precisely where you are coming from and the point I made in the first post still stands. Private interpretation of truth is the problem and it equals the rejection of teaching authorities.
As a Protestant you're free to ignore St. Thomas but he is very clear about what exactly Theology is and what Philosophy is. Scientists do philosophy as as long as they confine themselves to the appropriate investigations in proximate causes they are not in conflict with Catholic theology but apparently are in conflict with yours.
Scientists doing evolutionary studies aren't baiting you and me believing in definitions and positions different from yours isn't baiting you either. I'll let it go at that.
Nice try though.
Environmentalist- (n) Theodore Roosevelt
Is there anyone out there that believes that God created the big bang, and all else just followed from that? The big bang theory pretty much sounds like creationism to me.
Creationism is a theological view on the meaning(s) of the creation stories in Genesis. It is not a science. My study of science leads me to conclude that this universe was created with laws that permit the evolution of humans and like lifeforms. It also seems to me that if we were created by God, He endowed us with the intellect and imagination to discover creation through science. All of our centuries of scientific advancement must have been intended by Him.
I am not against evolution, I am more a creationist person, I support teaching of creationism. What the matter, the people have been so much brain washed with evolution being the only way. DNA is the code that makes us humans live CODE of elements-of forces-such as the EM.I
think creationism says-an object of control set a definition forth, a probability is still in place. Everything defines -yes,no-life,death-animate-unanimate-yin,yang, etc. Responce to stimuli-what is beyond life. Earth has not happened yet. It has been made to find it's probabilty, more like a model which has became real. Explains deja vu to me, something we have all had an experiance with. The future will be present, present will be past, past will be remembered, past was once future. What defines the difference and stops the memories of what will be.
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.