"Creationism:" Define your terms

[orionblamblam]

* Those in favor of the "broad" definition of "Creationism" (God did it, maybe evolution, maybe not)
Posts: 9 (USAFJeeper), 12 (AndrewC), 16 (Triggerhippie), 18 (spinestein), 47 (chronic_loser) and of course my friend

* Those in favor of the "narrow" definition of "Creationism" (God did it via "poof")
Posts: 15 (MitchellC), 19 (thomaswest), 20 (Bonaparte), 22 (taxesareforever), 43 (Alamo-Girl), 48 (Fester Chugabrew), 54 (PatrickHenry), 58 (VadeRetro) and of course me.

[orionblamblam]

So... is that "broad" or "narrow?"

[orionblamblam]

So... is that "broad" or "narrow?"

[spoiler2]

As usual, the repliers are getting caught up in the strictest definitions of the terms themselves.

While man creates with his hands, God has set in place a system of creation that works without his constant intervention.

If God had had one great creative burst, with everything set in place in a grand static design, by now, all life would have ceased to exist.

Evolution and creation are intertwined, since evolution is the maintenance mechanism that allows life to adapt to the constant changes that surround us all.

For men to become embroiled in an argument that one mechanism exists and the other doesn't, is truly missing the point.

[Seven_0]

We have at least one design flaw in that the optic nerve lies across the middle of our retina, leaving a dead spot (which the brain fills in).

Design flaw? If the eye came about by evolution, there is no design, if it was by design, shall we tell God about the flaw. You underestimate God.

The blind spot was put there on purpose, that is how God does things. Perhaps to illustrate that we need each other to see thing that we might miss. Sure, the brain fill in information, but it misses details and can be easily fooled. It is impossible to demonstrate the blind spot with both eyes opened. The testimony of two is true, thus two testaments.

[TXnMA]

Well put!

Although I (a physical chemist) am a strong believer in creation (of everthing in this amazingly extensive universe) by Almighty God, I am insulted by statements like, "There is really a lot to be said for speaking where the bible speaks, and being silent where it is silent. Anything beyond this comes from...well, you know."

That statement is closely akin to saying, "The Bible doesn't describe subatomic physics, so studying it must be a Satanic act."

It was God the Creator who gave us an extremely brief (but accurate) outline of His mighty works in Genesis. And it was that same God (not Satan) who gave us brains so we can strive to understand (and be awed by) the inticate evidence He left of His mighty works of creation.

There is a monstrous difference between faith and self-imposed ignorance.

[chronic_loser]

Chick tracts are not really what they are looking for when he is asking for "input." Thanks for reaffirming the stereotype of fundamentalists as ignorant, bombastic, poorly read and belligerent. Keep it up and I am sure you will have a shot at Dean of Bob Jones U. I was defending biblical inerrancy in an unbelieving stratum of society over 30 years ago. I was also apologizing for goobs whose arrogance was exceeded only by their ignorance......, although those two were a real horserace sometimes.

Don't ya just LOVE free speech?

[bondserv]

Not a whim my old friend but years of study.

Science has enabled many to steal a few more prescious moments of fellowship with one another, therefore it is a worthy endeavor.

Studying science together, and discovering the nuggets of our Creators wonders, is about establishing lasting relationships with other people more than the discoveries. As our lives wind down, we talk about the people we were with, more than the destination we were pursuing. Even those we disagreed with. For that reason, I also consider you a precious old friend.

In God's economy, the knowledge obtained by our study should bring more humility, rather than prestige.

[chronic_loser]

"There is really a lot to be said for speaking where the bible speaks, and being silent where it is silent. Anything beyond this comes from...well, you know." That statement is closely akin to saying, "The Bible doesn't describe subatomic physics, so studying it must be a Satanic act." I don't think he is saying that. I think (though I could be wrong) that he is saying that it is unwise to stipulate "THE BIBLE TEACHES" when it really teaches no such thing. The history of the church is littered with wreckage of the opinions of men who inferred things from the scriptures which should not have been inferred, much less turned into lynchpins of orthodoxy. The mechanism of creation and development of life is one of those areas, I believe. Crap, we may find out Darwin IS wrong and have to grovel at the feet of Jack Chick, for all that matters. I don't think so, but I am amazed at how non-humbled men of science can be in the face of our ignorance of the actual mechanics of the cosmos. Better to say "it might be" than thow down a gauntlet where not is demanded.

[csense]

To me, "creationism" is virtually synonymous with being anti-evolution -- and in many cases (but not all) being anti-science and anti-reason too.

You know, I don't really mind when you folks pit us against evolution ("anti-evlution") and science ("anti-science") but when you pit us against reason (anti-reason) it really irks me.

Science, like philosophy and theology, is based upon a set of axioms which are unproveable, and all you can really say is that your observations are consistent with those axioms. In fact all three can say that equally.

Before you get on your soapbox and insinuate that those who don't believe as you do are inherently stupid, you might, at the very least, want to present a Unified Field Theory. That would be a good place to start.

Until then, all you are doing is spouting noise.

[TXnMA]

Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and thus those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). Using that formula, 6 days at the inception coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates, Genesis 1-3 apply to heaven and earth and Adams’ time begins when he is banished to mortality in Genesis 4 (6000 years ago).

We share a similar viewpoint/belief. Most of the "six 24-hour days" folks won't (or can't) try to understand the role of relativity in the discussion of the age of the universe.

For me, understanding relativity was all I needed to see that there is no conflict between Genesis and what the Hubble telescope (or the fossil record) shows us.

[csense]

Evolution and creation are intertwined, since evolution is the maintenance mechanism that allows life to adapt to the constant changes that surround us all.

For men to become embroiled in an argument that one mechanism exists and the other doesn't, is truly missing the point.

Actually, you're missing the point, which is: why would God need to employ two different mechanisms of awareness,

I think this question would necessarily need to be aswered to justify your position.

Clearly, man is unique in God's creation, and his uniqueness is inextricably connected to his awareness and intelligence.

If, somewhere along the line of evolution, God were to imbue a primate, or primates, with a soul, then their awareness and intellignece would necessarily need to be altered profoundly, otherwise, what is the point. Such a condition would be indistinguishable from the evolutionary process which would take us there eventually anyway. There simply would be no further need for God to interfere in a system that would acheive the same results.

That said, we certainly see no evidence of a profound shift in behavior as can be extrapolated from the fossil record, and to suggest that God imbued whatever organism or existent (that evolution suggests is the common ancestor of all animal life an earth) with a soul, would simply be an absurdity.

[Junior]

I used "design flaw" in a neutral sense. Thank you for word-lawyering, though. It seems that is all creationists have going for them.

[spoiler2]

"why would God need to employ two different mechanisms of awareness,"

I don't see these mechanisms as being separate. They are equal parts of His overall creation process.

First came Divine Creation, which established the basic format for the variety of species, of which man is definitely a part.

Evolution is the maintenance part, which He has included to allow the varieties to adapt to their surroundings, and in some cases, to establish new varieties of life. Man is also a part of the evolutionary process, as evidenced by his own physical and intellectual progress through time.

We exist in a dynamic, four-dimensional world (at least), with Time the factor that needs to be accommodated. If Created life could not evolve or adapt to changing situations, man could not either.

[Manic_Episode]

That would be narrow.

[csense]

I don't see these mechanisms as being separate.

Then why do you even bother with religion, since at it's core, the tenet that man is unique amongst all other living things would be meaningless from your perspective.

No offense, but you either need to choose, or reconcile. Otherwise your position is simply absurd.

[spoiler2]

I accept the fact of a Divine Creation, since life cannot create itself from nothing.

Man is unique, but he is still evolving, being caught in an ever-changing environment, whether by his own actions or not. Those who do not adapt will not survive.

There is no need to choose one side or the other in this argument. The ultimate reconciliation is that both of God's creative mechanisms are in play, all the time.

[ohioWfan]

Your friend is not a creationist. She is a theistic evolutionist.

While there are degrees of understanding of God's creation and its timing, one cannot be described as a creationist if one believes that God just sort of got the ball rolling and let things evolve on their own.

And if your friend does not believe in the unique creation of humans, she is not a creationist at all.

In other words, one cannot call him or herself a creationist, if one has beliefs that are contrary to what is revealed in Scripture (i.e that man was a God-breathed creation apart from plants and animals).

[ohioWfan]

Why not trying something new and argue the issue instead of insulting the people you take issue with?

Are you capable of that, or is it in your nature to only be capable of elevating yourselves by demeaning others?

[Junior]

I never insulted anyone. Name one epithet I used("word-lawyering" is a verb and aptly describes what the person to whom I was replying did).

Now, I'm a veteran of a thousand crevo wars, having been fighting on these threads for the past seven years. I know every tactic the opposition uses to distract from the fact they have no actual support for their positions. I know word-lawyering when I see it, and I'm not afraid to call my opponent on it.

If you don't like this, you can simply put me on "virtual ignore." I'm probably going to do the same to you after this post.