Topic awaiting preservation: How to tell if you are a Creationist (Page 1 of 2)

Prerequisites to be a Creationist

This sounds like you, Gideon!



One just has to love this Fanciful Bible-Science Stories' Harm:
A Call to Action

I guess Creationists and the ASA don't see eye to eye, eh?

haha shaman ya made my day!

tsk tsk WS

[little chuckle]

you bad WS you very very bad



btw .. what ever happen to the Formal Debates .. they still take place?

.::. cEll .::. 513

(Edited by RammStein on 02-08-2005 17:50)

Perfect, absolutly perfect.

One might add the following:

tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies

Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

Which is how Gid and his ilk always present their 'arguments'.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with Creationists that just admit that their beliefs are totally faith-based and have no grounding in logic or science.

---

I like this because so many Evolutionists like to say that thier theory is scientific fact. Oh, I love hypocracy.

quote:

---

Anyone who interprets the Bible literally must also accept that racism, slavery and sexism are all the will of God.

---

This guy must not read the Bible much. Huh.

quote:

---

I don't care if you're the nicest person on Earth, have a doctorate in astrophysics, or stumped Stephen Hawking on general physics.

---

Wow. Just wow. If you don't listen to people who have done research on what they are talking about, who do you listen to?

I'm sorry WS, but but by posting this on Asylum you have just done what you have accused me of doing over the past few months. You have shown that you have no desire to discuss with Creation Scientists, and that is sad. When you close the door to discussion, it is on your own accord, it isn't anyone else's fault.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Wes Edit: Changed code tags to quote tags so it would stop breaking the page.

(Edited by Wes on 02-11-2005 17:36)

Well Gid perhaps he was reading these passages;

"Take your son, your only son ? yes, Isaac, whom you love so much ? and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)



Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)



Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)



Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Lovely god myth you have there, why not imagine a nice one, one you could sit down and have a beer with, mebbe chase wimmin with? Or men, whatever suits you.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

so many Evolutionists like to say that their theory is scientific fact

---

Can you show some evidence of this?

quote:

---

You have shown that you have no desire to discuss with Creation Scientists

---

Maybe because there is no such thing as a "Creation Scientist"? Some people may call themselves that.

I could call myself an "Oreo Cookie Scientist" and say that Oreos are not really made by Nabisco, but have always existed. Then I could show some "facts" backing up my position. But that doesn't mean that there really is such a thing as an Oreo Cookie Scientist.

(Edited by briggl on 02-09-2005 06:19)

quote:

---

I like this because so many Evolutionists like to say that thier theory is scientific fact.

---

- which theory? I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense, whatsoever. What the hell are you talking about here? And what does that have to do with "How to tell if you are a Creationist"?

quote:

---

Wow. Just wow. If you don't listen to people who have done research on what they are talking about, who do you listen to?

---

What ARE you talking about? Could you at least make a bit of sense for once, Gideon?

quote:

---

I'm sorry WS, but but by posting this on Asylum you have just done what you have accused me of doing over the past few months. You have shown that you have no desire to discuss with Creation Scientists, and that is sad.

---

Aside from what Briggl said - there are no Creation "Scientists" (stupidest thing I ever heard!), I don't ever remember accusing you of having no desire to discuss things with Creation "Scientists". In fact, I would never accuse anyone of such!

And you seem to have totally forgot, that the thread is titled "How to tell if you are a Creationist".

And I think you might have missed the at the bottom of my post. This is something that gets a chuckle, it is not something that I take all that seriously. I certainly don't totally agree with the author of the first article. If you can't take a bit of good-natured ribbin', well, sorry to hear it.

Here you finally address something topic related (well, a bit, anyway) -

quote:

---

Anyone who interprets the Bible literally must also accept that racism, slavery and sexism are all the will of God.

This guy must not read the Bible much. Huh.

---

Hehe...man, you are killing me! Say, are we reading the same book? I think I recall you once said "Certain parts of the bible must be read literally, others subjectively". Well, seems like the guy who wrote the article did just that. And according to his perspective, he is right! And you are wrong. Exactly like you beleive you are right, and others wrong. No difference between the two of you (except that you both disagree on the conclusion - hehe).

The interesting parts of the article describe you pretty well - just take a look at the other posts. Maybe you are not all aware that you come across like that. Yes, yes, you think you are right, and others wrong. We know. Examine the article.

Since you really don't dispute it, I guess we can say that by and large, it is a pretty good "rule of thumb" for identifying a Creationist, hmm?

Get over yourself, already.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Well Gid perhaps he was reading these passages

---

First off Ehtheist, you have to take things in context. Most of those laws were given to the Levites anyway, and there were logical reasons, if you choose to think about it.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Lovely god myth you have there, why not imagine a nice one, one you could sit
down and have a beer with, mebbe chase wimmin with? Or men, whatever suits
you.

---

It is no myth. I am reading a book right now that states an interesting point. Gensis is not a myth by ahy stretch of the imagination. It is a history book. Now, the history can be questioned, and that is what most people do, but it is not a myth. Myths have certain qualifications that Genesis does not have.

As for "sitting down and having a beer" with my God, I do not drink beer. But the apostles shared many meals with God while He was here on Earth, and Jesus told me that I will be eating many suppers with Him in the future, too. No beer for me, though. I don't like it.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Can you show some evidence of this?

---

Probably. It wouldn't take much searching, to find one person who slips up. But I just like the interesting argument that Evolution and Creation are not theorys. Good point when I read it. They are actually models, becuase there is no way to quantify what happened in the past and reproduce the same experiment in the present. Very good point. They should be refered to as "models" but then most people don't like that idea either.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Maybe because there is no such thing as a "Creation Scientist"? Some people may
call themselves that.

---

Does scientists who believe there to be an intelligent desiner sound better? A few more words, but the same message across. Saying that there are no "Creation Scientists" is like saying there are no "Evolution Scientists." So pick one. Either they are both there, or neither is there.

Have fun with that oreo cookie science. I would love to, um, sample your findings...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

which theory? I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense, whatsoever. What the
hell are you talking about here? And what does that have to do with "How to tell
if you are a Creationist"?

---

Okay, let me explain my logic. He said that he wants Creationists to admit there is "no grounding in logic or science." No grounding means that they don't know the basics of the field they are talking about. That is ludicrous, because there are many well-educated scientists who are at least intelligent design supporters, if not Biblical. Many of the opposers to the Creation Scientists (I use this term as Scientists who support Creation, and scientists who have made findings that support Creation or contradict Evolution (Darwinism approach).) are not as well based in the field as the Creation Scientist is. That has been refuted a few times by some Darwinian essays I have read, but the fact, however small, is still a fact and quite compelling. Not compelling enough to make one change one's mine, but compelling enough for some deep thought.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

What ARE you talking about? Could you at least make a bit of sense for once,
Gideon?

---

(See above explaination)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And I think you might have missed the
at the bottom of my post. This is something that gets a chuckle, it is not
something that I take all that seriously. I certainly don't totally agree with
the author of the first article. If you can't take a bit of good-natured
ribbin', well, sorry to hear it.

---

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have been too distracted by your first statement:

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

This sounds like you, Gideon!

---

To to see the smile afterwards that explains that it was only a "chuckle."

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I don't ever remember accusing you of having no desire to discuss things with
Creation "Scientists".

---

No WS, but you did accuse me, over and over, of being close-minded. You cannot deny that. And by posting this, you have shown just how black the pot really is.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If you can't take a bit of good-natured ribbin', well, sorry to hear it.

---

Oh, should I post some racist "jokes"? Or some political "jokes"? Maybe some Athiestic "jokes"? As long as they are in "good nature" they should be right, right? Let me answer that: no. Jokes can be insulting, and if you can't see it WS, this is insulting. Just by posting this on a Asylum, you have shown what you think about Creationists. You may not agree with the author on all points, but you still posted it in the first place. WS, I though you were better than that, I guess I was wrong.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Yes, yes, you think you are right, and others wrong.

---

And this WS, is where you are dead wrong. I know that I am learning. Of course I think that my opinion is right (so do most other human beings), but the good thing about me is that my opinion is susceptable to change. I learn things constantly. When I stop learning, I will be dead. I think that others are wrong on some subjects because they are wrong, or because their views oppose mine. For the former, I am correct. For the latter, I am trying to work on it. Accepting other people's views is something that I have a hard time doing in the heat of the moment. When I contemplate things though, my opinions change. Can you say the same thing about yourself? You know the least, when you think you know the most. An old proverb I like paraphrased is that the wisest men know they are not wise, and the most foolish men think they are wise. Which are you WS? You gave me a pretty big hint when you posted this thread (even if it was in "good humor"). I'm sorry if I jumped to conclusions, but I am willing to change my mind, if I see change.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

so many Evolutionists like to say that their theory is scientific fact

Can you show some evidence of this?

---

The answer to this Briggl is no, he won't be able to show any evidence of this. He never has and never will. He just talks in circles, as always. Of course, it depends on what we are really talking about here. Is it a scientific theory, with full evidence, support, and peer review? Of course, he doesn't mention which "theory" he means. He simply says "their theory", like that is some sort of grand answer.

I can say, "The moon is made out of green cheese", and I would be right! Because I never specified which moon. Take a look at this "moon" I just created out of green cheese.

quote:

---

Lovely god myth you have there

---

Yep. A myth. And not the only one, either.

I still don't see any disagreement to the thread title.

quote:

---

Does scientists who believe there to be an intelligent desiner sound better?

---

Yep.

quote:

---

A few more words, but the same message across.

---

Nope, it's not the same message. Not even slightly.

One is a scientist. A scientist who beleives that whatever science finds, it is still "god" behind it.
That's at least a somewhat reasonable view, which leaves the doors of actual science open.

quote:

---

Saying that there are no "Creation Scientists" is like saying there are no "Evolution Scientists."

---

And I have personally told you several times, that there are in fact no such things as "evolution scientists". This is in no way a "refutation", as this is what you've been told all along.

"evolutionists" are a figment of all the "creationsists" imaginations...

quote:

---

So pick one. Either they are both there, or neither is there.

---

Correct. There are neither.

A scientist does not walk in with his mind made up.

He does not take a book and say "this book says it is so, and it is so" even when the evidence contradicts it.
A creationist does this. Therefore science is thrown out the window.

Therefore there is no such thing as a "creation scientist".

And no such thing as an "evolution scientist", as evolution is not a socio-politcal agenda to be pushed the way "creationism" is.

Now that I typed this all, I can't believe I actually bothered to say this all...again...but, I did - maybe some of what I've said will actually sink in this time...who knows.

Nice post, DL. Though I am afraid it will be wasted, sadly enough.

Well Gid I am afraid I must join WS in ignoring any further posts by you, not fair to take advantage of people with psychological problems.

You are no longer funny, but clearly deranged if you expect people to believe; "Jesus told me that I will be eating many suppers with Him in the future, too".

Yah, well make sure he doesn't run off just before the bill gets there.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Does scientists who believe there to be an intelligent desiner sound better?

---

Many scientists feel this way, even some who believe in evolution believe there is an " intelligent designer".

(Edited by briggl on 02-11-2005 04:05)

quote:

---

First off Ehtheist, you have to take things in context. Most of those laws were given to the Levites anyway, and there were logical reasons, if you choose to think about it.

---

OK Gid... enlighten me here. I chose to think about it....put things in context and the logical reasons you mention... still elude me. So walk me through it please.

Geez No-Jive, you don't know what you are asking for

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

*gets out popcorn*

This should be...interesting. Want some, Ehtheist?

Can I pick some popcorns too ? Anybody wants a cold drink ?

DL-44: Congratulations. I don't know where you find the energy to explain again and again and again ... and again those things to Gideon. He's doomed.

Yeah, I think even bugs dropped out of this one a real long time ago, and I think that he has more patients than most.

Dan @ Code Town

What!... this isn't a tag-team match?.... Now ya tell me. =)

And Gid.... the clarity I'm seeking is ... well on a whole lot of things but to start with the... 'logical reasons.'

If you have determined those 'reasons' were logical for the 'times' , if you will, you are saying you understand 'why' and by 'logical' extension endorse the quoted passages.

I'm also having a problem with

quote:

---

Most of those laws were given to the Levites anyway

---

The Levites liked what they heard in those passages... and without really thinking about it then blindly agreed to adhere to laws, that you have concluded... should have been ignored because it is wrong to place 'faith' in laws that had simply been passed on.

How else would you have me interpret that?

NoJive: No, no. Don't worry about the audience. Please excuse us if we made too much noise with the bag of popcorns

just fyi, leviticus was a book made up of rules and regulations for the levites, the priests and temple workers. they're intended for a very specific time and purpose, and a large number of them have health or related reasons for their inclusion (not eating shellfish for example, a food that was difficult to keep at proper tempuratures with no refrigeration).

a large focus of the OT is God's deliverance of His people (the israelites). as such there's sections that do sound incredibly harsh because of His demands to keep the israelites pure, i agree. these aren't rules intended to be applied to modern times tho, no matter what some would like to believe. there are some pieces of scripture that i do have a really hard time reading and trying to understand. not understanding it or agreeing with it doesn't make it true tho.

just my two cents...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

*Runs through waving stolen tentacle porn and screaming;

"HA HA HA! YOU'LL NEVER CATCH ME!"

then runs off to North Tower *

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote - "not understanding it or agreeing with it doesn't make it true tho."

Spiritual discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit to His people (1 Corinthians 12.8-11). One who discerns does not fall for everything he reads in a ?religious periodical? or hears from the pulpit, but, compares spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2.13).



ps: thanks Wes

Fig - certainly a good point, and I agree with you, given a rational view of the world.

The problem is when you have people talking about taking the bible as a 100% literal document. If that's the case, how can it be justified to say "oh, well...not that part..."?

If it is to be taken literally, and deemed to be the infallible word of god which must be adhered to - which is the case if you are arguing for a literal genesis - then how can a person say that some parts of it do not apply?

^Exactly.

Extra Butter on my mais souffle please.

Well DL, one finds the same sort of reasoning among politicians, left wingers in particular.

Essentially, it boils down to this "One rule for youse guys and totally different one for us".

There was a sports writer in Vancouver some years ago, Denny Boyd I believe, coined the phrase "Higher Purpose Persons".

Applies to those who feel they have been put here to guide the rest of us poor sods. Of course we don't know what we are doing and so we need all manner of rules to regulate out days and nights.

However, since the HPP's need to guide us and make certain we don't err, these rules don't apply to them.

Therefore picking and choosing which interpretations of the bible or laws are applicable is perfectly correct...for them.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

in my mind there's two separate things there DL: taking the bible as true and infallible and taking it as true and literal.

imo the bible can certainly be accepted as truth without being taken entirely literally. some books are clearly poetic, some are more historical in nature, etc. i think there's truth to be found in all of them, but that doesn't mean they're all meant to be taken completely literally or directly applied to a modern christian life.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

How do ypui figure the bible can be taken as truth?

What part of it?

Archeology has already show it to be largely historically inaccurate, though a few sites were approxiamately where it was suggested they might be. So, some of the info originally written down escaped the bowdlerization.

The so-called 10 commandments have been show to have been aroud in similar form 10,000 or so years before the new cult adopted them as their own in myth and fable.

So, where-in is their truth? Seems to me is is mostly plagiarism.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

outcydr said:

ps: thanks Wes

---

No problem. What I do?

quote:

---

Fig said:

imo the bible can certainly be accepted as truth without being taken entirely literally. some books are clearly poetic, some are more historical in nature, etc. i think there's truth to be found in all of them, but that doesn't mean they're all meant to be taken completely literally or directly applied to a modern christian life.

---

That's exactly the point. But there are people like Gideon who want to take the Bible entirely literally.

A large part of it is history as written by one group of people from their viewpoint. When something bad is done to them, then the people who did it are villians. When they do the same things to other peoples, then God told them it was OK to do it.

Part of it is parables and fables, meant to teach a lesson but not taken as literal history or fact.

Part of it is pure literature, poems and stories, some pretty racey.

And part of it, like the creation story, is legend and myth, stories created to try to explain things that were unknown.

Reminds me what Jiddu Krishnamurit said when he dissolved the Order of the Star. It applies very well to creationists...

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices."

By the way Gideon, I have to say that after having read many of your posts, I've become annoyed by your habit to "dissect" a post in countless quotes (please do not take this as an insult). It breaks the poster's argument and furthermore, it makes your own opinions extremely unclear (at least to me). Would you be kind enough so as to make your point or explain your opinions with plain text ?

----
If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

These creation vs. evolution debates are fun to watch. I think it's kinda comical to watch the two sides pick each other apart, niether side truly listening to what the other is saying and ignoring the third side of the arguement.
Never mind the fact that this arguement can never be even 75% solved for either side.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Oh and here is something else that is interesting:
Tell me if this quote from WebShaman doesn't sound a little creationist.

Quote:
Actually, it does all matter. Either god used a system to create everything (and it is logically explainable), or he just "did it". In the latter case, any kooky theory applies, because god can "do anything". And I mean ANY theory...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example. God is just causing us to perceive it as something else!

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

You already posted this somewhere else. I assume that you are trying to suggest something. I am just not following your meaning. Taking a bit of a quote out of context, such as you are doing, is bound to lead to misunderstandings.

So, I would suggest that you post exactly what you mean.

quote:

---

Never mind the fact that this arguement can never be even 75% solved for either side.

---

Actually, all that is being discussed in this thread is "How to tell if you are a Creationist". Facts, etc are in another thread.

answer to Wes' ?

quote:

---

Wes Edit: Changed code tags to quote tags so it would stop breaking the page.

(Edited by Wes on 02-11-2005 17:36)

---

quote:

---

Sangreal said:

...ignoring the third side of the arguement

---

So how about telling us what the third side of the argument is?

Oh, I see ... must've been intoxicated when I did that, cuz I don't remember.

Anyway, carry on. I'd like to hear what this triangular argument is, myself.

First off, Moonshadow, great! I had just came to the same conclusion a few days ago. But thanks for the help anyway. I will try my best not to do that anymore.

So far as the theory and everything I thought I explained it earlier, but I guess not. Um, as far as the theory goes, it should be a model. Theorys are testable (I think, correct me if I am wrong). Models, like the atomic model, change when new information is found. DL, you are right that many scientists-with-a-Creation-view-point (since you didn't like Creation Scientist) do walk into a room with thier minds made up about something, but it may not be the topic of discussion. To many Creationists the Creation is treated like a law (gravity for example). Now, I understand how this is a bad view point to have. Understandable, but bad for a scientist as you have commented. Or is it? Having a basis for further experimentation is kinda key to some experiments isn't it? Evolution experiments and observations are interpreted through the basis of Darwin's theories. Granted that some have changed, but the ones that can't be experimented on haven't. So can't scientists-with-a-creation-view-point do the same?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Ok, daigram time.


Gideon:

the point is over here somewhere ------------- >   .







your comments, and their relevence to the issue that you tried to address with them



somewhere over here...   

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

                            |

             . <--------

Ok?