[_ Old Earth _] Creationism AND Evolution: can you believe in both?

[cubedbee]

Oh, and here's a dictionary my gay friend Featherbop. I don't see your definition, but I do see mine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... onism&r=67

 

[victorhadin]

OK, I now concur with cubedbee. I only wish I could change my vote.

 

[Arnold Philips]

Like others have stated, Featherbop, I don't think many people are using your prescriptive definition of creationist or creationism. The way language works is that people usually know what the other person is talking about when they say a certain word, in our case the word is "creationist." If you say that to someone, they will most likely get the image of a fundie YEC, not the definition you posit. If you wish to change the definition, you are welcome to start using it, but don't expect other people to understand what you say.

 

[Featherbop]

A creationist is still what it is. Whether people asociated creationist with YECs or with evolutionists, it would still be a person who believes that God created. And that is both Yecs and theistic evolutionists.

If the definition has been "shifted" and tweaked to what people think a creationist to be, then so what? The reality of what a creationist is, still remains.

And, cubedbee, you can call me gay, I don't care. I am neither homosexual(which is what you would imply to people) nor cheerful, bright, or pleasant.

If you do want to continue calling me "gay Featherbop" then I will find a word for you also.

 

[cubedbee]

It is impossible to admit you are wrong, isn't it? Is pride and obstinancy really traits that you desire to possess? Can you not see how utterly absurd you are in trying to assert that you are right and the dictionary is wrong about the definition of a word? You remind me of the foolish king who thought he could command the sea. It doesn't matter how many times you say something, it doesn't make it true. You are wrong about your definition of a creationist.

Not to mention, if one just takes the word at face it would indicate anyone who believes in creation. This could be creation by God, by Allah, by Vishnu, by some Goddess, by multiple gods, by a giant turtle, by aliens in another dimension, or by any other intelligent entity. If you want to just look at the words itself, and ignore the definition that society has given it, then the definition of a creationist is "a person who believes the universe was created." There is no reason to add the God part, except for shifting and tweaking of the original definition.

 

[Featherbop]

Of course God is implied with the word "creationist". If a creation act is believed, then a "creator" is implied. It doesn't matter, again, what people think it means, or what people want it to mean. If I beleived the word "run" meant to stroll slowly, it wouldn't make it so. Just like "gay" has been the name for homosexuals. It shouldn't have, but it did, and people are technically wrong.

A creationist is still what it is. Noone has changed that.

You must really care what others think of you, otherwise, you'd be a lot less worried about a small technicality as this.

You remind me of a liberal who thought there were no absolutes, and things changed as time and people did.

 

[cubedbee]

Of course God is implied with the word "creationist". If a creation act is believed, then a "creator" is implied.

And a creator is not necessarily God. You are making a baseless assumption. If you want to say that a creationist is one who believes in a creator, I will accept that, but when you say that creator is God, then you are just making up your own definition of the word and being pompous in asserting it is the only definition.

 

[Arnold Philips]

Featherbop, a word is what people decide it to mean. That's the beauty of language: We can say anything, and as long as it's users agree on its meaning, it means exactly that. It's not a very hard linguistic concept.

Right now, "creationism" does not mean what you say it means. I think you are one of the very few using that definition. Most people agree on a definition different from yours, which means that you are wrong in this case. Creationism doesn't mean what you say it does. You are wrong.

 

[Routerider]

no, you can not believe in both of them. in fact, everything that evolution says is completely irrelevant. read the post i posted in teh thread in this forum titled "creation". this tells exactly why evolution can not be true. it can NOT take millions of years for something to evolve, the changes are not that slow. they would have to move much much faster to work at all. then, it would have to be part of the genetic code in order to work. last time i checked, i'm not born a monkey first then convert to a human a few days afterwards. here, let me describe this to you with a frog. frogs, they are water amphibions at first, tehn they go on the land and have lungs. how is that? oh that's proof for evolution!....no. not quite. first off, the change happens within days, not years, second, it is written in the frog's genetic code to change from gills to lungs. this means, they are born with one, thn convert to the other, rather quickly. this is all the proof you need to realize that evolution is a phony. so how can you believe in both if evolution is a lie? you can't. creationism is the onl true way. as for god's time not being the same as ours, i agree on that, to an extent. god is not ruled by time AT ALL, a day to him fluctuates compared to a day to us. one "day" it could be 24 hours, then the next it could be thousands of years, whichever he chooses. the time it took god to create this entire galaxy, was six days, six of our days. here, read this article.

http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?v ... ssible.jsp

also, stars are not "billions of light years away". even if they were, there would be no way for us to tell it, as we don't have time travel technology do we? here, read this article as well, it will tell you why.

http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?v ... rsAway.jsp

how much more proof do you need to know that evolution is a phony? there is more proof for creationism than tehre is for evolution.

NOOOO!!! Not Dr. Kent "The IRS is after me again!" Hovind!! ARGGH!

 

[Routerider]

When people ask me whether I believe in Creationism or Evolution, I say I believe in both.
I believe God created the world, but I believe time to be relative to Him, so one day to Him isn’t one day to us – it could be 100,000 year or a billion years. I see the creation of the earth as described in Genesis as being mostly metaphorical, being described in simple terms by people with the limited scientific knowledge/ vocabularies available to them at the time of writing.
When I say that, what do you think? Can you agree or disagree? Why not? (No “you’re stupid†one-liner responses, thank you.)
:fadein:

I believe in both as well, I'm a Deist, I believe God created our planet and got the process of life started....from there His natural laws and processes took over.

 

[Featherbop]

Of course God is implied with the word "creationist". If a creation act is believed, then a "creator" is implied.

And a creator is not necessarily God. You are making a baseless assumption. If you want to say that a creationist is one who believes in a creator, I will accept that, but when you say that creator is God, then you are just making up your own definition of the word and being pompous in asserting it is the only definition.

Who else is thought of as creator. Everytime I talk to someone about who they beleive created the universe, I either get "noone", or "God".

For everyone who is not an atheist, agnostic, I have only encountered people who always beleive the creator to be God. There may be disagreements about which God, but always God, or a god.

But, anyway, what I am saying is that a creationist is one that beleives in a creator, and I have never found one who didn't beleive it was God who is the creator.

 

[the_cheat]

you have missed my point entirely. evolution can not exist. everything points aginst it. no offense, but it's jsut wrong. for evolution to work, AT ALL, it relies on millions of years to do so, darwin himself said that. and it can't take millions of years for evolution to take place. if it did, everything would have died right off the bat, in one oor two hours of trying to transform. then there would be nothing left. all living things would stop being living. how can you say that god started evolution? evolution kills, it doesn't bring life.

What the...

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Can one be a christian and believe in evolution?
Certainly.
One simply can't be a YEC and an evolution proponent at the same time.