It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Kayzar
While I recognise that theists are not necessarily creationists, much as subscribers to atheists are not necessarily subscribers to evolution, it sounds like you are saying that creationism doesn't rely on a deity as a creator.
Is this correct? If so - and, for that matter, if not - could you explain?edit on 11/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)edit on 11/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Kayzar
So, then, as per the request made in the OP, could you explain to me what you think creationism actually is? How do you define it?
EDIT: Also, how has man created life? Remember that at no point in cloning is life ever actually absent, and so it cannot truly be said to have been created.
edit on 11/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)edit on 11/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by TheWill
Creationists, whether they realize it or not, all believe in magic. They believe that a divine being used supernatural "powers" will life into existence typically using dirt as a building material.
Creationists also reject most of science out right, everything from the fossil record to the obvious genetic evidence of Evolution must be ignored or misrepresented as a straw-man.
I used to be a Creationist so I know how it works. It was an entirely closed-loop mindset that involved going to all the wrong websites and being spoon-fed talking points and specialized strawmen. There were also a lot of quote-mines and arguments from authority where Creationists would take comments from actual scientists out of context to disprove Evolution. I've noticed that Creationists are often the only ones that do this, they tend to quote authority while people defending Evolution tend to present Evidence as the authority.
It is very hard to break free of creationist brainwashing but it can be done if you're willing to look at the actual evidence for Evolution and examine the various lies and fallacies constantly being pumped out by Creationism.
I can go on and on.
then someone told you about evolution and you ate that up to, pat yourself on the back.
Yes it is. All creation myths contain magic. Anyone who is a Creationist believes that life was CREATED and unless we're dealing with someone who thinks life was created by alien technology than we are dealing with magic.
Isaac Newton was not a Creationist and nothing he discovered has anything to do with Evolution.
However many Creationists reject the vast majority of geology, paleontology, archeology, and cosmology. It's about as anti-science a movement as can be imagined.
So let me guess by creator Newton meant something different?
They range from god to aliens to individual souls themselves being the creator, there are also young-world and old-world creationists
No. He means exactly what he means. He isn't a Creationist though, they didn't exist in Newton's time.
There was no scientific theory competing with the Biblical creation story,
Newton didn't have the fossil record, genetics, and the wealth of other evidence that supports modern Evolutionary theory.
For instance the use of archeological finds such as the Baghdad battery to uphold ancient astronaut "theory". Perhaps I was being too general but when I say Creationist I typically refer to Old or Young Earth variety of Biblical creationists, those are certainly the majority at least here in the USA.
Some Creationists like to insert their God into these sorts of gaps in our knowledge or claim that because we don't have every last link in an evolutionary transition somehow this voids all of Evolution.
Right by "lord the creator" he meant something else-BS
Anaximander in the era of BC thought that the first animals came from the sea and then turned into land animals, the point was the theory of evolution has been around a looooooong time.
Darwin didn't have much better of a fossil record than newton had, neither had much in the field of genetics.
Biblical creatonist is something else completley and there are even divisions among them.
1) Be Post-Darwin - in other words you can't have been a Creationist until after Darwin's death or, at the very earliest, anytime after the publication of The Origin of Species.
2) Deny Evolution - One must deny that evolution explains bio-diversity. Now it's worth noting that Creationists are allowed to believe in what they call "Micro" Evolution, meaning the obvious and undeniable genetic changes that happen from generation to generation and lead to different breeds of dogs for instance.
3) Deny Abiogenesis and believe in a Creator - One must deny that life arose naturally without the intervention of an outside intelligence (aliens, gods, etc). One must proactively believe that something intervened to cause life OR to cause biodiversity typically via magic or some unknown technology (aliens).
4) One must either be deceitful or be deceived or both.
You say that you believe that it simply means that live was created, and so a creationist may believe in evolution and abiogenesis, then, provided that the processes were intended; or that an alien put life together in a lab; or that some deity willed life into existence species by species, and so on.
And as far as dogs go... are things like hip dysplasia in alsations and retrievers "intelligent design"? What about psychosis is jack russels, or deafness in dalmations? How about dalmatian's flawed protein metabolism chain, leading to hyperuricaemia?