Evolution in Action: Lizard Moves from eggs to live birth!

[murraybiscuit]

Hope this helps.



Yeah, that appears to be a common misconception.

right. perhaps "theistic evolution" is a better term?
i'm being a pedant, because it seems that popular usage seems to infer biblical literalism.
thanks for the link though, i've read the article, i think i know where you're coming from, i just think these terms are loaded/hijacked because of their emotive nature

 

[Techne]

right. perhaps "theistic evolution" is a better term?
i'm being a pedant, because it seems that popular usage seems to infer biblical literalism.
thanks for the link though, i've read the article, i know where you're coming from, i think these terms are loaded/hijacked because of their emotive nature

Theistic creationism is fine .

 

[murraybiscuit]

Theistic creationism is fine .

pardon my ignorance. why the need to prefix creationism if the assumption with creationism is that a god was involved? help me understand this article better...

 

[Techne]

pardon my ignorance. why the need to prefix creationism if the assumption with creationism is that a god was involved? help me understand this article better...

Creationism does not imply God exists or God did it.

From the article:

Well, what is change? There are a few criteria that have to be met in order for something to undergo a process of change. These include:
I) A starting state when the change begins.
II) An end state when the change is done.
III) A transition state between the beginning and the end.
IV) Something that persists through the change.
Note that these are generic criteria and can be applied to any kind of change, including biological change (e.g. biological evolution), chemical change, astrophysical change etc. Let’s take the example of a positron colliding with an electron to form a Z boson. For arguments sake, the starting state where it begins is just before the positron collides with an electron. The end state is when the Z boson begins to exist. The transitional state is between the beginning and the ending state. Now, if there is not something that persists through the change then one can say that at some time during the transition state, both the electron and positron lapsed into pure nothingness and from pure nothingness a Z boson came into existence.

These processes can conceivably be defined as annihilation and creation respectively and not examples of change. To be sure, when something lapses into nothingness then it is annihilation. When something begins to exist from nothingness then it is an example of creation. So, the processes of change and creation are conceptually very different.

If it is true that positrons and electrons really lapse into nothingness and Z bosons really begin to exist from nothingness then some form of creationism is true, this is trivially and logically true. Of course this does not imply that theistic creationism is true.

 

[murraybiscuit]

Creationism does not imply God exists or God did it.

From the article:

oi vey.
look, i'm not going to argue particle physics, annihilation, ex nihilo arguments, because i'm not a physicist, and to be honest, things start to get a bit foggy and speculative for my liking. i don't really know what 'nothing' means to be honest.
my earlier point really was that if you stop 100 people on the street and ask them what "creationism" means, they'll give you something like "goddidit" and "evolution is false". i really don't think they'll give you a rundown on bosons and subatomic particles. well, at least not in my neck of the woods. from your understanding, these may be horrifically simplistic and inaccurate, but unfortunately that may just be how it is right now.

 

[Techne]

oi vey.
look, i'm not going to argue particle physics, annihilation, ex nihilo arguments, because i'm not a physicist, and to be honest, things start to get a bit foggy and speculative for my liking. i don't really know what 'nothing' means to be honest.
my earlier point really was that if you stop 100 people on the street and ask them what "creationism" means, they'll give you something like "goddidit" and "evolution is a lie". i really don't think they'll give you a rundown on bosons and subatomic particles. well, at least not in my neck of the woods.

So? No need to generalize.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't a Christian who is not a creationist just called a Christian?

 

[HapticSimian]

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't a Christian who is not a creationist just called a Christian?

Don't see how you can be one without being the other?

Not all creationists are Christian but all Christians, by definition, are creationists... surely?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Don't see how you can be one without being the other?

Not all creationists are Christian but all Christians, by definition, are creationists... surely?

I see it the other way around. Any help from the believers?

 

[HapticSimian]

I see it the other way around. Any help from the believers?

This clown is a creationist... and very much not a Christian.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

This clown is a creationist... and very much not a Christian.

Okay, I was referring to a narrower scope of only Christian creationism - should have mentioned that.

 

[HapticSimian]

Okay, I was referring to a narrower scope of only Christian creationism - should have mentioned that.

Fairy 'nuff... but how can one be Christian without necessarily being a creationist? Or are we just speaking past each other...?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Fairy 'nuff... but how can one be Christian without necessarily being a creationist? Or are we just speaking past each other...?

Well there are plenty of Christians who don't reject evolution, however creationists do, therefor you can be Christian without believing in literal creation.

If we had to work with a strict definition of the term, then I guess your view would most definitely be the correct one. Only thing is most Christians (the ones I know at least) don't believe the earth is 6000 years old and understand how evolution works.

 

[HapticSimian]

Well there are plenty of Christians who don't reject evolution, however creationists do, therefor you can be Christian without believing in literal creation.

If we had to work with a strict definition of the term, then I guess your view would most definitely be the correct one. Only thing is most Christians (the ones I know at least) don't believe the earth is 6000 years old and understand how evolution works.

Ah, so it's more about the specifics of the term then. Creationism, to me, has always only ever meant the belief in an act of creation by a sentient higher power - regardless of what that higher power might be. It doesn't necessitate a belief in biblical literalism - and thus a 6,000 or 10,000 year old Earth - but it does imply a belief in (a) god(s) of some flavour. That act of creation could, for argument's sake, still be ongoing.

Hence the necessary distinction between 'normal' (lulz) creationism (be it Islamic, Christian or whatever else) and that special kind of stupid Young Earth variety.

 

[Techne]

Well there are plenty of Christians who don't reject evolution, however creationists do, therefor you can be Christian without believing in literal creation.

If we had to work with a strict definition of the term, then I guess your view would most definitely be the correct one. Only thing is most Christians (the ones I know at least) don't believe the earth is 6000 years old and understand how evolution works.

Creationism is an important aspect of Christianity. Creationists do not necessarily reject evolution, the two are perfectly compatible.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Ah, so it's more about the specifics of the term then. Creationism, to me, has always only ever meant the belief in an act of creation by a sentient higher power - regardless of what that higher power might be. It doesn't necessitate a belief in biblical literalism - and thus a 6,000 or 10,000 year old Earth - but it does imply a belief in (a) god(s) of some flavour. That act of creation could, for argument's sake, still be ongoing.

Hence the necessary distinction between 'normal' (lulz) creationism (be it Islamic, Christian or whatever else) and that special kind of stupid Young Earth variety.

Okay, makes a lot of sense what you're saying.

Maybe the issue is that YECs are hijacking the broad term of creationism which has me confused now between the two.

Are you saying though that the 'normal' creationist view would accept that life wasn't poofed in to existence in its current state and that they could believe that a god created the first single cellular organisms which then evolved? Or is that theistic evolution? I'm confused.

 

[Techne]

Okay, makes a lot of sense what you're saying.

Maybe the issue is that YECs are hijacking the broad term of creationism which has me confused now between the two.

Are you saying though that the 'normal' creationist view would accept that life wasn't poofed in to existence in its current state and that they could believe that a god created the first single cellular organisms which then evolved? Or is that theistic evolution? I'm confused.

That sounds like deism.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

That sounds like deism.

So can you be a Christian deist creationist?

 

[HapticSimian]

Are you saying though that the 'normal' creationist view would accept that life wasn't poofed in to existence in its current state and that they could believe that a god created the first single cellular organisms which then evolved? Or is that theistic evolution? I'm confused.

One and the same thing, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Techne]

So can you be a Christian deist creationist?

You get all kinds of Christians. Traditionally though, Christians are theists.