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

Techne said:
Hope this helps.



Yeah, that appears to be a common misconception.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Last edited:
murraybiscuit said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Theistic creationism is fine :).
 
murraybiscuit said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Techne said:
Creationism does not imply God exists or God did it.

From the article:
Click to expand...

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. :p
 
Last edited:
murraybiscuit said:
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. :p
Click to expand...
So? No need to generalize.
 
HapticSimian said:
Fairy 'nuff... but how can one be Christian without necessarily being a creationist? Or are we just speaking past each other...?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Creationism is an important aspect of Christianity. Creationists do not necessarily reject evolution, the two are perfectly compatible.
 
HapticSimian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like deism.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

One and the same thing, as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X