Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nyikos
admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:I think it's my mistake. "Creationist" and "evolutionist" are perfectly compatible.
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
NyikosI suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
I'm going to snip the rest.
erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
By "creationist" do you mean someone who accepts the
Genesis story? Or simply that an entity created the
universe, world, and/or life of its own volition?
If one supposes intelligent design, then someone also had
to implement the design. That sounds like creation to me.
If creation happened, then one would also suppose there
was an intelligent design drawn up along the way.
Using the generic lower-case meanings of "creation" and
"intelligent design", one implies the other. I don't see
a neat dichotomy. IMHO, whether you come right out and
appeal to a magic process or not, idism is creationism
and vice versa.
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not
be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists
enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a
supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of
one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
I'm going to snip the rest.
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed in
a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or OEC
anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a creationist,
most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He admits to being
Catholic and attending church regularly.
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not
be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists
enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a
supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of
one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate
the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of TO.
A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That is
where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has pretty much
always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.
The general definition of creationist has always been the definition of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You have
theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much only Nelson and Kenyon
are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the others
seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.
Ron Okimoto
I'm going to snip the rest.
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
NyikosI suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
I'm going to snip the rest.
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:46:54 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Dude, get your meds checked. You're psychotic.
On 30/11/2023 10:41, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He only
denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He admits
to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
Peter also admits to being an atheist (though he prefers the term
agnostic). I don't know what his actual beliefs are, but he could be a cultural Catholic. I'm tempted to label him a political Catholic.
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may
not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there
ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That
is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young earth
anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical
creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has pretty much
always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.
The dictionary sitting next to my computer allows two definitions for creationism (de novo creation of souls at conception or birth, or divine creation as opposed to evolution). Wiktionary does allow your broader
3rd definition (divine creation of the universe).
Peter does support the fine tuning argument, but at the last he prefers
a multiverse to a creator, so if you take him at his word he's not a creationist even by that broader definition.
One could ask Peter if he considers himself an "Intelligent Design
advocate".
The definition of creationism I prefer is "religiously motivated
rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific consensus,
especially as related to biology, geology and cosmology, or the
promotion thereof".
The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You have
theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution
creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution
creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much only Nelson and
Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the
others seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.
Ron Okimoto
I'm going to snip the rest.
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He only
denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He admits
to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in fact
Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may
not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there
ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That
is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young earth
anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical
creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has pretty much
always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK with theism.
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, but not every
hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You have
theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution
creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution
creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much only Nelson and
Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the
others seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not a subject on which you are rational.
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 02:01:54 UTC, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
NyikosI suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the >>> creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
I'm going to snip the rest.
Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>
and to "special creation" meaning the creation of species,
I think the useful definition of "creationism" that is
more useful than saying "some things happened"
is that species exist because they were each created
separately at one or more points of time in the past,
and then they survived to the present day without
significant variation. In other words - no evolution,
or not much.
I say "not much" because people who also believe
that all animal species on land are descended from
creatures carried on Noah's actual Ark, are obliged
to believe that there has been /some/ evolution
and some division of the original species, because
the Ark wouldn't possibly carry every modern living
species, and it would be eaten by some of them,
e.g. beavers. So those must have come since
the Ark. Obviously. :-) Also, they must be descended
from the Garden of Eden.
But the point of creationism is that each living thing
was made on its own, not made from a different
living thing - except for Eve, of course.
And except for however much evolution a creationist
decides to accept.
One type of belief is that dinosaurs came and went
between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2, so they were
created on their own, but the bible mainly describes
what came after them. And of course, Genesis
chapter 1 described different things being created
on different days of one week. Not all on the same day.
In each case, it wasn't all simultaneous, although
God did work around the clock until the project was
finished. Then he took a day to rest. I am not
making that up.
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone
for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC
or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He
only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He
admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has
other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a difference.
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may >>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there >>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That
is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young
earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a
Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has
pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in common usage or by pre-existence.
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by
your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be a
creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. They
are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical
creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are theists?
The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You
have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth
anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much
only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of
one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not
a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what
makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They have
all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but
they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
definition?
On 11/30/2023 6:59 AM, Ernest Major wrote:[]
On 30/11/2023 10:41, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for >>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He only
denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He admits
to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
Peter also admits to being an atheist (though he prefers the term agnostic). I don't know what his actual beliefs are, but he could be a cultural Catholic. I'm tempted to label him a political Catholic.
Nyikos lies about a lot of things. The fact is that he supports the ID
I'm going to snip the rest.
On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone >>>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed >>>>>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC >>>>>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a >>>>>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He >>>>>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He >>>>>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts >>>>>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has >>>>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist. >>>>> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
difference.
creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we
already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and
moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same >>> creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but >>> they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
creationist beliefs.
My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
theologies.
You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may >>>>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there >>>>>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a >>>>>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of >>>>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That >>>>>>> is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young >>>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a >>>>>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has >>>>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there >>>>> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution >>>>> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your >>>> definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in
common
usage or by pre-existence.
creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
"sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a
creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back >>> sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
that his designer is the Christian God.
Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
theological trappings.
Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, >>>>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by >>>>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be a >>>>> creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
scientific.
Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. They >>>>> are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical
creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are >>>> theists?
creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do >>> with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
different theologies.
Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
The general definition of creationist has always been the definition >>>>>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You >>>>>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth >>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much >>>>>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of >>>>>>> one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not >>>>>> a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what >>>>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They have >>>>> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but >>>>> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
definition?
scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
what is relevant.
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
Ron Okimoto
Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent
to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a
subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you
make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just
fine.
The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two definitions. He
uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers, but his expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people he doesn't want to attack.
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:communicate just fine.
[...]Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you make clear which definition you are using, you'll
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone >>>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed >>>>>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC >>>>>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a >>>>>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He >>>>>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He >>>>>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts >>>>>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has >>>>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist. >>>>> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
difference.
creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we
already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and
moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same >>> creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but >>> they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
creationist beliefs.
My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
theologies.
You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may >>>>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there >>>>>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a >>>>>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of >>>>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That >>>>>>> is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young >>>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a >>>>>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has >>>>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there >>>>> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution >>>>> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your >>>> definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in
common
usage or by pre-existence.
creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
"sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a
creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back >>> sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
that his designer is the Christian God.
Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
theological trappings.
Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, >>>>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by >>>>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be a >>>>> creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
scientific.
Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. They >>>>> are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical
creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are >>>> theists?
creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do >>> with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
different theologies.
Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
The general definition of creationist has always been the definition >>>>>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You >>>>>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth >>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much >>>>>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of >>>>>>> one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not >>>>>> a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what >>>>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They have >>>>> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but >>>>> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
definition?
scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
what is relevant.
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
Ron Okimoto
Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalentThe problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two definitions. He
to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a
subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you
make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just
fine.
uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers, but his expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people he doesn't want to attack.
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:communicate just fine.
On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you make clear which definition you are using, you'll
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone >>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed >>>>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC >>>>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He
only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He >>>>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has >>>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
difference.
creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we
already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and
moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same
creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but
they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
creationist beliefs.
My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
theologies.
You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may >>>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there >>>>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a >>>>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of >>>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That >>>>>> is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young
earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a
Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has
pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your
definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in common >>> usage or by pre-existence.
creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
"sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a
creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back
sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
that his designer is the Christian God.
Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
theological trappings.
Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by >>>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be a >>>> creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
scientific.
Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. They >>>> are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical
creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are
theists?
creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do
with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
different theologies.
Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
The general definition of creationist has always been the definition >>>>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You
have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth >>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much
only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of >>>>>> one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not >>>>> a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what
makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They have >>>> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but >>>> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
definition?
scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
what is relevant.
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
Ron Okimoto
On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
[...]Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent to
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a subset of
theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you make clear
which definition you are using, you'll communicate just fine.
To further complicate the mix, there are people who accept common
descent but don't believe that the process was natural. Some people
call them creationists, some call them evolutionists. I'm tempted to
call them creationary evolutionists.
There's even problems with the concept of "believe". Nyikos has
supported at least one idea not because he has reason to believe it, but because he likes it. Other of his positions may have the same sort of motivation.
For the purpose of the question that started this thread, the issue is whether someone opposes any widely accepted concepts of scientific
origins. There are at least three of those actively posting: Mark E.,
Ron Dean, and Peter Nyikos.
On 11/30/2023 6:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 02:01:54 UTC, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nyikosbut I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the >>> creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another? >> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
I'm going to snip the rest.
Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>
and to "special creation" meaning the creation of species,
I think the useful definition of "creationism" that is
more useful than saying "some things happened"
is that species exist because they were each created
separately at one or more points of time in the past,
and then they survived to the present day without
significant variation. In other words - no evolution,
or not much.
I say "not much" because people who also believe
that all animal species on land are descended from
creatures carried on Noah's actual Ark, are obliged
to believe that there has been /some/ evolution
and some division of the original species, because
the Ark wouldn't possibly carry every modern living
species, and it would be eaten by some of them,
e.g. beavers. So those must have come since
the Ark. Obviously. :-) Also, they must be descended
from the Garden of Eden.
But the point of creationism is that each living thing
was made on its own, not made from a different
living thing - except for Eve, of course.
And except for however much evolution a creationist
decides to accept.
One type of belief is that dinosaurs came and went
between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2, so they were
created on their own, but the bible mainly describes
what came after them. And of course, Genesis
chapter 1 described different things being created
on different days of one week. Not all on the same day.
In each case, it wasn't all simultaneous, although
God did work around the clock until the project was
finished. Then he took a day to rest. I am not
making that up.
Creation of life and diversification of life is just one aspect of the creation. These same creationists believe that their creator created
the universe and the planet earth along with the sun and moon a few days later.
A lot of YEC accept evolution to the family level, but the old earth creationists at Reason to Believe claim that the diversity of life as we
know it now is the result of constant recreation. They are so
anti-evolution that they beileve that recreations are still occurring.
One of their examples was the anoles lizards on the various Caribbean
island. They did not evolve the differences found among them, but they
were recreated that way. Even though they can still interbreed, that is
how they were recreated. Neanderthals are supposed to be recreations of humans, and they accept that we interbred with Neanderthals.
So creationists can be pretty screwed up in terms of what they think
about creation, and about what their creator did.
On 01/12/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone >>>>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim. >>>>>>>>>
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos
believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC >>>>>>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a >>>>>>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He >>>>>>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution
type. He
admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in >>>>>>> fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts >>>>>>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has >>>>>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist. >>>>>> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
difference.
creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we >>>> already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and >>>> moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists. >>>> They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the
same
creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO)
but
they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
creationist beliefs.
My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific >>>> anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
theologies.
You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may >>>>>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has >>>>>>>>>> there
ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a >>>>>>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to >>>>>>>>> initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of >>>>>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. >>>>>>>> That
is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young >>>>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a >>>>>>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has >>>>>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK >>>>>>> with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there >>>>>> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution >>>>>> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your >>>>> definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in
common
usage or by pre-existence.
creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
"sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a >>>> creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a
back
sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous >>>> claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang >>>> and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
that his designer is the Christian God.
Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
theological trappings.
Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, >>>>>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by >>>>>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to >>>>>> be a
creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it >>>>>> only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe. >>>> Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be >>>> scientific.
Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps.See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be >>>>> able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But >>>>> what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or
They
are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical >>>>>> creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists. >>>>>
are
theists?
creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of >>>> theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something
to do
with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
different theologies.
Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
The general definition of creationist has always been the
definition
of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You >>>>>>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth >>>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much >>>>>>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of >>>>>>>> one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not >>>>>>> a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what >>>>>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They >>>>>> have
all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, >>>>>> but
they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
definition?
scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
what is relevant.
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
Ron Okimoto
Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent
to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a
subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you
make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just
fine.
There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these people
may not believe in a creator god or gods.
The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two definitions.
He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers, but his
expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people he doesn't
want to attack.
I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall reading
that Dobzhansky did the same.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:05:34 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 11/30/2023 6:59 AM, Ernest Major wrote:[]
On 30/11/2023 10:41, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for >>>>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He only >>>> denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He admits >>>> to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
Peter also admits to being an atheist (though he prefers the term
agnostic). I don't know what his actual beliefs are, but he could be a
cultural Catholic. I'm tempted to label him a political Catholic.
Nyikos lies about a lot of things. The fact is that he supports the ID
Rarely do you convince people of the soundness of your own position by accusing the opponent of lying.
I'm going to snip the rest.
On 12/1/23 4:05 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone >>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos
believed in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist >>>>>> type YEC or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has
always been a creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton
and Behe. He only denies being a Scientific creationist,
anti-evolution type. He admits to being Catholic and attending
church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he
has other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
difference.
Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993
we already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu
and moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric
creationists. They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd
hindu they all believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to
believe in the same creator as the majority of creationists that have
ever posted on TO) but they have had different theologies. Some of
the ID perps are theistic evolutionist creationists. Their theology
is not anti-evolution creationism. They incorporate biological
evolution into their creationist beliefs.
My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
You're just repeating yourself while ignoring whatever I say. I think
you may have lost the ability to pay attention to others.
Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
theologies.
We may or may not have had Hindu creationists posting here. I know they exist. But there seems to be no relevant point for you to make about them.
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They >>>>>>>> may not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has
there ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that
was not a creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside
of TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.
That is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a
young earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are
not a Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO >>>>>> has pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established
your definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either
in common usage or by pre-existence.
You are wrong.
Well, that shows me. I concede due to your powerful argument.
It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are creationists. It is
part of the political deception. Did you read the "sly twinkle" ID
perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a creator, he
just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having Christian
beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back sliding
Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous claims
about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims that
his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang and
it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe believe
in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came before
them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted that
his designer is the Christian God.
Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
theological trappings.
That's nice. But is it relevant?
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that
by your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be
a creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as
Behe. Â Â Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
scientific.
Show me where Ken Miller claims to be a creationist.
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps.
They are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are
Biblical creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution
creationists.
See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or
are theists?
Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type
of theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something
to do with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously
have different theologies.
See? Boring, repetitive, circular, and entirely beside the point. Time
to end it.
The general definition of creationist has always been the
definition of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID
scam. You have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old
earth anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and
young earth anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.
Pretty much only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO
definition of creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical
creationists of one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is
not a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what
makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They
have all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian
God, but they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political
reasons.
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
definition?
Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
what is relevant.
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
Past time to end it.
On 12/1/23 9:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
;
absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark, Noah nor the
flood story. The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
designer, that is a unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any
opposition to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was
present in my mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning
evolutionist. But on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who
found faults with evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the
first time. I came to the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had
been deceived. I was too trusting of people whom I believed were
experts and _knew_ what they were presenting was truth.
What was this book and who was this scientist? Was that scientist really
an expert? Perhaps you were misled by the book rather than by previous information.
Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time in
my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the complexity,
logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics, the beauty
the interdependence of entities throughout nature, seemed too much to
have just happened.
  I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
turning to these logical, rational
laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these
existing and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and
derive conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces, filling
the needs of societies and think things through using these rules,
laws, logical order and come to understanding and make discoveries.
This enables science to work. If this were not the case, then there
could be no science. I thought, what are the chances all this came
about through pointless, aimless, hazardous, and purposeless processes
from the very beginning.
So you believe in some kind of supernatural creator, and you reject
common descent. You may not be a biblical creationist, but you're still
a creationist.
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may
not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there
ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
"creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
initiate the argument.
I'm going to snip the rest.
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 23:46:55 UTC, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 6:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 02:01:54 UTC, John Harshman wrote:Creation of life and diversification of life is just one aspect of the
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
Nyikos
admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC >>>>> type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to >>>>> support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the >>>>> creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another? >>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist", >>>> but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
I'm going to snip the rest.
Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>
and to "special creation" meaning the creation of species,
I think the useful definition of "creationism" that is
more useful than saying "some things happened"
is that species exist because they were each created
separately at one or more points of time in the past,
and then they survived to the present day without
significant variation. In other words - no evolution,
or not much.
I say "not much" because people who also believe
that all animal species on land are descended from
creatures carried on Noah's actual Ark, are obliged
to believe that there has been /some/ evolution
and some division of the original species, because
the Ark wouldn't possibly carry every modern living
species, and it would be eaten by some of them,
e.g. beavers. So those must have come since
the Ark. Obviously. :-) Also, they must be descended
from the Garden of Eden.
But the point of creationism is that each living thing
was made on its own, not made from a different
living thing - except for Eve, of course.
And except for however much evolution a creationist
decides to accept.
One type of belief is that dinosaurs came and went
between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2, so they were
created on their own, but the bible mainly describes
what came after them. And of course, Genesis
chapter 1 described different things being created
on different days of one week. Not all on the same day.
In each case, it wasn't all simultaneous, although
God did work around the clock until the project was
finished. Then he took a day to rest. I am not
making that up.
creation. These same creationists believe that their creator created
the universe and the planet earth along with the sun and moon a few days
later.
A lot of YEC accept evolution to the family level, but the old earth
creationists at Reason to Believe claim that the diversity of life as we
know it now is the result of constant recreation. They are so
anti-evolution that they beileve that recreations are still occurring.
One of their examples was the anoles lizards on the various Caribbean
island. They did not evolve the differences found among them, but they
were recreated that way. Even though they can still interbreed, that is
how they were recreated. Neanderthals are supposed to be recreations of
humans, and they accept that we interbred with Neanderthals.
So creationists can be pretty screwed up in terms of what they think
about creation, and about what their creator did.
I have no idea what this "recreation" is. I do think
that the useful interpretation of "creationism" -
useful to characterise what somebody claims to
believe or to know scientifically, whether they
are sincere or not, honest or not - is that each
species exists because creatures without
ancestors were once made to exist in the past
whose descendants are the modern creatures,
with either limited evolution, or none, meanwhile.
Most people who say that know that they are
lying. They tell the lie to discourage people from
thinking that maybe there aren't any gods responsible
for bringing living things into existence, and also
because their holy book says that that /is/ what
happened, and they're afraid to acknowledge
that some things in the holy book are inaccurate.
Creationism, I say, is that particular lie, about living
things and their species. The origins of stars and
planets are separate questions, without relation to
the species question, except for being in the same
holy books. And evolution of species by direct acts
of the creator, or direct acts of anyone else, is a
denial of creationism, just as much as full-on
evolution is a denial of creationism.
It's necessary to be so specific so that anyone who
honestly believes creationism, typically because they
haven't particularly thought about it, can be persuaded
all the way out of it, without loitering on ideas like
"maybe God did do some of it". The bible says that
God created all the species in the same week as he
created humans. You can take it or you can leave it.
You should leave it, and that's that.
'Intelligent design" doctrine and philosophy, as far
as I understand it, is not anything other than a
rejection of modern scientific thinking about
and understanding of evolution. Any piece of science
news that seems to go against evolution, or that
proposes revised thinking about evolution, is counted
as support for intelligent design. Of course, ID was
and is mostly just an intellectual disguise for
creationists, and creationist doctrine is acceptable
within intelligent design.
But they are different lies, with different refutations.
On 12/1/23 5:39 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/1/2023 8:46 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 01/12/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone >>>>>>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim. >>>>>>>>>>>
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos >>>>>>>>>> believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type >>>>>>>>>> YEC
or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a >>>>>>>>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He >>>>>>>>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>> type. He
admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in >>>>>>>>> fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he >>>>>>>>> puts
the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course >>>>>>>>> he has
other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a
creationist.
You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from >>>>>>>> outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a >>>>>>> difference.
creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in
1993 we
already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu >>>>>> and
moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric
creationists.
They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all >>>>>> believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in
the same
creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on
TO) but
they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic >>>>>> evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
creationist beliefs.
My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC
scientific
anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists >>>>>> that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has >>>>>> always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist >>>>>> theologies.
You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. >>>>>>>>>>>> They may
not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has >>>>>>>>>>>> there
ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was >>>>>>>>>>>> not a
creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of >>>>>>>>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to >>>>>>>>>>> initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been
outside of
TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. >>>>>>>>>> That
is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young >>>>>>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a >>>>>>>>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has >>>>>>>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim >>>>>>>>>> creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK >>>>>>>>> with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and >>>>>>>> Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before >>>>>>>> there
were the anti-evolution creationists that created the
anti-evolution
scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established >>>>>>> your
definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in >>>>>>> common
usage or by pre-existence.
creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the >>>>>> "sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes >>>>>> in a
creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having >>>>>> Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be
a back
sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's
previous
claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims >>>>>> that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big
Bang
and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came >>>>>> before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted >>>>>> that his designer is the Christian God.
Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
theological trappings.
Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not >>>>>> claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID >>>>>> perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, >>>>>>>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall >>>>>>>>> that by
your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order >>>>>>>> to be a
creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit >>>>>>>> doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it >>>>>>>> only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution >>>>>>>> creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
Behe.
Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not >>>>>> support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs
to be
scientific.
Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. >>>>>>>> TheySee? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be >>>>>>> able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But >>>>>>> what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were >>>>>>> or are
are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical >>>>>>>> creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists. >>>>>>>
theists?
creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the
type of
theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something >>>>>> to do
with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have >>>>>> different theologies.
Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID >>>>>> scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with >>>>>> what is relevant.
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every >>>>>>> theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a >>>>>>> definition?The general definition of creationist has always been the
definition
of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You >>>>>>>>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth >>>>>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young >>>>>>>>>> earth
anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much >>>>>>>>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of >>>>>>>>>> creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical
creationists of
one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This >>>>>>>>> is not
a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what >>>>>>>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps.
They have
all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian
God, but
they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons. >>>>>>>
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
different types of creationists have posted on TO?
Ron Okimoto
Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent
to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a
subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you
make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just
fine.
There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these
people may not believe in a creator god or gods.
The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two
definitions. He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers,
but his expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people he
doesn't want to attack.
I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall reading
that Dobzhansky did the same.
I haven't made that point in this thread because you guys have watched
Nyikos lie about it for over a decade, and it was the subject of the
last holy water repost that forced Nyikos to start looking for more
things to lie about forever.
I have admitted that I am a creationist. Methodists are Christian
creationists. That is just a fact. Nyikos is the one that keeps
lying about the situation. You don't have to be a scientific
creationist or an ID perp to be a creationist. What does everyone
think theistic evolutionists have always been? They are still
creationists, and retain the same creator that the other Christians
have. There are a lot of different creationist theologies. Among the
Methodists we have a YEC, 7 day creationist faction and old earth
creationists that include theistic evolutionists. There were recent
grumblings that the YEC faction was going to break off, but nothing
happened. Some of the old earth creationists would have gone with
them because the disagreement isn't about YEC, it is just that the YEC
faction mostly holds the differing views.
But that's not what the OP was asking about. Read the room.
On 12/1/2023 8:07 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 23:46:55 UTC, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 6:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>
and to "special creation" meaning the creation of species,
I think the useful definition of "creationism" that is
more useful than saying "some things happened"
is that species exist because they were each created
separately at one or more points of time in the past,
and then they survived to the present day without
significant variation. In other words - no evolution,
or not much.
Creation of life and diversification of life is just one aspect of the
creation. These same creationists believe that their creator created
the universe and the planet earth along with the sun and moon a few days >> later.
A lot of YEC accept evolution to the family level, but the old earth
creationists at Reason to Believe claim that the diversity of life as we >> know it now is the result of constant recreation. They are so
anti-evolution that they beileve that recreations are still occurring.
One of their examples was the anoles lizards on the various Caribbean
island. They did not evolve the differences found among them, but they
were recreated that way. Even though they can still interbreed, that is
how they were recreated. Neanderthals are supposed to be recreations of
humans, and they accept that we interbred with Neanderthals.
So creationists can be pretty screwed up in terms of what they think
about creation, and about what their creator did.
I have no idea what this "recreation" is. I do think
that the useful interpretation of "creationism" -
useful to characterise what somebody claims to
believe or to know scientifically, whether they
are sincere or not, honest or not - is that each
species exists because creatures without
ancestors were once made to exist in the past
whose descendants are the modern creatures,
with either limited evolution, or none, meanwhile.
The creation of kinds is only one aspect of creationism. It is the
aspect that is the focus on TO, but when the Kansas creationists removed
what they didn't like from the Kansas State science standards they
removed the Big Bang, understanding radioisotopes from the chemistry standards and some geology and age of the earth things along with
biological evolution. The ID perps have their Big Bang and fine tuning
denial for a reason.
On 12/2/23 2:24 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/1/2023 7:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/1/23 5:39 PM, RonO wrote:
On 12/1/2023 8:46 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 01/12/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of >>>>>>>> creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in >>>>>>>> 1993 we
On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction
On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. >>>>>>>>>>> And in
On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone
for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos >>>>>>>>>>>> believed
in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist >>>>>>>>>>>> type YEC
or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always >>>>>>>>>>>> been a
creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and >>>>>>>>>>>> Behe. He
only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>>>> type. He
admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly. >>>>>>>>>>>
fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but >>>>>>>>>>> he puts
the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course >>>>>>>>>>> he has
other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a
creationist.
You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from >>>>>>>>>> outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe. >>>>>>>>>
without a
difference.
already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had
hindu and
moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric
creationists.
They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu
they all
believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in >>>>>>>> the same
creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on >>>>>>>> TO) but
they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are
theistic
evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution >>>>>>>> creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
creationist beliefs.
My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC
scientific
anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of
creationists
that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. >>>>>>>> TO has
always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist >>>>>>>> theologies.
You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are >>>>>>>> creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you
Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They may
not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has there
ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not a
creationist of one sort or another?
I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to >>>>>>>>>>>>> initiate the argument.
The definition of creationist is what it has always been >>>>>>>>>>>> outside of
TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a
creator. That
is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>> young
earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are >>>>>>>>>>>> not a
Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has >>>>>>>>>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists.
Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are >>>>>>>>>>> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but >>>>>>>>>>> is OK
with theism.
Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and >>>>>>>>>> Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before >>>>>>>>>> there
were the anti-evolution creationists that created the
anti-evolution
scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not
established your
definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either >>>>>>>>> in common
usage or by pre-existence.
read the
"sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton
believes in a
creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having >>>>>>>> Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to >>>>>>>> be a back
sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's
previous
claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his
claims
that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the
Big Bang
and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe >>>>>>>> believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that >>>>>>>> came
before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has
admitted
that his designer is the Christian God.
Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other >>>>>>>> theological trappings.
Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does >>>>>>>> not
This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by >>>>>>>>>>> definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslimYou seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order >>>>>>>>>> to be a
creationists,
but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall >>>>>>>>>>> that by
your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist. >>>>>>>>>>
creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit >>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or >>>>>>>>>> not, it
only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution >>>>>>>>>> creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID >>>>>>>> perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator >>>>>>>> as Behe.
Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not >>>>>>>> support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs >>>>>>>> to be
scientific.
Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day >>>>>>>> creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the >>>>>>>> type of
It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID
perps. They
are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are >>>>>>>>>> Biblical
creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution
creationists.
See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want >>>>>>>>> to be
able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't
like. But
what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who
were or are
theists?
theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had
something to do
with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously >>>>>>>> have
different theologies.
Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of
Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every >>>>>>>>> theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a >>>>>>>>> definition?The general definition of creationist has always been the >>>>>>>>>>>> definition
of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. >>>>>>>>>>>> You
have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and >>>>>>>>>>>> young earth
anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty >>>>>>>>>>>> much
only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of >>>>>>>>>>>> creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical
creationists of
one sort or another.
All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This >>>>>>>>>>> is not
a subject on which you are rational.
All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is >>>>>>>>>> what
makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. >>>>>>>>>> They have
all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian >>>>>>>>>> God, but
they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons. >>>>>>>>>
the ID
scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue >>>>>>>> with
what is relevant.
Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many >>>>>>>> different types of creationists have posted on TO?
Ron Okimoto
Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent >>>>>>> to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a
subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you >>>>>>> make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just >>>>>>> fine.
There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these
people may not believe in a creator god or gods.
The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two
definitions. He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers, >>>>>> but his expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people
he doesn't want to attack.
I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall
reading that Dobzhansky did the same.
I haven't made that point in this thread because you guys have
watched Nyikos lie about it for over a decade, and it was the
subject of the last holy water repost that forced Nyikos to start
looking for more things to lie about forever.
I have admitted that I am a creationist. Methodists are Christian
creationists. That is just a fact. Nyikos is the one that keeps
lying about the situation. You don't have to be a scientific
creationist or an ID perp to be a creationist. What does everyone
think theistic evolutionists have always been? They are still
creationists, and retain the same creator that the other Christians
have. There are a lot of different creationist theologies. Among
the Methodists we have a YEC, 7 day creationist faction and old
earth creationists that include theistic evolutionists. There were
recent grumblings that the YEC faction was going to break off, but
nothing happened. Some of the old earth creationists would have
gone with them because the disagreement isn't about YEC, it is just
that the YEC faction mostly holds the differing views.
But that's not what the OP was asking about. Read the room.
You may have wanted to respond to Major.
Nope.
On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 21:06:57 UTC, RonO wrote:
On 12/1/2023 8:07 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 23:46:55 UTC, RonO wrote:
On 11/30/2023 6:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>
and to "special creation" meaning the creation of species,
I think the useful definition of "creationism" that is
more useful than saying "some things happened"
is that species exist because they were each created
separately at one or more points of time in the past,
and then they survived to the present day without
significant variation. In other words - no evolution,
or not much.
Creation of life and diversification of life is just one aspect of the >>>> creation. These same creationists believe that their creator created
the universe and the planet earth along with the sun and moon a few days >>>> later.
A lot of YEC accept evolution to the family level, but the old earth
creationists at Reason to Believe claim that the diversity of life as we >>>> know it now is the result of constant recreation. They are so
anti-evolution that they beileve that recreations are still occurring. >>>> One of their examples was the anoles lizards on the various Caribbean
island. They did not evolve the differences found among them, but they >>>> were recreated that way. Even though they can still interbreed, that is >>>> how they were recreated. Neanderthals are supposed to be recreations of >>>> humans, and they accept that we interbred with Neanderthals.
So creationists can be pretty screwed up in terms of what they think
about creation, and about what their creator did.
I have no idea what this "recreation" is. I do think
that the useful interpretation of "creationism" -
useful to characterise what somebody claims to
believe or to know scientifically, whether they
are sincere or not, honest or not - is that each
species exists because creatures without
ancestors were once made to exist in the past
whose descendants are the modern creatures,
with either limited evolution, or none, meanwhile.
The creation of kinds is only one aspect of creationism. It is the
aspect that is the focus on TO, but when the Kansas creationists removed
what they didn't like from the Kansas State science standards they
removed the Big Bang, understanding radioisotopes from the chemistry
standards and some geology and age of the earth things along with
biological evolution. The ID perps have their Big Bang and fine tuning
denial for a reason.
I say that creationism is only the creation of "kinds"
(species) and the alleged insufficiency of evolution
to explain the existence of "kinds". And "intelligent
design" is only the alleged insufficiency of evolution
to explain evolution.
When creationists suppress other scientific subjects,
it is not because creationists believe that that science
is false, but because they want that science to be not
known and understood. And it may be not because of
creationism. Some of these legislators also want to
suppress gynaecology and homosexuality and voting.
There is no creationism there.
As for intelligent design: IDists bring up universal
"fine tuning", but it is not what "intelligent design" is.
"ID" is the false claim that biological science is verifiably
incomplete when evolution is included and the
"intelligent designer" is not included.
The claim that God created stars is not "creationism",
and the claim that God designed the atom intelligently
is not "intelligent design".
What a policy is named is not what the policy is.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
mentions "fine tuning" as a side question.
<https://www.aclu.org/documents/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent-design>
(from 2005) only discusses claims about living things,
life, on Earth.
To include geology, astronomy, cosmology,
and any other discipline in your concepts of
"creationism" and "intelligent design" is a
mistake. Do not make this mistake.
To expect to hear nonsense about those other
disciplines - that's reasonable.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 57:24:35 |
| Calls: | 9,839 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,194,680 |
| Posted today: | 1 |