Jump to content


Photo

A Question.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:55 PM

I was thinking today about a comment a atheist made about what a creationist is, which in my opinion is a wrong definition. But then something occurred to me, Why are there A-theists and not A-evolutionists?

Your opinions on this...

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:25 AM

But then something occurred to me, Why are there A-theists and not A-evolutionists?

Your opinions on this...


Interesting thought. I found myself thinking about different possible ways to make this work, playing around with symmantics, trying to come up with a new spin on it that would maybe make more sense, and this is what I came up with:

I guess it isn't used partially because it"s awkward to pronounce; "aevolutionist" or "avolutionist". Also, in a typed format, aevolutionist might be more noticeable, but in a spoken conversation the added "a" would be subtle enough to cause confusion, or possibly be ignored.

It does make sense to have a name for a person who doesn't believe in evolution, but "creationist" seems a better fit for me personally, given that I believe that God created the world and the life within it. I guess if you are an agnostic and you don't believe in creation or evolution, then aevolutionist would fit best, but then obviously your position on the cause of biodiversity would be a resounding "I don't know", or maybe "we can't know".

I still think that it is simpler to communicate this position with the phrase "I do not believe in creation or evolution, the origin of biodiversity is unknown/unknowable" because the word "aevolutionist" has yet to be defined and accepted by our culture as a legitimate way to express that idea. If you want to use it, be my guest, but you might have to explain it a few times before people understand.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:55 PM

It seems we are not the only ones who thought of this: https://www.google.c...iw=1173&bih=519

#4 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:22 PM



#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:38 AM

??? Not sure why he calls it the scientific method... what he proposes may be a method used by scientists, (and I don't doubt that).. but the actual scientific method only deals with experiments and there veracity of claims which should be made with evidence.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:17 AM


I was thinking today about a comment a atheist made about what a creationist is, which in my opinion is a wrong definition. But then something occurred to me, Why are there A-theists and not A-evolutionists?

Your opinions on this...



Actually, your assumption is correct Ike. By definition, you can put an "A" in front of anything you don't "believe" in and claim that thing (as long as it logically and linguistically fits). Example: I am an A-atheist... I don't believe anything can come from nothing, or that anything extended into the physical realm (the materialistic) can be infinite, or that the material is the end-all-be-all: therefore I cannot "believe" in NO Theisim (A-atheisim).

Further, we Christians we considered ‘atheists’ by Rome until Christianity became the official religion there.

#7 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 17 March 2012 - 12:34 PM

Well, there is no need for a-evolutionist, any more than there is a need for a-gravitationist or an a-germis or an a-atomicist. Acceptance or rejection of a theory by a particular layperson has no impact on the validity of the scientific theory.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 March 2012 - 03:26 PM

Well, there is no need for a-evolutionist, any more than there is a need for a-gravitationist or an a-germis or an a-atomicist. Acceptance or rejection of a theory by a particular layperson has no impact on the validity of the scientific theory.



Actually, that is not analogous, and is therefore a non sequitur. So your logic fails!

First – We know for a fact there are actual phenomena known as Gravity, Germs, and Atoms.*
Second – Macroevolution is nothing more than a hypothesis, or model at best (i.e. not factually verified or validated by the empirical scientific method).
Third – Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species, therefore calling it evolution is unnecessary (except for to the evolutionists). So, we know for a fact that there is an actual phenomena known as Adaptation.*

Conclusion: You cannot be an Agravitationist, Agermis, Aatomicist, or an Aadaptationist as that would just be silly. But you can indeed be an Aevolutionist within the context of macroevolution.

*note: No faith involved.

#9 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:12 PM

Actually, that is not analogous, and is therefore a non sequitur. So your logic fails!

First – We know for a fact there are actual phenomena known as Gravity, Germs, and Atoms.*
Second – Macroevolution is nothing more than a hypothesis, or model at best (i.e. not factually verified or validated by the empirical scientific method).
Third – Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species, therefore calling it evolution is unnecessary (except for to the evolutionists). So, we know for a fact that there is an actual phenomena known as Adaptation.*

Conclusion: You cannot be an Agravitationist, Agermis, Aatomicist, or an Aadaptationist as that would just be silly. But you can indeed be an Aevolutionist within the context of macroevolution.

*note: No faith involved.


I'm not saying there is logic, I'm just saying, technically, there should be no a-LochNessist, nor a-Bigfootists, because the great majority of people do not believe in them. But in the US, the great majority do believe in some kind of higher power, thus not being a theist needs some kind of term to define it, as it is not the belief held by the majority. In places where such a belief is NOT the majority view, there is no need to identify oneself as non-religious, it is up to the religious to identify themselves as such.
It seems it is also mostly in the States (though creationism is somewhat spreading to a few other countries now) that people do not trust in evolution, whereas in pretty much the rest of the world everyone does. In addition, instead of calling oneself an a-evolutionist, people say they simply don't believe in evolution, or that they are creationists.

First - The rest of the world (including the Papacy in Rome mind you) know that there is an actual phenomena called evolution. There is no scientific separation between micro and macro evolution, that is a separation made by the creationists between evolution which is easily seen in any laboratory, and evolution on a grand scale which is harder to observe but not impossible and which also contradicts their holy book.

Second - Evolution is a theory. I have yet to hear a coherent consistent distinction between macro and micro, as well as supporting evidence why successive steps of microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution.

Third - The theory of evolution covers adaptation, selection and variation as explained by the genetic concepts of random mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and migration between populations within a species as well as speciation events. You cannot classify what you accept as microevolution, and throw the rest into macroevolution only to deny it. What is the defining distinction between the two, the clear line that separates the two?

Conclusion: No-one in their right mind would be an a-gravitationist, a-atomicist or an a-germicist, as those things are easily understandable, easily provable, and in good accord with common sense, but some people feel justified by their holy book to be a-evolutionists when one refers to macro/microevolution, a-geologists, a-astronomist and a-physicist when one refers to YEC and flat-earthers. Not all creationists are YECs, but all YECs are creationists, not all YECs are flat-earthers, but all flat-earthers are YEC, and the great majority (if not all) of them are motivated by religion.

Why do religious people accept science when it suits them, but choose to reject it (using and abusing 'religious freedom' in the states) when it doesn't? Why are people so upset about the biological fact that we are apes? Mankind was classified as belonging to apes by Carl Linnaeus himself, over 300 years ago, but this fact still seems to upset people. Carl Linnaeus was himself a religious man, perhaps even a creationist. So why did he develop a system that would later allow us to ascertain that man was indeed related to monkeys?

From http://www.crosswalk...us-1368814.html

Linnaeus: The Christian
Carolus was raised in a religious home and had deep beliefs concerning God and nature. It was his belief that since God created the world, it was possible to understand God's wisdom by studying His creation.
"The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a 'natural classification' that would reveal this Order in the universe."


I do realize the very next paragraph says that Linnaeus would have been shocked of the modern synthesis of evolution. That is pure conjecture however, because of course Linnaeus is dead and we will never know. I do believe that had Linnaeus been told and explained all of the varieties and diversities of all species within the nested hierarchy system and with the binomial nomenclature system he designed and that we still use today, he would have understood the beauty of evolution and would possibly have been a theistic evolutionist.

I do not understand why some people so adamantly declare that this world was created by God himself and given to man as a dwelling place, but categorically refuse the conclusions of a group of people who study this world God gave us! The scientific method allows us to derive knowledge from studying the natural world around us, studying how God made the universe if he did indeed make it. Why some people refuse to understand this I do not understand.

#10 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 22 March 2012 - 12:05 AM

I would like to comment on something you mentioned.

It seems it is also mostly in the States (though creationism is somewhat spreading to a few other countries now) that people do not trust in evolution, whereas in pretty much the rest of the world everyone does. In addition, instead of calling oneself an a-evolutionist, people say they simply don't believe in evolution, or that they are creationists. First - The rest of the world (including the Papacy in Rome mind you) know that there is an actual phenomena called evolution.

I agree with you here. Here in South Africa there use to be no problem with evolution within the Christian church. As you have mentioned the YEC point of view did spread to South Africa. The result of this is that more and more people left the Christian faith because of this radical view. These people either leave the Christian faith or search for a different Christian church.
And because the YEC conflicting view with Science, you your self will never consider Christianity as an option. It seems that if you don’t want the Christian faith to spread you teach YEC.
Science does not conflict with a Christian God. In fact what we see in nature if what we expect from a Christian God. Please do not consider the YEC view. The YEC view point is at a minority if you consider the rest of the worlds Christians. (Maybe not in the US)

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 06:11 AM



Actually, that is not analogous, and is therefore a non sequitur. So your logic fails!

First – We know for a fact there are actual phenomena known as Gravity, Germs, and Atoms.*
Second – Macroevolution is nothing more than a hypothesis, or model at best (i.e. not factually verified or validated by the empirical scientific method).
Third – Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species, therefore calling it evolution is unnecessary (except for to the evolutionists). So, we know for a fact that there is an actual phenomena known as Adaptation.*

Conclusion: You cannot be an Agravitationist, Agermis, Aatomicist, or an Aadaptationist as that would just be silly. But you can indeed be an Aevolutionist within the context of macroevolution.

*note: No faith involved.


I'm not saying there is logic, I'm just saying, technically, there should be no a-LochNessist, nor a-Bigfootists, because the great majority of people do not believe in them.



First – There is ALWAYS logic being used; the question is whether or not it is being used correctly or fallaciously.

Second – You are using the logical fallacy of “Argumentum ad Populum” (majority rules, argument for the majority etc…). It doesn’t matter whether the majority “believes” something or not; what matters is what can be proven.

For example: Atheists continue being atheists, regardless of the fact that there is AMPLE evidence of someone/something being the initial causation for all of this (origins: the universe, life, intelligence etc…) and ABSOLUTELY NO logical, rational or empirical scientific evidence for any materialistic/naturalistic origins for all of this (the universe, life, intelligence etc…).
Conclusion: Although atheists are in the vast MINORITY of the WORLD’S population, the atheist proceed on a great amount of faith in their world-view. Just like those who “believe” in the Loch Ness Monster, or Big Foot; these believers (the atheists) proceed on the same kind of faith! In fact, logically, there is a far greater chance FOR the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot, than there is for a logical, rational or empirical scientific evidence for any materialistic/naturalistic origins for all of this (the universe, life, intelligence etc…). Having said that; if there is logical evidence FOR the Loch Ness Monster, or Big Foot, then there is also logical evidence AGAINST them, and by this logic there should indeedtechnically” be a-LochNessist, nor a-Bigfootists, and your fallacious “Argumentum ad Populum” fails.



But in the US, the great majority do believe in some kind of higher power, thus not being a theist needs some kind of term to define it, as it is not the belief held by the majority. In places where such a belief is NOT the majority view, there is no need to identify oneself as non-religious, it is up to the religious to identify themselves as such.
It seems it is also mostly in the States (though creationism is somewhat spreading to a few other countries now) that people do not trust in evolution, whereas in pretty much the rest of the world everyone does. In addition, instead of calling oneself an a-evolutionist, people say they simply don't believe in evolution, or that they are creationists.



First – The great majority of the WORLD believes in “some kind of higher power”; therefore your premise fails at its base (once again). The atheists, in fact, are in the “VAST MINORITY” on the world’s stage.

Further, I AM NOT arguing that simply because the “majority” believes something, that makes that belief the correct one. That, in fact is the argument you are making. I am simply pointing out the fallaciousness of your logic.

Second – You are fallaciously asserting that you cannot believe in creation and evolution at the same time. But I’ll get into that a little more later; what I’ll point out here, is that your argument fails on a number of premises (one being the “majority rules fallacy”, and the other being a non sequitur. This is because one does not need to be a materialist to be an evolutionist).

Second – If one says the “Don’t Believe” evolution is true; or that they “Don’t Believe” in evolution, they are de facto an A-evolutionist.

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 06:12 AM


First - The rest of the world (including the Papacy in Rome mind you) know that there is an actual phenomena called evolution. There is no scientific separation between micro and macro evolution, that is a separation made by the creationists between evolution which is easily seen in any laboratory, and evolution on a grand scale which is harder to observe but not impossible and which also contradicts their holy book.



First – Once again, you are fallaciously clinging to the “majority rules” logic that sunk your argument earlier.

Second – By attempting to drag the “Papacy in Rome” into this, you further totally destroy the materialist’s evolutionistic argument earlier. Unless you are attempting to argue that the “Papacy in Rome” is atheistic?

Third – There is indeed a separation between microevolution (adaptation WITHIN a kind/species) and Macroevolution (on kind/species changing into another kind/species over time… i.e. millions of years; such as “ape like creature” evolving into “man”). What you are attempting here is the logical fallacy of “Conversion by definition”.

**MOD HAT ON** And this will be your last WARNING. You will no longer be allowed to EQUIVOCATE at this forum. YOU NEED TO TAKE SOME TIME AND RE-READ THE FORUM RULES THAT YOU AGREED TO PRIOR TO BEING ALLOWED TO POST IN THIS FORUM **MOD HAT OFF**

Fourth – By definition, micro evolution, in no way “contradicts” the Bible. Macro-evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis or a model at best, so it doesn’t contradict the Bible either. Therefor that point is moot.


Second - Evolution is a theory. I have yet to hear a coherent consistent distinction between macro and micro, as well as supporting evidence why successive steps of microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution.



First – I already gave you a “coherent consistent distinction between macro and micro”. I can give it to you again, if you wish.
Second – Macroevolution has not been proven logically, rationally and with empirical science; therefore it is nothing more than a hypothesis or model.
Third – Attempting to argue the lack of “supporting evidence why successive steps of microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution” is known as the logical fallacy of “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum” (To assert is not to demonstrate). In other words, YOU have asserted that “successive steps of microevolution CAN lead to macroevolution”, but you have supplied absolutely NO evidence (logical, rational AND empirical scientific) to substantiate your assertion. Further; “Saying it is so, doesn’t MAKE it so”; so your argument fails.



Third - The theory of evolution covers adaptation, selection and variation as explained by the genetic concepts of random mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and migration between populations within a species as well as speciation events. You cannot classify what you accept as microevolution, and throw the rest into macroevolution only to deny it. What is the defining distinction between the two, the clear line that separates the two?



First – YES, but Evolution HAS NOT (in any evidentiary way) proven that “successive steps of microevolution CAN lead to macroevolution”, therefore your argument fails. And THIS is what separates “Micro” from “Macro”; AND where your fallacious argument fails.

Second – This is ABSOLUTELY why “Macro” can be separated from “Micro”, and discarded as nothing more than assumptive opinion.

Conclusion: YOU have used nothing more than fallacious argumentation, in an attempt to make your case; but your argument has failed at every turn.


#13 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:02 AM

I do not understand why some people so adamantly declare that this world was created by God himself and given to man as a dwelling place, but categorically refuse the conclusions of a group of people who study this world God gave us! The scientific method allows us to derive knowledge from studying the natural world around us, studying how God made the universe if he did indeed make it. Why some people refuse to understand this I do not understand.


That's a LOT of talk about God from someone who claims to be an 'atheist'. Are you sure "Theist Evolutionist" would not be a more fitting worldview? Actually, you've got me totally confused as "if he did indeed make it" sounds more like you're an agnostic. Hmm.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users