Seriously, how can this be?

[Avernus]

...the concept that earth and life was created in 6 days does not necessarily mean 6 days with 24 hrs in each ...days could mean years and many of them ...I agree with polksalet , nothing out there researched , concluded by science and the scientific community effects my faith and my belief in the living God , who created all

 

it's either that...or man wanted to make god appear to be on a whole 'nother plane...

 

person #1"yeah...god created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th...let's run with that"...

 

person #2 "ahaha that's crazy...I like it"

 

person #3 "do you think they'll buy it?"

 

person #1 "if they don't, they'll go to hell...so the answer to your question is 'yes' "

[Yukon Cornelius]

man it is hard putting a saddle in a t-rex

[isleseeya]

Persons # 1 -4 have it wrong avernus ..lol

[Avernus]

Persons # 1 -4 have it wrong avernus ..lol

 

there are only 3 people....the 4th is the genius who came up with this idea...

[isleseeya]

there are only 3 people....the 4th is the genius who came up with this idea...

 

 

I am bad at math ..but good in Faith

[Avernus]

I am bad at math ..but good in Faith

 

I'm bad at both

[Kid Cid]

Another item is the concept of days ..God is not bound by time and many passages in bile refer to a day for God is like thousands of years ( if need be will try and find such passages ) ...the concept that earth and life was created in 6 days does not necessarily mean 6 days with 24 hrs in each ...days could mean years and many of them

 

This is the same thing as a self fulfilling prophecy. The originators of this concept have basically said, "Let's make this god all powerful. This way no matter what happens, without any proof in either direction, it must be believed because it comes from a god." The logic is such that the implied threat of the unknown reinforces the argument. It is an incredible pyramid scheme based on the idea that people are afraid to make a bad choice. I'd like to believe what I see, but someone told me about this god stuff; what if I'm wrong <shudder>?

[isleseeya]

This is the same thing as a self fulfilling prophecy. The originators of this concept have basically said, "Let's make this god all powerful. This way no matter what happens, without any proof in either direction, it must be believed because it comes from a god." The logic is such that the implied threat of the unknown reinforces the argument. It is an incredible pyramid scheme based on the idea that people are afraid to make a bad choice. I'd like to believe what I see, but someone told me about this god stuff; what if I'm wrong <shudder>?

 

Hey kid , we meet again in a religous thread ..lol

 

Where I differ completely is the statement " the originators of this concept " which implies man made or worse made up ...faith bases the belief that it came from God ..not man

 

That difference certainly will not allow for an agreement in ideas but that's ok ...I still like you

[Thews40]

"Creationism" describes a specific movement of literal biblical belief which is not possibly to reconcile with Evolution.

 

I think that what you are describing is a belief in "theistic evolution" which believes that God created everything, but also believes that animals evolved with God's guidance. A strict Creationist would strongly disagree with this and say that God created the earth and every animal 6000 years ago in 6 days and that any concept of evolution is hogwash.

 

What I personally believe is moot when it comes to the question asked. Creationism does not imply a specific religion, but only that a "creator" had a hand in it. Continuing to use a biblical reference to debate this will ultimately send us down the path of right wing politics and whether or not this theory warrants teaching in schools. You can believe in God without being a Christian, and in this argument "God" does not imply anything more than a creator.

[Coffeeman]

But if being a Creationist means you believe that the Universe is only a few thousand years old, then I would be just as surprised as you to find that 2/3 of Americans fall into that category.

 

 

Me too. Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible per se, but its pretty hard to conclude all those bones are somehow fake. I personally think there could've been millions (or even billions) of years between the first two verses, Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Some folks just don't know their bible very well.

 

Chronologically, we know Gen 1:1 is not even the beginning of the story - John 1:1 is. Then the whole Lucifer to Satan transformation takes place in between; since God banished Satan down to the earth, it must've existed before the 'second creation' that we're all more familiar with.

 

So there are a lot of time holes that a majority might not be aware of. Science and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. I take a lot on faith, believing that no one has 'God in a box', i.e. all figured out. There is no way to know the whole history of the universe, but I like it that smart people keep trying, and keep discovering cool new things in the process....

[Avernus]

Me too. Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible per se, but its pretty hard to conclude all those bones are somehow fake. I personally think there could've been millions (or even billions) of years between the first two verses, Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Some folks just don't know their bible very well.

 

Chronologically, we know Gen 1:1 is not even the beginning of the story - John 1:1 is. Then the whole Lucifer to Satan transformation takes place in between; since God banished Satan down to the earth, it must've existed before the 'second creation' that we're all more familiar with.

 

So there are a lot of time holes that a majority might not be aware of. Science and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. I take a lot on faith, believing that no one has 'God in a box', i.e. all figured out. There is no way to know the whole history of the universe, but I like it that smart people keep trying, and keep discovering cool new things in the process....

 

 

I think the book of ezekiel explains things a little more clearly than almost anything else in the bible...

[AtomicCEO]

Creationism does not imply a specific religion, but only that a "creator" had a hand in it.

 

Sigh. Thews... this is not a matter of faith or spirituality.

 

You a factually incorrect regarding the definition of the word Creationism. You seem to believe in Creation. This is NOT THE SAME as being a "Creationist".

 

I believe in being social. This does not make me a proponent of socialism. I am often nude. This does not mean that I am into nudism. The "ism" takes a general concept and turns it into a specifically defined movement.

 

cre·a·tion·ism (kr-sh-nzm)

n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

 

creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the

Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of

evolution of species"

 

The accepted specific definition of "Creationism" is a belief in the literal account of the book of Genesis, specifically denying evolution.

 

If Thews or Az want to argue more about the very clearly demonstrated definition of this word... please take it up with USA Today (authors of the originally linked article), Wikipedia (who I first quoted), about.com, merriam-webster, wordreference.com, MSN, and everyone else I've ever met in my life.

Edited June 8, 2007 by AtomicCEO

[Savage Beatings]

I believe in being social. This does not make me a proponent of socialism. I am often nude. This does not mean that I am into nudism.

 

 

Do you have the letter "J" in your name at all?

 

If so, you probably believe in this.

[AtomicCEO]

Do you have the letter "J" in your name at all?

 

If so, you probably believe in this.

 

 

[Azazello1313]

If Thews or Az want to argue more about the very clearly demonstrated definition of this word... please take it up with USA Today (authors of the originally linked article), Wikipedia (who I first quoted), about.com, merriam-webster, wordreference.com, MSN, and everyone else I've ever met in my life.

 

 

why do you lie?

 

wikipedia

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of the book of Genesis.[2] The term strict creationism is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the more general concept of creation held by those whose faith accommodates theistic evolution.[3]

...

Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.

 

Comparison of creationist views

Young Earth creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. < 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. No consensus exists.

Young Earth creationism (creationist cosmologies) Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. < 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. < 10,000 years old

Gap creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. Scientifically accepted age.

Progressive creationism Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.

Theistic evolution Evolution from primates. Evolution from single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.

Intelligent design N/A Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by irreducible complexity N/A N/A

 

about.com

Like evolution, creationism can have more than one meaning. At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort - but after that, there is quite a lot of variety among creationists as to just what they believe and why. People may lump all creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand where they differ and why.

 

merriam-webster

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis --

 

not seeing anything about "literal"?

 

 

MSN

belief that God created universe: the belief that God created the universe

 

literal?

 

 

dictionary.com

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

 

literal?

Edited June 8, 2007 by Azazello1313

[AtomicCEO]

Az. I skimmed. Most of the quotes you posted include "according to genesis", or a statement that it is opposed to evolution.

 

Most of the stuff you posted actually supports my statement. I'd go through and bold it, but I don't really care.

 

I'll jsut copy and paste because you seem to have skipped it:

Did you read the original article? You should... it's from a website called AzCentral.

 

Sentence number 2:

"Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true."

 

Tell me how... when worded that way... both Creationism and Evolution can simultaneously co-exist. And Thews... again, I'm not saying that theologically you can't believe in a creator or that the creator shaped man and earth. I'm saying that when one theory explicitly says man is less than 10,000 years old and the other one says that man evolved 4-6 million years ago... then you can't say both are probably true.

 

Edited June 8, 2007 by AtomicCEO

[jetsfan]

2/3 of Americans believe in creationism.

 

Someone here must be able to convince me. I'm tired of believing in apes.

 

 

Another insightful exit poll at the 700 club.

 

[Azazello1313]

Az. I skimmed. Most of the quotes you posted include "according to genesis", or a statement that it is opposed to evolution.

 

Most of the stuff you posted actually supports my statement. I'd go through and bold it, but I don't really care.

 

I'll jsut copy and paste because you seem to have skipped it:

 

 

well if that is indeed what they asked in the poll, that would probably explain why so many answers were contradictory, and majorities said that both evolution and creation were probably or definitely true, wouldn't it? because most people do not define "creationism" in the limited, exclusionary way you do -- they define it the way it is actually defined in all of those sources you claimed to use.

 

edit: by the way, i'm not sure how you think all of those quotes from the sources you claimed to consult actually support your statement that "creationism" exclusively means literal interpretation of genisis, i.e., less than 10,000 years and so on. please feel free to enlighten me. it would appear from the article that the pollsters may have defined it that way, but if they did, it was in opposition to every other sensible definition of the term which recognizes the diversity of "creationist" beliefs.

Edited June 8, 2007 by Azazello1313

[Thews40]

Sigh. Thews... this is not a matter of faith or spirituality.

 

Ummmmm no. I agree with everything Az said. Your entire argument hinges on connecting the word to the bible. This simply is not true. In doing so, it would deny the person who just believes in a God having a hand in the evolutionary path to define themselves as a Creationist. This goes against your political beliefs and your stance on whether or not this is taught in public schools (correct me if I’m wrong), so it also defines your bias. Define the beliefs for a person who only believes in a God (and the explanation ends there) having a hand in the evolutionary process… what word encompasses this spirituality-based belief?

 

For the record I get what you're going for here, but you made an incorrect statement and never ponied up to it. If I define myself a “Creationist”, it’s most probably because I fall into the statistical majority that also share a belief in the bible. This is pretty stupid in a way, because I sort of agree with you. I understand the implication and how one could go hand-in-hand with the other by default. But, when you said, “It’s not possible” for a Creationist to also believe in evolution, you were incorrect in doing so. It is possible, so ditch the web surf to prove a point and admit it. It is possible, but the majority of those that define themselves as Creationists are connect to the bible… the majority, but not all of them.

[Big John]

Do you have the letter "J" in your name at all?

 

If so, you probably believe in this.

 

Does "Junior" count?

[AtomicCEO]

edit: by the way, i'm not sure how you think all of those quotes from the sources you claimed to consult actually support your statement that "creationism" exclusively means literal interpretation of genisis, i.e., less than 10,000 years and so on. please feel free to enlighten me. it would appear from the article that the pollsters may have defined it that way, but if they did, it was in opposition to every other sensible definition of the term which recognizes the diversity of "creationist" beliefs.

 

 

sigh.

 

Never said exclusively. You can read. I said "most commonly".

 

And judging by the article... my links... my definitions... your definitions... I'm right.

 

I'll side with USA Today and the dictionaries.

You side with Thews. I'm satisfied with that.

 

I seriously need to stop posting because this kind of semantic back and forth is what you masturbate to.

[Thews40]

And judging by the article... my links... my definitions... your definitions... I'm right.

 

No you're not, you're wrong and just can't admit it.

[wiegie]

I can't help explain anything to you cause I don't really know, however, I'm Catholic but find some of the explanations we're taught to be very far fetched. I certainly think the scientific explanation makes a lot more sense and has much more data to prove it's case. So I'm one of those phonies that says I'm religious but I don't really believe everything I was taught cause most of the time it just doesn't jive.

 

I better watch out now.

 

I went to Catholic schools for 12 years and we were always taught about evolution and the Big Bang Hypothesis, etc. (Of course, we learned about the Biblical version of Creation--but that was in Religion class and not in Science class.)

 

As far back as 1950, Pope Pius XII affirmed that there was no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation.

 

Then in 1996, Pope John Paul II wrote "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

 

So, I guess I'm confused as to what you were taught that was far-fetched concerning the Church's position on evolution.

[Thews40]

So there are a lot of time holes that a majority might not be aware of. Science and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. I take a lot on faith, believing that no one has 'God in a box', i.e. all figured out. There is no way to know the whole history of the universe, but I like it that smart people keep trying, and keep discovering cool new things in the process....

I agree with your perspective on this.

[Azazello1313]

sigh.

 

Never said exclusively. You can read. I said "most commonly".

 

And judging by the article... my links... my definitions... your definitions... I'm right.

 

 

how the f*ck do you figure? let's recap...

 

Creationism does not imply a specific religion, but only that a "creator" had a hand in it.

 

 

this statement by thews is absolutely correct. yet you felt the need to tell him he was wrong...

 

You a factually incorrect regarding the definition of the word Creationism. You seem to believe in Creation. This is NOT THE SAME as being a "Creationist".

 

I believe in being social. This does not make me a proponent of socialism. I am often nude. This does not mean that I am into nudism. The "ism" takes a general concept and turns it into a specifically defined movement.

 

cre·a·tion·ism (kr-sh-nzm)

n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

 

creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the

Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of

evolution of species"

 

The accepted specific definition of "Creationism" is a belief in the literal account of the book of Genesis, specifically denying evolution.

 

If Thews or Az want to argue more about the very clearly demonstrated definition of this word... please take it up with USA Today (authors of the originally linked article), Wikipedia (who I first quoted), about.com, merriam-webster, wordreference.com, MSN, and everyone else I've ever met in my life.

 

 

now of course you are saying it means these things exclusively, otherwise what basis would you have for "correcting" thews? i don't know where you got those definitions with "literal" bolded, because i checked all those sources you listed and a couple others and all of them gave definitions that fit in exactly with thews said, and not a single one of them refuted his statement about the definition of creationism. thews was right, you were wrong.