AtomicCEO Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&s...dpost&p=2058076 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 (edited) However... It is NOT possible to believe in both Creationism and Evolution at the same time. They are contradictory by definition. 10 thousand years vs. millions of years. This is an incorrect statement, and you are wrong. C'mon ACEO... you can do it... admit you're wrong. Edited June 10, 2007 by Thews40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 This is an incorrect statement, and you are wrong. C'mon ACEO... you can do it... admit you're wrong. Sigh. Thews... Sigh. Sigh. Post #1. The article we are talking about. In this thread. Poll shows Americans believe in both evolution, creationism USA Today Jun. 7, 2007 05:12 PM WASHINGTON - Majorities of Americans in a new USA Today/Gallup Poll say evolution and creationism are both likely explanations for life on Earth - underscoring the complexities of an issue that has put Republican presidential candidates on the spot in recent weeks. 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. Sigh. It saddens me.... severely... that this has gone on this far. I was wrong to say that you can't believe that mankind is simultaneously 10000 years old and millions of years old at the same time. Clearly... YOU can. Congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 I think that 25 percent of the polled people seriously misunderstood what they were being asked. It is possible to believe in God and Evolution at the same time. However... It is NOT possible to believe in both Creationism and Evolution at the same time. They are contradictory by definition. 10 thousand years vs. millions of years. If you believe that God had a hand in the evolutionary process, you have to come up with another name for it. My turn... show me where in this article it mentions religion referred to as anything other than "religious"...as opposed to encompassing Christianity? Religion would encompass all religions, though I admit it's quite likely that if you define yourself a "Creationist" it prolly means you have a belief in the bible. But, to your incorrect statement, it is possible to believe in both Creationism and evolution at the same time, because it defines a "creator" as just that... some form of God, and it's unfair for you to imply it must be based on Christianity by definition. I personally have met a lot of people that fall into that bucket of belief in God and evolution, and they weren't Christians. This about your bias against ID, and I don't wish to get into that again. The politics of this "redefinition" movement has a long history. Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case referred to as Edwards v. Aguillard "struck down the teaching of creation science … because it embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of mankind." Many ID proponents, including The Daily Campus contributing writers Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, have asserted that "because Intelligent Design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to Intelligent Design." This is a critical assertion for the ID proponents. They are saying that ID is different from creationism and therefore the Supreme Court's rulings should not apply. Judge Jones mentions a "creationist text" in his opinion that has become very relevant to this point. The book, "Of Pandas and People," was intended to be a high-school textbook that presented the Intelligent Design doctrine as science and was proposed by the Dover Board of Education as an alternative to the Dover students' approved biology textbook. In a brilliant move made by Eric Rothschild, a subpoena for all documents and drafts related to the Intelligent Design "Pandas" work and its Creationism predecessor text, "Biology and Origins," was served on the book's Richardson publisher. After losing their bid to quash the subpoena, the publisher surrendered a number of early, unpublished versions of the books to the court. A comparison of these original drafts with the actual published versions shows that the words "creationist" or "creationism" were simply substituted with "Intelligent Designer" or "Intelligent Design" just as if a word processor search-and-replace function did the job. The date when this "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" big switch happened is absolutely damning to Ms. Levy and Smith's assertion that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not one and the same. The "switch" occurred in 1987, just weeks after the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that creationism was religion and not science, and could not be taught in public schools. No wonder Judge Jones wrote in his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion that "ID is creationism re-labeled". So yes, Edwards v. Aguillard certainly does apply. The ID proponents have literally provided all of the needed evidence themselves. (As Levy and Smith assert, it truly is a good thing when your opponents make your points for you.) Simply changing the name from "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" changes none of the logic, relevance or the impact that the Edwards v. Aguillard decision had on the creationist movement and now has on Intelligent Design. Neither one is science. Both have been determined to be religious because they both require a supernatural creator or designer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&s...dpost&p=2058076 nothing you said in that post was necessarily incorrect. however, your venture to "correct" thews in this post WAS incorrect. that is what i was responding to. your mistake was in assuming that the pollsters' (or the journalists' writing about it?) defining of "creationism" was one that encompassed the varieties of common usage of the term. it didn't. which goes a long way toward explaining both their contradictory results and your illogical flailing in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 nothing you said in that post was necessarily incorrect. however, your venture to "correct" thews in this post WAS incorrect. that is what i was responding to. your mistake was in assuming that the pollsters' (or the journalists' writing about it?) defining of "creationism" was one that encompassed the varieties of common usage of the term. it didn't. which goes a long way toward explaining both their contradictory results and your illogical flailing in this thread. Morpheus, is that you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.