Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:01:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5191 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
<snip>
> What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific
> Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily
> rooted in theistic dogma.
Pure Creationists believes that the Earth really was created in exactly 6
days, and ignore any scientific eveidence to the contrary. S.C.s (at least
me, tell me if i'm wrong about the general beliefs of scientific
creationists) beleive that Geneisis Chapter one is a an account of the
spirtual creation, and that the Creation actually took millions of years.
How is that illogical? I would be more prone to say that your theory of
evolution is illogical.
> If you want to produce a totally non-
> sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex nihilo that follows
> Genesis to the letter, know in advance that the science supports
> generation ex nihilo (sort of) at a much, much, much earlier stage.
Much, much, much earlier than pure Creationists beliefs, perhaps. And I
believe that the animals and plants on Earth were taken from other planets
(which were also God's creations). And no, i do not believe that the
universe came into being when the Earth was created. There are many, many
Gods and worlds.
> (In a sense, you can argue that Big Bang/evolution *is* Creationist;
> but because it's not literal the dogmatists have a problem with it.
> There's a third way, called "theistic evolution," that most use to
> reconcile religion and science--but the dogmatists call it wishy-
> washy, shaking hands with Satan, etc., and try to portray it as a
> Manichaean choice--which it isn't.)
>
> > /concur Evolution and Creationism are theories
<snip>
> But for a general trashing of Creationism, you really need to read
> this thread through. A lot of great stuff has come up.
Yes, trashing someone elses beliefs is always fun ;-)
Curt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) It's not "my theory," and in fact it's very logical--and where it's not, it is open to challenge and change. That's the strength of science--that it's willing to admit that it does not have all the answers, yet. Remember that before (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily rooted in theistic dogma. If you want to produce a totally non- sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
