willhud9 wrote:First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list?

Because the very concept of creationism is an invention of feeble and ignorant human minds in the infancy of the human quest for knowledge. It comes from a time when humans didn't know anything about how the world really worked and was simply an assertion made to satisfy an increasing demand for answers.

Unfortunately for supernaturalists, we now know beyond the slightest shadow of doubt exactly why and how creationism is false. Life evolved, and so the claim that it was spontaneously created by omnipotent, divine minds is flat-out wrong and needs to be debunked. Just like any other factually incorrect fantasy claim.

willhud9 wrote:It is rational enough to be debated intelligently and professionally and because it entails and mingles with the realm of science can easily fit into a pseudo-science category rather than a debunk. Just wondering =]

Well you can of course re-define your particular brand of creationism any way you like and, I suspect, in such a way that parts of it could be made less outrageous and "debunkable" than what religious apologists usually trot out.

Tell, what kind of "creationism" are we talking about here. What do you actually believe?

willhud9 wrote:Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution, I do not fully agree with creationism and the "theories" creationists claim to create.

While others have already pointed out the difficulty that creationist's have in agreeing aspects of their 'science', I recommend that you read this articel that demonstrates the flaws in the "micro is OK but macro-evolution just can't happen" argument.

It will help clarify why we're discussing creationism in the debunk forum.

willhud9 wrote: I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list?

You have answered your own question.

willhud9 wrote:
I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list?

You have answered your own question.

Exactly. Ask yourself why no scientist believes in evolution.

willhud9 wrote:I am a creationist in the sense that I believe the Bible is true, the whole controversy over technicalities such as age of earth etc. are questions I'd gladly debate, but ultimately concede to truly know the answer when I die and go to Heaven. If I do not, then I know I was wrong(figuratively speaking of course).

However, being ever interested in science I was prompted to join this website and give my arguments. Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution, I do not fully agree with creationism and the "theories" creationists claim to create. In fact, I am relativly new to the Christian walk and I have more skill and knowledge in atheistic evolution than I do in creationism.

Welcome to the board.

Could you be more specific about what aspects of "macroevolution" you don't accept? For instance, do you accept that humans share common ancestry with all other organisms on earth? If so, do you accept that humans have descended from non-human ancestors thru entirely naturalistic processes, without requiring the intervention of any supernatural beings?

Feel free to address these in a new thread if you think it's taking us off-topic here.

willhud9 wrote:First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list? It is rational enough to be debated intelligently and professionally and because it entails and mingles with the realm of science can easily fit into a pseudo-science category rather than a debunk. Just wondering =]

Its nonsense thats why

willhud9 wrote:

saggrock wrote: The first thing that you should learn is that there is no such thing as "atheistic evolution"! There is Atheism and there is Evolution, neither have anything to do with each other!

Force of habit, I say that, because there is theistic evolution, in which "God guided evolution processes." I only used it for clarification purposes.

Some advocates of "theistic evolution" seem to be in favour of changing its name to "evolutionary creationism." This seems appropriate to me, as "theistic evolution", by whatever name, is not a scientific theory, but rather a theological idea. As such, it is not meant to supplant or modify evolutionary theory. It only intends to do so for creationism.

God isn't much of a guide then, is he? I mean, look at all those extinct species. All those evolutionary dead-ends. You'd think the Master of the UniverseTM would have come up with something a bit cleaner than this:



Maybe something more along these lines:

willhud9 wrote:First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list? It is rational enough to be debated intelligently and professionally and because it entails and mingles with the realm of science can easily fit into a pseudo-science category rather than a debunk. Just wondering =]

Welcome to the forum!

Now, as for why creationism is in the debunking section, it's because people like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, the Discovery Institute, the ICR, and Bananaman insist that creationist dogma is more valid than the actual finding of science and that it should be taught in science classes as an absolute fact despite the lack of evidence.

Welcome to the forum! Nice to have a polite creationist; the most recent specimens have been... well, not evolved enough.

willhud9 wrote:I am a creationist in the sense that I believe the Bible is true, the whole controversy over technicalities such as age of earth etc. are questions I'd gladly debate, but ultimately concede to truly know the answer when I die and go to Heaven. If I do not, then I know I was wrong(figuratively speaking of course).

So you think the bible is true? OK then, which of the two creation stories in Genesis is the right one?

willhud9 wrote:Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution

So you think that there can be steps, but not stairs?

willhud9 wrote:In fact, I am relativly new to the Christian walk and I have more skill and knowledge in atheistic evolution than I do in creationism.

Its not too late to turn back! Get yourself a copy of Carl Sagan's "The Demon-haunted World", and remind yourself why science beats supernaturalism any day.

Firstly, welcome to the forum. As I'm feeling particularly generous, I won't add to the bombardment, but I would like to ask you a single question:

willhud9 wrote:Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution,

What is your understanding of what 'macroevolution' means?

I hope we didn't scare him off. He seemed nice enough.

willhud9 wrote:I am a creationist in the sense that I believe the Bible is true, the whole controversy over technicalities such as age of earth etc. are questions I'd gladly debate, but ultimately concede to truly know the answer when I die and go to Heaven. If I do not, then I know I was wrong(figuratively speaking of course).

However, being ever interested in science I was prompted to join this website and give my arguments. Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution, I do not fully agree with creationism and the "theories" creationists claim to create. In fact, I am relativly new to the Christian walk and I have more skill and knowledge in atheistic evolution than I do in creationism.

your use of the relevant terms in such a manner indicates you know next to nothing about creationism and evolution, google fu both before trying to raise an argument

hackenslash wrote:Firstly, welcome to the forum. As I'm feeling particularly generous, I won't add to the bombardment, but I would like to ask you a single question:

willhud9 wrote:Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution,

What is your understanding of what 'macroevolution' means?

Ooooh... ooohhhh... let me try. It means that you can collect all the pennies and other spare change that you want, without limitation... except that you can never exceed one dollar.

willhud9 wrote:First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is)

What kind of creationist are you then?

Can't believe I missed this, pray to the lord he comes back.

Aragones wrote:

willhud9 wrote:First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is)

What kind of creationist are you then?

I thought it was only ID's who claim that creationism is science?

willhud9 wrote:Science is the logical explanation for natural phenomena, or at least that is the standard text book definition we are drilled in basic science 101 classes.

Science is the methodology by which we investigate and generate explanations for all real, observable phenomena.

willhud9 wrote:Hence, creationism cannot be a science due to the fact it involves supernatural components.

What "supernatural components"? Please define or describe the supernatural components of the creation and demonstrate that they exist somewhere other than in your mind.

You all bring up very valid points. I hope as a creationist I will be able to stand on par with the minds of you all. I seem to have my work cut out which makes me happy. Thank you all for the kind welcome and I hope to have fun reading some of your posts =]