Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.

On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>

Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim. Nyikos
admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the
creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
Denton was likely never an agnostic, and Berlinski has claimed that he
never bought into the ID science ploy. If you look back at his
anti-evolution denial it has all been the same junk that the Scientific
creationists used to use, and Berlinski never did support the specified
complexity or irreducible complexity nonsense, so he likely can't be
counted among the ID supporters even though he seems to have supported
the bait and switch scam for decades. Like all the other ID perps at
the Discovery Institute he has never protested what the Discovery
Institute does to the creationist rubes that believe them.

Kalk posted within the last couple weeks, but Kalk and Bill's posting
reduced considerably after both quit the ID scam.

For some reason Glenn seems to have quit posting. He was pretty
prolific in putting up the ID scam second rate junk and his one liners,
but his posting fell off after Nyikos tried to support Glenn's
accidental posting of multiple Top Six topics in the same week when
Glenn had been running from the Top Six for around 5 years. Nyikos'
stupidity demonstrated just why the other IDiots quit the ID scam, and
Glenn may have finally got the message through his wall of willful
ignorance.

It turned out that even some of the ID perps couldn't stand the Top Six.
Sewell had to drop out IC (#4) and the Cambrian explosion (#5) and
place the others out of order, so he could use them as the Scientific
creationists had used the gap denial junk. They were only meant to be
used one at a time and not used to produce anything positive for the ID
scam, just something for the rubes to lie to themselves about just long
enough to get to the next one so that they could continue to lie to
themselves. Brian Miller dropped out the Big Bang (#1). Nyikos had to
start lying about the situation, and made it look even worse than it
was, and it was a pretty bad situation for the ID perps.

Ron Okimoto

erik simpson wrote:

> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.

By "creationist" do you mean someone who accepts the
Genesis story? Or simply that an entity created the
universe, world, and/or life of its own volition?

If one supposes intelligent design, then someone also had
to implement the design. That sounds like creation to me.

If creation happened, then one would also suppose there
was an intelligent design drawn up along the way.

Using the generic lower-case meanings of "creation" and
"intelligent design", one implies the other. I don't see
a neat dichotomy. IMHO, whether you come right out and
appeal to a magic process or not, idism is creationism
and vice versa.

On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>
>
> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.

Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.

> Nyikos
> admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may not be YEC
> type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
> support the ID creationist scam.  Has there ever been a supporter of the
> creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?

I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.

I'm going to snip the rest.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:01:54 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
> >> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
> >>
> >
> > Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
> > Nyikos
> > admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
> > type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
> > support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the
> > creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
> but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
>
> I'm going to snip the rest.
I think it's my mistake. "Creationist" and "evolutionist" are perfectly compatible.
Adam and Eve, however aren't compatible.

On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>
>>
>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>
> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.

Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed in
a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or OEC
anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a creationist,
most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He only denies being
a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He admits to being
Catholic and attending church regularly.

>
>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may not
>> be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists
>> enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there ever been a
>> supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of
>> one sort or another?
>
> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
> but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.

The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of TO.
A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That is
where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young earth
anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical
creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has pretty much
always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.

The general definition of creationist has always been the definition of
creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You have
theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution
creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution
creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much only Nelson and Kenyon
are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the others
seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.

Ron Okimoto

>
> I'm going to snip the rest.
>

On 11/29/2023 7:32 PM, El Kabong wrote:
> erik simpson wrote:
>
>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>
> By "creationist" do you mean someone who accepts the
> Genesis story? Or simply that an entity created the
> universe, world, and/or life of its own volition?

By creationist I just mean the dictionary definition of creationist. A
creationist is just someone that believes in a creator. The word got
co-opted for referal to the anti-evolution creationists that arose in
the 1960's, but it is the definition of creationist that applies to the
Intelligent Design creationist scam.

The ID perps seem to all be Biblical creationists of one sort or
another. Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionist creationists, Meyer
and Dembski are old earth anti-evolution creationists, and Kenyon and
Nelson are young earth anti-evolution creationists.

Ron Okimoto

>
> If one supposes intelligent design, then someone also had
> to implement the design. That sounds like creation to me.
>
> If creation happened, then one would also suppose there
> was an intelligent design drawn up along the way.
>
> Using the generic lower-case meanings of "creation" and
> "intelligent design", one implies the other. I don't see
> a neat dichotomy. IMHO, whether you come right out and
> appeal to a magic process or not, idism is creationism
> and vice versa.
>

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:46:54 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
> >> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:

Dude, get your meds checked. You're psychotic.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 4:46:54 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
I think that creationism has gotten sucked into the general culture wars, so that the people who 20 years ago would come to TO and argue for YEC or OEC are now somewhere else on the internet fulminating against drag-queen storytime or critical race theory.

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 02:01:54 UTC, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
> >> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
> >>
> >
> > Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
> > Nyikos
> > admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
> > type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
> > support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the
> > creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
> but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
>
> I'm going to snip the rest.

Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>
and to "special creation" meaning the creation of species,
I think the useful definition of "creationism" that is
more useful than saying "some things happened"
is that species exist because they were each created
separately at one or more points of time in the past,
and then they survived to the present day without
significant variation. In other words - no evolution,
or not much.

I say "not much" because people who also believe
that all animal species on land are descended from
creatures carried on Noah's actual Ark, are obliged
to believe that there has been /some/ evolution
and some division of the original species, because
the Ark wouldn't possibly carry every modern living
species, and it would be eaten by some of them,
e.g. beavers. So those must have come since
the Ark. Obviously. :-) Also, they must be descended
from the Garden of Eden.

But the point of creationism is that each living thing
was made on its own, not made from a different
living thing - except for Eve, of course.

And except for however much evolution a creationist
decides to accept.

One type of belief is that dinosaurs came and went
between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2, so they were
created on their own, but the bible mainly describes
what came after them. And of course, Genesis
chapter 1 described different things being created
on different days of one week. Not all on the same day.
In each case, it wasn't all simultaneous, although
God did work around the clock until the project was
finished. Then he took a day to rest. I am not
making that up.

On 30/11/2023 10:41, RonO wrote:
> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>
>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>
> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed in
> a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or OEC
> anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a creationist,
> most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He only denies being a
> Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He admits to being
> Catholic and attending church regularly.

Peter also admits to being an atheist (though he prefers the term
agnostic). I don't know what his actual beliefs are, but he could be a
cultural Catholic. I'm tempted to label him a political Catholic.
>
>>
>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may not
>>> be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists
>>> enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there ever been a
>>> supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of
>>> one sort or another?
>>
>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate
>> the argument.
>
> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of TO.
> A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.  That is
> where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a young earth
> anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical
> creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO has pretty much
> always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.

The dictionary sitting next to my computer allows two definitions for
creationism (de novo creation of souls at conception or birth, or divine
creation as opposed to evolution). Wiktionary does allow your broader
3rd definition (divine creation of the universe).

Peter does support the fine tuning argument, but at the last he prefers
a multiverse to a creator, so if you take him at his word he's not a
creationist even by that broader definition.

One could ask Peter if he considers himself an "Intelligent Design
advocate".

The definition of creationism I prefer is "religiously motivated
rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific consensus,
especially as related to biology, geology and cosmology, or the
promotion thereof".
>
> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition of
> creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam.  You have
> theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution
> creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution
> creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty much only Nelson and Kenyon
> are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the others
> seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>
>> I'm going to snip the rest.
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>
>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>
> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed in
> a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or OEC
> anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a creationist,
> most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He only denies being a
> Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He admits to being
> Catholic and attending church regularly.

If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in fact
Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts the
probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has other
crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.

>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may not
>>> be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists
>>> enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there ever been a
>>> supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of
>>> one sort or another?
>>
>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate
>> the argument.
>
> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of TO.
> A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.  That is
> where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a young earth
> anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical
> creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO has pretty much
> always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.

Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK with
theism.

This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by definition a
creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, but not every
hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by your definition
Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.

> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition of
> creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam.  You have
> theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution
> creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution
> creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty much only Nelson and Kenyon
> are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the others
> seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.

All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not a
subject on which you are rational.

On 11/30/2023 5:21 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:46:54 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>
> Dude, get your meds checked. You're psychotic.
>

You should be checking your's. Why do you and Nyikos have to snip out
reality in order to make your stupid comments?

Ron Okimoto

On 11/30/2023 6:59 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 10:41, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
>>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>
>> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
>> OEC anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a
>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He only
>> denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He admits
>> to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
>
> Peter also admits to being an atheist (though he prefers the term
> agnostic). I don't know what his actual beliefs are, but he could be a
> cultural Catholic. I'm tempted to label him a political Catholic.

Nyikos lies about a lot of things. The fact is that he supports the ID
creationist scam, and has there ever been an IDiot who posted on TO that
was not a creationist of one type or another? Nyikos has claimed to be
Catholic, and he has also claimed to attend church regularly. He could
be lying about that. He is also the one that supported Pascal's wager,
so he is the type of creationist that thinks he can also lie to his god
and get a way with it.

>>
>>>
>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may
>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there
>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
>>>
>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
>>> initiate the argument.
>>
>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.  That
>> is where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a young earth
>> anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical
>> creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO has pretty much
>> always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.
>
> The dictionary sitting next to my computer allows two definitions for
> creationism (de novo creation of souls at conception or birth, or divine
> creation as opposed to evolution). Wiktionary does allow your broader
> 3rd definition (divine creation of the universe).

My definition was in the dictionary before scientific creationism
existed. That is all that needs to be said about it.

>
> Peter does support the fine tuning argument, but at the last he prefers
> a multiverse to a creator, so if you take him at his word he's not a
> creationist even by that broader definition.

You must have missed Nyikos' attempt to use the Top Six to support his
directed panspermic junk. He actually destroyed space aliens as being
anything but a ruse to support some god. Really, he claimed that the
Top Six could be accounted for if you had god-like space aliens from
another universe create our universe, and diddle fart around fine tuning
everything for 8 billion years before fine tuning our solar system so
that it would support life. Why would anyone even try to pretend that
they were talking about space aliens?

>
> One could ask Peter if he considers himself an "Intelligent Design
> advocate".

Nyikos supported the ID scam before most of TO even knew it existed. He
was the only poster that supported Julie Thomas in the 1990's when she
came in and tried to support the ID scam, but she could never tell
anyone what the ID science was. The Wedge document got leaked, and we
found out that intelligent design was a cover for some creationist
political ploy. Phillip Johnson posted around the same time, but he
didn't support the ID scam he was mostly trying to claim that Darwinism
was something bad.

>
> The definition of creationism I prefer is "religiously motivated
> rejection of substantial proportions of the scientific consensus,
> especially as related to biology, geology and cosmology, or the
> promotion thereof".

Nyikos is into the IC god-of-the-gaps denial. How much is substantial?
All the ID perps are Biblical creationists by my definition, and you
don't have to worry about how much anyone of them lie about what they
are doing or how much science they each have to deny. None of them
would be ID perps if they were not Biblical creationists.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam.  You have
>> theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution
>> creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution
>> creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty much only Nelson and
>> Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the
>> others seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to snip the rest.
>>>
>>
>

On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
>>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>
>> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
>> OEC anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a
>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He only
>> denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He admits
>> to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
>
> If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in fact
> Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts the
> probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has other
> crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.

No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from outside
of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.

>
>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may
>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there
>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
>>>
>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
>>> initiate the argument.
>>
>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.  That
>> is where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a young earth
>> anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a Biblical
>> creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO has pretty much
>> always known that there can be hindu and moslim creationists.
>
> Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK with
> theism.

Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and Denton.
My definition was the definition of creationist before there were the
anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution scientific
creationist movement in the 1960s.

>
> This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by definition a
> creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, but not every
> hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by your definition
> Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.

You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be a
creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit doesn't
matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it only matters
when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution creationists from the
theistic evolutionists creationists.

It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. They
are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical
creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.

>
>> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam.  You have
>> theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth anti-evolution
>> creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth anti-evolution
>> creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty much only Nelson and
>> Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist, but all the
>> others seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or another.
>
> All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not a
> subject on which you are rational.

All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what
makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They have
all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but
they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.

Ron Okimoto
>
>

On 11/30/2023 6:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 02:01:54 UTC, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone for
>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>> Nyikos
>>> admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may not be YEC
>>> type creationists, but they are both Biblical creationists enough to
>>> support the ID creationist scam. Has there ever been a supporter of the
>>> creationist's ID scam that was not a creationist of one sort or another?
>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of "creationist",
>> but I find that too boring a subject for me to initiate the argument.
>>
>> I'm going to snip the rest.
>
> Referring to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism>
> and to "special creation" meaning the creation of species,
> I think the useful definition of "creationism" that is
> more useful than saying "some things happened"
> is that species exist because they were each created
> separately at one or more points of time in the past,
> and then they survived to the present day without
> significant variation. In other words - no evolution,
> or not much.
>
> I say "not much" because people who also believe
> that all animal species on land are descended from
> creatures carried on Noah's actual Ark, are obliged
> to believe that there has been /some/ evolution
> and some division of the original species, because
> the Ark wouldn't possibly carry every modern living
> species, and it would be eaten by some of them,
> e.g. beavers. So those must have come since
> the Ark. Obviously. :-) Also, they must be descended
> from the Garden of Eden.
>
> But the point of creationism is that each living thing
> was made on its own, not made from a different
> living thing - except for Eve, of course.
>
> And except for however much evolution a creationist
> decides to accept.
>
> One type of belief is that dinosaurs came and went
> between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2, so they were
> created on their own, but the bible mainly describes
> what came after them. And of course, Genesis
> chapter 1 described different things being created
> on different days of one week. Not all on the same day.
> In each case, it wasn't all simultaneous, although
> God did work around the clock until the project was
> finished. Then he took a day to rest. I am not
> making that up.
>

Creation of life and diversification of life is just one aspect of the
creation. These same creationists believe that their creator created
the universe and the planet earth along with the sun and moon a few days
later.

A lot of YEC accept evolution to the family level, but the old earth
creationists at Reason to Believe claim that the diversity of life as we
know it now is the result of constant recreation. They are so
anti-evolution that they beileve that recreations are still occurring.
One of their examples was the anoles lizards on the various Caribbean
island. They did not evolve the differences found among them, but they
were recreated that way. Even though they can still interbreed, that is
how they were recreated. Neanderthals are supposed to be recreations of
humans, and they accept that we interbred with Neanderthals.

So creationists can be pretty screwed up in terms of what they think
about creation, and about what their creator did.

Ron Okimoto

On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
>>>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>>
>>> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
>>> OEC anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a
>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He
>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He
>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
>>
>> If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in fact
>> Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts the
>> probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has other
>> crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
>
> No.  Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist. You
> know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from outside of
> our Universe, that was able to create our universe.

Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
difference.

>>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may
>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there
>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
>>>> initiate the argument.
>>>
>>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.  That
>>> is where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a young
>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a
>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO has
>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
>>> creationists.
>>
>> Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
>> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK with
>> theism.
>
> Not all creationists are anti-evolution.  Just look at Behe and Denton.
> My definition was the definition of creationist before there were the
> anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution scientific
> creationist movement in the 1960s.

Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your
definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in common
usage or by pre-existence.

>> This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by definition
>> a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists, but not every
>> hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by your definition
>> Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
>
> You seem to be just plain wrong.  All you have to be, in order to be a
> creationist is to believe in a creator.  The anti-evolution bit doesn't
> matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it only matters
> when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution creationists from the
> theistic evolutionists creationists.

So Dobzhansky was a creationist?

> It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps.  They
> are all creationists.  They are ID perps because they are Biblical
> creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.

See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are
theists?

>>> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam.  You
>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
>>> anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth
>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty much only
>>> Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of creationist,
>>> but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of one sort or
>>> another.
>>
>> All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not a
>> subject on which you are rational.
>
> All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator.  That is what
> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps.  They have
> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but
> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.

Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a definition?

On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone
>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
>>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC
>>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a
>>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He
>>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He
>>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
>>>
>>> If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
>>> fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
>>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has
>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
>>
>> No.  Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
>> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
>> outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
>
> Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
> difference.

Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we
already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and
moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same
creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but
they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
creationist beliefs.

My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.

Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
theologies.

>
>>>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may
>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
>>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there
>>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
>>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
>>>>> initiate the argument.
>>>>
>>>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.  That
>>>> is where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a young
>>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a
>>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO has
>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
>>>> creationists.
>>>
>>> Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
>>> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
>>> with theism.
>>
>> Not all creationists are anti-evolution.  Just look at Behe and
>> Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
>> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
>> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
>
> Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your
> definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in common
> usage or by pre-existence.

You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
"sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a
creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back
sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
that his designer is the Christian God.

Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
theological trappings.

>
>>> This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
>>> definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by
>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
>>
>> You seem to be just plain wrong.  All you have to be, in order to be a
>> creationist is to believe in a creator.  The anti-evolution bit
>> doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
>> only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
>> creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
>
> So Dobzhansky was a creationist?

Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
scientific.

>
>> It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps.  They
>> are all creationists.  They are ID perps because they are Biblical
>> creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
>
> See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
> able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
> what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are
> theists?

Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do
with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
different theologies.

>
>>>> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
>>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam.  You
>>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth
>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty much
>>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
>>>> creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of
>>>> one sort or another.
>>>
>>> All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not
>>> a subject on which you are rational.
>>
>> All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator.  That is what
>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps.  They have
>> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but
>> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
>
> Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
> theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
> definition?
>

Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
what is relevant.

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
> On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
> >> On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
> >>>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone
> >>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
> >>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC
> >>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
> >>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He
> >>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He
> >>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
> >>>
> >>> If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
> >>> fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
> >>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has
> >>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
> >>
> >> No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
> >> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
> >> outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
> >
> > Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
> > difference.
> Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
> creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we
> already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and
> moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
> They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
> believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same
> creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but
> they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
> evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
> creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
> creationist beliefs.
>
> My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
> anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
> that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
>
> Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
> always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
> theologies.
> >
> >>>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may
> >>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
> >>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there
> >>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
> >>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
> >>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
> >>>>> initiate the argument.
> >>>>
> >>>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
> >>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That
> >>>> is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young
> >>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a
> >>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has
> >>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
> >>>> creationists.
> >>>
> >>> Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
> >>> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
> >>> with theism.
> >>
> >> Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
> >> Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
> >> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
> >> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
> >
> > Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your
> > definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in common
> > usage or by pre-existence.
> You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
> creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
> "sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a
> creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
> Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back
> sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
> claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
> that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
> and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
> believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
> before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
> that his designer is the Christian God.
>
> Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
> theological trappings.
> >
> >>> This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
> >>> definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
> >>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by
> >>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
> >>
> >> You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be a
> >> creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
> >> doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
> >> only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
> >> creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
> >
> > So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
> Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
> claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
> perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
> Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
> interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
> support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
> scientific.
> >
> >> It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. They
> >> are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical
> >> creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
> >
> > See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
> > able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
> > what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are
> > theists?
> Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
> creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
> theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do
> with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
> different theologies.
> >
> >>>> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
> >>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You
> >>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
> >>>> anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth
> >>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much
> >>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
> >>>> creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of
> >>>> one sort or another.
> >>>
> >>> All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not
> >>> a subject on which you are rational.
> >>
> >> All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what
> >> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They have
> >> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but
> >> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
> >
> > Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
> > theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
> > definition?
> >
> Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
> scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
> what is relevant.
>
> Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
> different types of creationists have posted on TO?
>
> Ron Okimoto
Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just fine.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:05:34 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

> On 11/30/2023 6:59 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 30/11/2023 10:41, RonO wrote:
> >> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
> >>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone for
> >>>>> quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
> >>
> >> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
> >> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC or
> >> OEC anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a
> >> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He only
> >> denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He admits
> >> to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
> >
> > Peter also admits to being an atheist (though he prefers the term
> > agnostic). I don't know what his actual beliefs are, but he could be a
> > cultural Catholic. I'm tempted to label him a political Catholic.
>
> Nyikos lies about a lot of things. The fact is that he supports the ID
[]

Rarely do you convince people of the soundness of your own position by
accusing the opponent of lying.

> >>>
> >>> I'm going to snip the rest.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 12/1/23 4:05 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone
>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos
>>>>> believed in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist
>>>>> type YEC or OEC anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always
>>>>> been a creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and
>>>>> Behe.  He only denies being a Scientific creationist,
>>>>> anti-evolution type.  He admits to being Catholic and attending
>>>>> church regularly.
>>>>
>>>> If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
>>>> fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
>>>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has
>>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
>>>
>>> No.  Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
>>> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
>>> outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
>>
>> Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
>> difference.
>
> Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
> creationists for a very long time.  When I started reading TO in 1993 we
> already had old earth anti-evolution creationists.  We've had hindu and
> moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
> They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
> believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same
> creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but
> they have had different theologies.  Some of the ID perps are theistic
> evolutionist creationists.  Their theology is not anti-evolution
> creationism.  They incorporate biological evolution into their
> creationist beliefs.
>
> My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
> anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
> that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.

You're just repeating yourself while ignoring whatever I say. I think
you may have lost the ability to pay attention to others.

> Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO.  TO has
> always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
> theologies.

We may or may not have had Hindu creationists posting here. I know they
exist. But there seems to be no relevant point for you to make about them.

>>>>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may
>>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
>>>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has
>>>>>>> there ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was
>>>>>>> not a creationist of one sort or another?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>>>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
>>>>>> initiate the argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
>>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.
>>>>> That is where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a
>>>>> young earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are
>>>>> not a Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO
>>>>> has pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
>>>>> creationists.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
>>>> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
>>>> with theism.
>>>
>>> Not all creationists are anti-evolution.  Just look at Behe and
>>> Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
>>> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
>>> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
>>
>> Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your
>> definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in
>> common usage or by pre-existence.
>
> You are wrong.

Well, that shows me. I concede due to your powerful argument.

> It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
> creationists.  It is part of the political deception.  Did you read the
> "sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton.  Denton believes in a
> creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
> Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back
> sliding Christian.  The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
> claims about being an agnostic.).  Denton gets knocked for his claims
> that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
> and it all unfolded into what we have today.  Both Denton and Behe
> believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
> before them.  Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
> that his designer is the Christian God.
>
> Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
> theological trappings.

That's nice. But is it relevant?

>>>> This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
>>>> definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
>>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by
>>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
>>>
>>> You seem to be just plain wrong.  All you have to be, in order to be
>>> a creationist is to believe in a creator.  The anti-evolution bit
>>> doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
>>> only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
>>> creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
>>
>> So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
>
> Yes, so what?  Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
> claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
> perps.  Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
>  Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
> interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
> support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
> scientific.

Show me where Ken Miller claims to be a creationist.

>>> It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps.
>>> They are all creationists.  They are ID perps because they are
>>> Biblical creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution
>>> creationists.
>>
>> See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
>> able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
>> what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or
>> are theists?
>
> Behe is a theist.  Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
> creation theology.  Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
> theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do
> with the evolution of life on earth.  Creationists can obviously have
> different theologies.

See? Boring, repetitive, circular, and entirely beside the point. Time
to end it.

>>>>> The general definition of creationist has always been the
>>>>> definition of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID
>>>>> scam.  You have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old
>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young
>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty
>>>>> much only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
>>>>> creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of
>>>>> one sort or another.
>>>>
>>>> All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not
>>>> a subject on which you are rational.
>>>
>>> All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator.  That is what
>>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps.  They
>>> have all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian
>>> God, but they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political
>>> reasons.
>>
>> Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
>> theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
>> definition?
>>
>
> Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
> scam.  If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
> what is relevant.
>
> Creationists can obviously have different theologies.  How many
> different types of creationists have posted on TO?

On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any. Steady Eddie has been gone
>>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nyikos is a creationist. Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
>>>>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC
>>>>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist. Nyikos has always been a
>>>>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe. He
>>>>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type. He
>>>>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
>>>>> fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
>>>>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has
>>>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
>>>>
>>>> No. Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
>>>> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
>>>> outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
>>>
>>> Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
>>> difference.
>> Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
>> creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we
>> already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and
>> moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
>> They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
>> believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same
>> creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but
>> they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
>> evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
>> creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
>> creationist beliefs.
>>
>> My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
>> anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
>> that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
>>
>> Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
>> always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
>> theologies.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic. They may
>>>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
>>>>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam. Has there
>>>>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
>>>>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>>>>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
>>>>>>> initiate the argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
>>>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator. That
>>>>>> is where the word came from. Just because someone isn't a young
>>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a
>>>>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist. TO has
>>>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
>>>>>> creationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
>>>>> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
>>>>> with theism.
>>>>
>>>> Not all creationists are anti-evolution. Just look at Behe and
>>>> Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
>>>> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
>>>> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
>>>
>>> Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your
>>> definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in common
>>> usage or by pre-existence.
>> You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
>> creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
>> "sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a
>> creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
>> Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back
>> sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
>> claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
>> that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
>> and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
>> believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
>> before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
>> that his designer is the Christian God.
>>
>> Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
>> theological trappings.
>>>
>>>>> This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
>>>>> definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
>>>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by
>>>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be just plain wrong. All you have to be, in order to be a
>>>> creationist is to believe in a creator. The anti-evolution bit
>>>> doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
>>>> only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
>>>> creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
>>>
>>> So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
>> Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
>> claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
>> perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
>> Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
>> interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
>> support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
>> scientific.
>>>
>>>> It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps. They
>>>> are all creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical
>>>> creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
>>>
>>> See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
>>> able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
>>> what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are
>>> theists?
>> Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
>> creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
>> theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do
>> with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
>> different theologies.
>>>
>>>>>> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
>>>>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam. You
>>>>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth
>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon. Pretty much
>>>>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
>>>>>> creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of
>>>>>> one sort or another.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not
>>>>> a subject on which you are rational.
>>>>
>>>> All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator. That is what
>>>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps. They have
>>>> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but
>>>> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
>>>
>>> Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
>>> theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
>>> definition?
>>>
>> Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
>> scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
>> what is relevant.
>>
>> Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
>> different types of creationists have posted on TO?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto

On 01/12/2023 14:13, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2023 8:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/23 3:33 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 11/30/2023 8:32 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/30/23 2:41 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 7:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/23 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:45 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Aside from MarkE, I don't see any.  Steady Eddie has been gone
>>>>>>>>>> for quite a while, and don't think Ron Dean qualifies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dean and Nyikos are creationists no matter what they claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Dean is a creationist, but Nyikos isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nyikos is a creationist.  Just like many TO regulars Nyikos believed
>>>>>>> in a creator even if he wasn't the scientific creationist type YEC
>>>>>>> or OEC anti evolution type creationist.  Nyikos has always been a
>>>>>>> creationist, most likely, like ID perps like Denton and Behe.  He
>>>>>>> only denies being a Scientific creationist, anti-evolution type.  He
>>>>>>> admits to being Catholic and attending church regularly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If every theist is a creationist, the term has no meaning. And in
>>>>>> fact Nyikos has said that he would like to be a theist, but he puts
>>>>>> the probability of God's existence at only 10%. Now of course he has
>>>>>> other crackpot ideas, but creationism isn't one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  Every theist that believes in a creator would be a creationist.
>>>>> You know, the ones that believe in an intelligent designer from
>>>>> outside of our Universe, that was able to create our universe.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any other kind of theist? You cite a distinction without a
>>>> difference.
>>> Everyone on TO has understood that there are different types of
>>> creationists for a very long time. When I started reading TO in 1993 we
>>> already had old earth anti-evolution creationists. We've had hindu and
>>> moslim creationists and Pagano claimed to be a geocentric creationists.
>>> They all believed in a creator, and except for the odd hindu they all
>>> believed in the same creator (Kalkidas turned out to believe in the same
>>> creator as the majority of creationists that have ever posted on TO) but
>>> they have had different theologies. Some of the ID perps are theistic
>>> evolutionist creationists. Their theology is not anti-evolution
>>> creationism. They incorporate biological evolution into their
>>> creationist beliefs.
>>>
>>> My definition of creationists existed before there were YEC scientific
>>> anti-evolution creationists, and it is the definition of creationists
>>> that applies to the ID scam, and always has been.
>>>
>>> Do you deny that we have had Hindu creationists posting on TO. TO has
>>> always had to deal with the distinction of the various creationist
>>> theologies.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nyikos admits to being a regular church going Catholic.  They may
>>>>>>>>> not be YEC type creationists, but they are both Biblical
>>>>>>>>> creationists enough to support the ID creationist scam.  Has there
>>>>>>>>> ever been a supporter of the creationist's ID scam that was not a
>>>>>>>>> creationist of one sort or another?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose we would have to argue about the definition of
>>>>>>>> "creationist", but I find that too boring a subject for me to
>>>>>>>> initiate the argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition of creationist is what it has always been outside of
>>>>>>> TO. A creationist is simply someone who believes in a creator.  That
>>>>>>> is where the word came from.  Just because someone isn't a young
>>>>>>> earth anti-evolution creationist doesn't mean that they are not a
>>>>>>> Biblical creationist or some other sort of creationist.  TO has
>>>>>>> pretty much always known that there can be hindu and moslim
>>>>>>> creationists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, that's not the definition at all. Creationists are
>>>>>> anti-evolutionists. That's why NCSE fights creatiionism but is OK
>>>>>> with theism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all creationists are anti-evolution.  Just look at Behe and
>>>>> Denton. My definition was the definition of creationist before there
>>>>> were the anti-evolution creationists that created the anti-evolution
>>>>> scientific creationist movement in the 1960s.
>>>>
>>>> Behe and Denton aren't creationists. And you have not established your
>>>> definition of the term as having priority in any sense, either in
>>>> common
>>>> usage or by pre-existence.
>>> You are wrong. It is part of the ID scam to deny that they are
>>> creationists. It is part of the political deception. Did you read the
>>> "sly twinkle" ID perp article interviewing Denton. Denton believes in a
>>> creator, he just has a Deistic theology (Denton admitted to having
>>> Christian beliefs and claimed that he "might" be considered to be a back
>>> sliding Christian. The interviewer was making fun of Denton's previous
>>> claims about being an agnostic.). Denton gets knocked for his claims
>>> that his designer could have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang
>>> and it all unfolded into what we have today. Both Denton and Behe
>>> believe in the same creator as the Scientific Creationists that came
>>> before them. Really, Behe is a conservative Catholic and has admitted
>>> that his designer is the Christian God.
>>>
>>> Deists can have a creator god they just don't deal with the other
>>> theological trappings.
>>>>
>>>>>> This is just you applying your idea that every theist is by
>>>>>> definition a creationist. There are hindu and muslim creationists,
>>>>>> but not every hindu or muslim is a creationist. Let's recall that by
>>>>>> your definition Theodososius Dobzhansky was a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be just plain wrong.  All you have to be, in order to be a
>>>>> creationist is to believe in a creator.  The anti-evolution bit
>>>>> doesn't matter in terms of whether you are a creationist or not, it
>>>>> only matters when you want to differentiate the anti-eovlution
>>>>> creationists from the theistic evolutionists creationists.
>>>>
>>>> So Dobzhansky was a creationist?
>>> Yes, so what? Ken Miller claims to be a creationist, but he does not
>>> claim that science can support his creationist beliefs like the ID
>>> perps. Ken Miller is Catholic and believes in the same creator as Behe.
>>> Like Behe Ken Miller has also claimed that he believes in an
>>> interactive God that is still around doing things, but he does not
>>> support the ID scam, and does not consider his religious beliefs to be
>>> scientific.
>>>>
>>>>> It is just a fact that my definiton works best for the ID perps.  They
>>>>> are all creationists.  They are ID perps because they are Biblical
>>>>> creationists, but some of them are not anti-evolution creationists.
>>>>
>>>> See? I told you this would be a boring argument. You just want to be
>>>> able to apply a good pejorative term to everyone you don't like. But
>>>> what about Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists who were or are
>>>> theists?
>>> Behe is a theist. Behe just does not have the young earth 7 day
>>> creation theology. Behe is a theistic evolutionist, and is the type of
>>> theistic evolutionist that believes that his creator had something to do
>>> with the evolution of life on earth. Creationists can obviously have
>>> different theologies.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The general definition of creationist has always been the definition
>>>>>>> of creationist that applies to the ID perps and the ID scam.  You
>>>>>>> have theistic evolutionists like Behe and Denton, old earth
>>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Meyer and Dembski, and young earth
>>>>>>> anti-evolution creationists like Nelson and Kenyon.  Pretty much
>>>>>>> only Nelson and Kenyon are ID perps of the TO definition of
>>>>>>> creationist, but all the others seem to be Biblical creationists of
>>>>>>> one sort or another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you seem to mean by that is that they're Christians. This is not
>>>>>> a subject on which you are rational.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I mean by that is that they believe in a creator.  That is what
>>>>> makes them creationists, and that is why they are ID perps.  They have
>>>>> all admitted that their intelligent designer is the Christian God, but
>>>>> they just claim that it doesn't have to be for political reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Not really relevant. You avoid the issue. By your definition every
>>>> theist is a creationist, not just the IDiots. What use is such a
>>>> definition?
>>>>
>>> Denial that they are creationists is part of the deception of the ID
>>> scam. If you haven't figured that out by now, you have an issue with
>>> what is relevant.
>>>
>>> Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
>>> different types of creationists have posted on TO?
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>
>> Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent
>> to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a
>> subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you
>> make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just
>> fine.

On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
>> [...]
>> Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
>> different types of creationists have posted on TO?
>>
> Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just fine.

To further complicate the mix, there are people who accept common
descent but don't believe that the process was natural. Some people
call them creationists, some call them evolutionists. I'm tempted to
call them creationary evolutionists.

There's even problems with the concept of "believe". Nyikos has
supported at least one idea not because he has reason to believe it, but
because he likes it. Other of his positions may have the same sort of
motivation.

For the purpose of the question that started this thread, the issue is
whether someone opposes any widely accepted concepts of scientific
origins. There are at least three of those actively posting: Mark E.,
Ron Dean, and Peter Nyikos.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 9:26:56 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/1/23 4:18 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-5, RonO wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Creationists can obviously have different theologies. How many
> >> different types of creationists have posted on TO?
> >>
> > Some people define creationists as you do - as basically equivalent to theists of any stripe. Other people define creationists as a subset of theists who deny the theory of evolution. As long as you make clear which definition you are using, you'll communicate just fine.
> To further complicate the mix, there are people who accept common
> descent but don't believe that the process was natural. Some people
> call them creationists, some call them evolutionists. I'm tempted to
> call them creationary evolutionists.
>
> There's even problems with the concept of "believe". Nyikos has
> supported at least one idea not because he has reason to believe it, but
> because he likes it. Other of his positions may have the same sort of
> motivation.
>
> For the purpose of the question that started this thread, the issue is
> whether someone opposes any widely accepted concepts of scientific
> origins. There are at least three of those actively posting: Mark E.,
> Ron Dean, and Peter Nyikos.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak
> "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
I agree with your enumeration, with the possible exception of Peter. It's
very difficult to discern what he thinks, and I believe trying to is a fool's
errand.