On 12/1/2023 6:18 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 12/1/2023 8:13 AM, 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.
> The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two definitions. He
> uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers, but his expressed
> definition extends way past the IDers to people he doesn't want to attack.
>

On 12/1/2023 8:46 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> 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.
>
> There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these people
> may not believe in a creator god or gods.
>
>> The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two definitions.
>> He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers, but his
>> expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people he doesn't
>> want to attack.
>>
>
> I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall reading
> that Dobzhansky did the same.
>

On 12/1/23 5:39 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 12/1/2023 8:46 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these people
>> may not believe in a creator god or gods.
>>
>>> The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two definitions.
>>> He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers, but his
>>> expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people he doesn't
>>> want to attack.
>>>
>>
>> I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall reading
>> that Dobzhansky did the same.
>>
>
> I haven't made that point in this thread because you guys have watched
> Nyikos lie about it for over a decade, and it was the subject of the
> last holy water repost that forced Nyikos to start looking for more
> things to lie about forever.
>
> I have admitted that I am a creationist.  Methodists are Christian
> creationists.  That is just a fact.  Nyikos is the one that keeps lying
> about the situation.  You don't have to be a scientific creationist or
> an ID perp to be a creationist.  What does everyone think theistic
> evolutionists have always been?  They are still creationists, and retain
> the same creator that the other Christians have.  There are a lot of
> different creationist theologies.  Among the Methodists we have a YEC, 7
> day creationist faction and old earth creationists that include theistic
> evolutionists.  There were recent grumblings that the YEC faction was
> going to break off, but nothing happened.  Some of the old earth
> creationists would have gone with them because the disagreement isn't
> about YEC, it is just that the YEC faction mostly holds the differing
> views.

On 12/1/2023 11:26 AM, 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.

They have been called theistic evolutionists before scientific
anti-evolution creationism became a topic of discussion. There are
multiple types of theistic evolutionists. Some believe, like Behe and
Miller, that the creator may have had something to do with the evolution
of life on earth, and others are like Denton that think that his creator
let it all unfold as it is. Denton may believe that his creator set
things up in such a way that they ended up the way that they have.

I have put up Biologos many times and they call their view of evolution,
evolutionary creation (creation by evolution). They claim that it isn't
a theology, but a mechanism of the creation of the diversity of life we
observe on our planet. They do not seem to like any of the notions of
theistic evolution, but their views have been included in earlier
theistic evolutionary views of the creation.

Ron Okimoto

>
> 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.
>

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 23:46:55 UTC, RonO wrote:
> 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.

I have no idea what this "recreation" is. I do think
that the useful interpretation of "creationism" -
useful to characterise what somebody claims to
believe or to know scientifically, whether they
are sincere or not, honest or not - is that each
species exists because creatures without
ancestors were once made to exist in the past
whose descendants are the modern creatures,
with either limited evolution, or none, meanwhile.

Most people who say that know that they are
lying. They tell the lie to discourage people from
thinking that maybe there aren't any gods responsible
for bringing living things into existence, and also
because their holy book says that that /is/ what
happened, and they're afraid to acknowledge
that some things in the holy book are inaccurate.

Creationism, I say, is that particular lie, about living
things and their species. The origins of stars and
planets are separate questions, without relation to
the species question, except for being in the same
holy books. And evolution of species by direct acts
of the creator, or direct acts of anyone else, is a
denial of creationism, just as much as full-on
evolution is a denial of creationism.

It's necessary to be so specific so that anyone who
honestly believes creationism, typically because they
haven't particularly thought about it, can be persuaded
all the way out of it, without loitering on ideas like
"maybe God did do some of it". The bible says that
God created all the species in the same week as he
created humans. You can take it or you can leave it.
You should leave it, and that's that.

'Intelligent design" doctrine and philosophy, as far
as I understand it, is not anything other than a
rejection of modern scientific thinking about
and understanding of evolution. Any piece of science
news that seems to go against evolution, or that
proposes revised thinking about evolution, is counted
as support for intelligent design. Of course, ID was
and is mostly just an intellectual disguise for
creationists, and creationist doctrine is acceptable
within intelligent design.

But they are different lies, with different refutations.

On 12/1/2023 8:11 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> 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.

I have to repeat myself because what you say ignores the reality that
you refuse to acknowledge.

>
>> 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.

The Krishna types were likely real. Kalkidas wasn'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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

Just a fact.

>
>> 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?

It means that Behe and Denton are creationists.

>
>>>>> 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.

I do not know how you missed those threads on TO. Do you recall the
thread about the video that had Ken Miller claiming that God might have
influenced biological evolution by "jiggling" atoms? Ken Miller
participated in that discussion about how the creator might affect
matter in our universe, and there were TO regulars that did not think
much of his efforts.

On 12/1/2023 7:23 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> 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.

It was a statement of fact about Nyikos. No one was calling Major a
liar. What you snipped out was just the reason why Major was likely
wrong about Nyikos. Have you ever met an IDiotic supporter of the
creationist ID scam that did not believe in a creator god? None have
ever posted to TO that I am aware of, and Nyikos has supported the ID
scam since his return to TO. He was actually the first TO regular to
support the ID scam before his involuntary vacation at the turn of the
century.

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

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.
>
I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark, Noah nor the
flood story. The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
designer, that is a unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any opposition
to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was present in my
mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. But
on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who found faults with
evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the first time. I came to
the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had been deceived. I was too
trusting of people whom I believed were experts and _knew_ what they
were presenting was truth.

Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time in
my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the complexity,
logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics, the beauty the
interdependence of entities throughout nature, seemed too much to have
just happened.

I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
turning to these logical, rational
laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these existing
and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and derive
conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces, filling the
needs of societies and think things through using these rules, laws,
logical order and come to understanding and make discoveries. This
enables science to work. If this were not the case, then there could be
no science. I thought, what are the chances all this came about through
pointless, aimless, hazardous, and purposeless processes from the very
beginning.

>
>> 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 12/1/23 9:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> 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.
> >
> I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
> absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
> creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark,  Noah nor the
> flood  story.  The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
> Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
> empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
> designer, that is a unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
> completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
> noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any opposition
> to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was present in my
> mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. But
> on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who found faults with
> evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the first time. I came to
> the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had been deceived. I was too
> trusting of people whom I believed were experts and _knew_ what they
> were presenting was truth.

What was this book and who was this scientist? Was that scientist really
an expert? Perhaps you were misled by the book rather than by previous
information.

> Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time in
> my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the complexity,
> logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics, the beauty the
> interdependence  of entities throughout nature, seemed too much to have
> just happened.
>
>  I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
> turning to these logical, rational
> laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these existing
> and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and derive
> conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces, filling the
> needs of societies and think things through using these rules, laws,
> logical order and come to understanding and make discoveries. This
> enables science to work. If this were not the case, then there could be
> no science. I thought, what are the chances all this came about through
> pointless, aimless, hazardous, and purposeless processes from the very
> beginning.

So you believe in some kind of supernatural creator, and you reject
common descent. You may not be a biblical creationist, but you're still
a creationist.

>>> 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 02/12/2023 16:41, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/23 9:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> 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.
>>  >
>> I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
>> absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
>> creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark,  Noah nor the
>> flood  story.  The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
>> Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
>> empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
>> designer, that is a unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
>> completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
>> noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any
>> opposition to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was
>> present in my mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning
>> evolutionist. But on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who
>> found faults with evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the
>> first time. I came to the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had
>> been deceived. I was too trusting of people whom I believed were
>> experts and _knew_ what they were presenting was truth.
>
> What was this book and who was this scientist? Was that scientist really
> an expert? Perhaps you were misled by the book rather than by previous
> information.

He usually appeals to Denton, and to Gould and Eldredge. The description
above appear to fit Denton.
>
>> Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time in
>> my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the complexity,
>> logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics, the beauty
>> the interdependence  of entities throughout nature, seemed too much to
>> have just happened.
>>
>>   I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
>> turning to these logical, rational
>> laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these
>> existing and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and
>> derive conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces, filling
>> the needs of societies and think things through using these rules,
>> laws, logical order and come to understanding and make discoveries.
>> This enables science to work. If this were not the case, then there
>> could be no science. I thought, what are the chances all this came
>> about through pointless, aimless, hazardous, and purposeless processes
>> from the very beginning.
>
> So you believe in some kind of supernatural creator, and you reject
> common descent. You may not be a biblical creationist, but you're still
> a creationist.

He's recently made some arguments which seem to imply a recent creation,
even if it's 10^5 or 10^6 years, rather than 10^4 years.
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

On 12/1/2023 8:07 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 23:46:55 UTC, RonO wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I have no idea what this "recreation" is. I do think
> that the useful interpretation of "creationism" -
> useful to characterise what somebody claims to
> believe or to know scientifically, whether they
> are sincere or not, honest or not - is that each
> species exists because creatures without
> ancestors were once made to exist in the past
> whose descendants are the modern creatures,
> with either limited evolution, or none, meanwhile.

The creation of kinds is only one aspect of creationism. It is the
aspect that is the focus on TO, but when the Kansas creationists removed
what they didn't like from the Kansas State science standards they
removed the Big Bang, understanding radioisotopes from the chemistry
standards and some geology and age of the earth things along with
biological evolution. The ID perps have their Big Bang and fine tuning
denial for a reason.

>
> Most people who say that know that they are
> lying. They tell the lie to discourage people from
> thinking that maybe there aren't any gods responsible
> for bringing living things into existence, and also
> because their holy book says that that /is/ what
> happened, and they're afraid to acknowledge
> that some things in the holy book are inaccurate.

Some do understand that they are lying in order to defend their
religious beliefs. Gish would repeat some lies even after he admitted
that they were not true. The most famous TO example was Hovind. He
admitted that he was lying, but then got caught telling the same lie
again, and he just claimed that he was forgiven. For some reason some
of them think that they are justified in what they do.

>
> Creationism, I say, is that particular lie, about living
> things and their species. The origins of stars and
> planets are separate questions, without relation to
> the species question, except for being in the same
> holy books. And evolution of species by direct acts
> of the creator, or direct acts of anyone else, is a
> denial of creationism, just as much as full-on
> evolution is a denial of creationism.

That narrow view did not hold for the scientific creationist nor for the
IDiots. The Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial were used by both the
Scientific creationists and the ID perps. #1 is the Big Bang (usually
in the Gish Gallop, #2 is fine tuning of the universe and our solar
system to be compatible with life, #3 is the origin of life, #4 is the
IC flagellum, and Gish had his "flagellum is a designed machine" in his
Gish Gallop, #5 is the Cambrian explosion, and #6 is gaps in the human
fossil record. All were standard gap denial for the Scientific
creationists and the ID perps just continued to use them.

>
> It's necessary to be so specific so that anyone who
> honestly believes creationism, typically because they
> haven't particularly thought about it, can be persuaded
> all the way out of it, without loitering on ideas like
> "maybe God did do some of it". The bible says that
> God created all the species in the same week as he
> created humans. You can take it or you can leave it.
> You should leave it, and that's that.

It is more important to be accurate. The ID perps believe in the same
creator god as the scientific creationists that came before them and
they use the same arguments to defend their religious beliefs.

>
> 'Intelligent design" doctrine and philosophy, as far
> as I understand it, is not anything other than a
> rejection of modern scientific thinking about
> and understanding of evolution. Any piece of science
> news that seems to go against evolution, or that
> proposes revised thinking about evolution, is counted
> as support for intelligent design. Of course, ID was
> and is mostly just an intellectual disguise for
> creationists, and creationist doctrine is acceptable
> within intelligent design.
>
> But they are different lies, with different refutations.
>

The ID perps do not just deny evolution. Some of them are theistic
evolutionists (Behe and Denton). What they are in denial about is the
fact that there is no place for their designer denial in Science. They
believe that it is unfair that "god-did-it" is not a valid scientific
opinion. They claim that the materialistic rules Science has to work
under are too limiting because it means that their option has no
scientific future. The whole point of the ID scam was the claim that
they could do the same science as everyone else and demonstrate that
their god was part of nature. It turned out that they could not do
that, and that there was no ID science that they wanted to accomplish,
so they started beefing about how unfair the simple fact that if you
can't demonstrate that something exists, science can't deal with it.
They understand that there have been things that we did not know existed
or that we could not verify as existing, but in all cases they were
eventually confirmed to exist by the materialistic tools of science. It
looks like that is not going to be the case for their intelligent designer.

On 12/1/2023 7:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/23 5:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 12/1/2023 8:46 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these
>>> people may not believe in a creator god or gods.
>>>
>>>> The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two
>>>> definitions. He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers,
>>>> but his expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people he
>>>> doesn't want to attack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall reading
>>> that Dobzhansky did the same.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't made that point in this thread because you guys have watched
>> Nyikos lie about it for over a decade, and it was the subject of the
>> last holy water repost that forced Nyikos to start looking for more
>> things to lie about forever.
>>
>> I have admitted that I am a creationist.  Methodists are Christian
>> creationists.  That is just a fact.  Nyikos is the one that keeps
>> lying about the situation.  You don't have to be a scientific
>> creationist or an ID perp to be a creationist.  What does everyone
>> think theistic evolutionists have always been?  They are still
>> creationists, and retain the same creator that the other Christians
>> have.  There are a lot of different creationist theologies.  Among the
>> Methodists we have a YEC, 7 day creationist faction and old earth
>> creationists that include theistic evolutionists.  There were recent
>> grumblings that the YEC faction was going to break off, but nothing
>> happened.  Some of the old earth creationists would have gone with
>> them because the disagreement isn't about YEC, it is just that the YEC
>> faction mostly holds the differing views.
>
> But that's not what the OP was asking about. Read the room.
>

On 12/2/23 2:24 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 12/1/2023 7:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/23 5:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2023 8:46 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these
>>>> people may not believe in a creator god or gods.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two
>>>>> definitions. He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers,
>>>>> but his expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people
>>>>> he doesn't want to attack.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall
>>>> reading that Dobzhansky did the same.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't made that point in this thread because you guys have
>>> watched Nyikos lie about it for over a decade, and it was the subject
>>> of the last holy water repost that forced Nyikos to start looking for
>>> more things to lie about forever.
>>>
>>> I have admitted that I am a creationist.  Methodists are Christian
>>> creationists.  That is just a fact.  Nyikos is the one that keeps
>>> lying about the situation.  You don't have to be a scientific
>>> creationist or an ID perp to be a creationist.  What does everyone
>>> think theistic evolutionists have always been?  They are still
>>> creationists, and retain the same creator that the other Christians
>>> have.  There are a lot of different creationist theologies.  Among
>>> the Methodists we have a YEC, 7 day creationist faction and old earth
>>> creationists that include theistic evolutionists.  There were recent
>>> grumblings that the YEC faction was going to break off, but nothing
>>> happened.  Some of the old earth creationists would have gone with
>>> them because the disagreement isn't about YEC, it is just that the
>>> YEC faction mostly holds the differing views.
>>
>> But that's not what the OP was asking about. Read the room.
>>
>
> You may have wanted to respond to Major.

John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/1/23 9:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> 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.
>>  >
>> I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
>> absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
>> creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark,  Noah nor the
>> flood  story.  The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
>> Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
>> empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
>> designer, that's an unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
>> completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
>> noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any
>> opposition to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was
>> present in my mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning
>> evolutionist. But on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who
>> found faults with evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the
>> first time. I came to the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had
>> been deceived. I was too trusting of people whom I believed were
>> experts and _knew_ what they were presenting was truth.
>
> What was this book and who was this scientist? Was that scientist really
> an expert? Perhaps you were misled by the book rather than by previous
> information.
>
The initial book that I read was, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis", by a
Dr. Denton. A
>> Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time in
>> my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the complexity,
>> logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics, the beauty
>> the interdependence  of entities throughout nature, seemed too much to
>> have just happened.
>>
>>   I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
>> turning to these logical, rational
>> laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these
>> existing and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and
>> derive conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces, filling
>> the needs of societies and think things through using these rules,
>> laws, logical order and come to understanding and make discoveries.
>> This enables science to work. If this were not the case, then there
>> could be no science. I thought, what are the chances all this came
>> about through pointless, aimless, hazardous, and purposeless processes
>> from the very beginning.
>
> So you believe in some kind of supernatural creator, and you reject
> common descent. You may not be a biblical creationist, but you're still
> a creationist.
>
Supernatural creator? Maybe so, maybe not. There is no way to _know_. I
came to the conclusion of design independently of then intelligent
design. I was quite surprised when I learned that the concept of design
already existed. I'm convinced that design, in most cases when looking
at raw data or evidence design is equal to, or a better explanation for
the evidence.

I know of no evidence in support of any specific characteristics or any
kind of identity. What ever I might believe, is not of evidence.
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>

Ernest Major wrote:
> On 02/12/2023 16:41, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/23 9:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>  >
>>> I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
>>> absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
>>> creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark,  Noah nor the
>>> flood  story.  The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
>>> Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
>>> empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
>>> designer, that is a unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
>>> completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
>>> noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any
>>> opposition to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was
>>> present in my mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning
>>> evolutionist. But on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who
>>> found faults with evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the
>>> first time. I came to the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had
>>> been deceived. I was too trusting of people whom I believed were
>>> experts and _knew_ what they were presenting was truth.
>>
>> What was this book and who was this scientist? Was that scientist
>> really an expert? Perhaps you were misled by the book rather than by
>> previous information.
>
> He usually appeals to Denton, and to Gould and Eldredge. The description
> above appear to fit Denton.
>>
>>> Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time
>>> in my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the
>>> complexity, logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics,
>>> the beauty the interdependence  of entities throughout nature, seemed
>>> too much to have just happened.
>>>
>>>   I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
>>> turning to these logical, rational
>>> laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these
>>> existing and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and
>>> derive conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces,
>>> filling the needs of societies and think things through using these
>>> rules, laws, logical order and come to understanding and make
>>> discoveries. This enables science to work. If this were not the case,
>>> then there could be no science. I thought, what are the chances all
>>> this came about through pointless, aimless, hazardous, and
>>> purposeless processes from the very beginning.
>>
>> So you believe in some kind of supernatural creator, and you reject
>> common descent. You may not be a biblical creationist, but you're
>> still a creationist.
>
> He's recently made some arguments which seem to imply a recent creation,
> even if it's 10^5 or 10^6 years, rather than 10^4 years.
>
I have no idea as to how you derived that from anything I've written.
I've never questioned that the universe is almost 14 billion years old
and the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. Life is traceable
to about 40.0 to about 3.8 billion years ago. The first complex animals
appeared about
530 mya. I have no problem with any of these ages.
>>
>>>>> 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 Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 11:51:57 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 02/12/2023 16:41, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/1/23 9:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>> >
> >>> I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
> >>> absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
> >>> creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark, Noah nor the
> >>> flood story. The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
> >>> Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
> >>> empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
> >>> designer, that is a unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
> >>> completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
> >>> noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any
> >>> opposition to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was
> >>> present in my mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning
> >>> evolutionist. But on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who
> >>> found faults with evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the
> >>> first time. I came to the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had
> >>> been deceived. I was too trusting of people whom I believed were
> >>> experts and _knew_ what they were presenting was truth.
> >>
> >> What was this book and who was this scientist? Was that scientist
> >> really an expert? Perhaps you were misled by the book rather than by
> >> previous information.
> >
> > He usually appeals to Denton, and to Gould and Eldredge. The description
> > above appear to fit Denton.
> >>
> >>> Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time
> >>> in my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the
> >>> complexity, logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics,
> >>> the beauty the interdependence of entities throughout nature, seemed
> >>> too much to have just happened.
> >>>
> >>> I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
> >>> turning to these logical, rational
> >>> laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these
> >>> existing and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and
> >>> derive conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces,
> >>> filling the needs of societies and think things through using these
> >>> rules, laws, logical order and come to understanding and make
> >>> discoveries. This enables science to work. If this were not the case,
> >>> then there could be no science. I thought, what are the chances all
> >>> this came about through pointless, aimless, hazardous, and
> >>> purposeless processes from the very beginning.
> >>
> >> So you believe in some kind of supernatural creator, and you reject
> >> common descent. You may not be a biblical creationist, but you're
> >> still a creationist.
> >
> > He's recently made some arguments which seem to imply a recent creation,
> > even if it's 10^5 or 10^6 years, rather than 10^4 years.
......
> I have no idea as to how you derived that from anything I've written.
> I've never questioned that the universe is almost 14 billion years old
> and the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. Life is traceable
> to about 40.0 to about 3.8 billion years ago. The first complex animals
> appeared about
> 530 mya. I have no problem with any of these ages.

Well, if you agree with those ages, you can at least put some characteristics to your designer, right? You know when that designer was active. For example, if you say the designer was required for the origin of life, then you know the designer was on the earth 4.0 to 3.8 billion years ago. I you say the designer was required for the emergence of the body plans of multicellular organisms, then you know he was present on the earth 530 million years ago. So if it's the same designer, you already know that your designer has a lifespan of at least 3.3 billion years. Seems to me that that is a pretty significant characteristic for a designer to have. Don't you think?
> >>
> >>>>> 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 Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 21:06:57 UTC, RonO wrote:
> On 12/1/2023 8:07 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 23:46:55 UTC, RonO wrote:
> >> On 11/30/2023 6:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I have no idea what this "recreation" is. I do think
> > that the useful interpretation of "creationism" -
> > useful to characterise what somebody claims to
> > believe or to know scientifically, whether they
> > are sincere or not, honest or not - is that each
> > species exists because creatures without
> > ancestors were once made to exist in the past
> > whose descendants are the modern creatures,
> > with either limited evolution, or none, meanwhile.
>
> The creation of kinds is only one aspect of creationism. It is the
> aspect that is the focus on TO, but when the Kansas creationists removed
> what they didn't like from the Kansas State science standards they
> removed the Big Bang, understanding radioisotopes from the chemistry
> standards and some geology and age of the earth things along with
> biological evolution. The ID perps have their Big Bang and fine tuning
> denial for a reason.

I say that creationism is only the creation of "kinds"
(species) and the alleged insufficiency of evolution
to explain the existence of "kinds". And "intelligent
design" is only the alleged insufficiency of evolution
to explain evolution.

When creationists suppress other scientific subjects,
it is not because creationists believe that that science
is false, but because they want that science to be not
known and understood. And it may be not because of
creationism. Some of these legislators also want to
suppress gynaecology and homosexuality and voting.
There is no creationism there.

As for intelligent design: IDists bring up universal
"fine tuning", but it is not what "intelligent design" is.
"ID" is the false claim that biological science is verifiably
incomplete when evolution is included and the
"intelligent designer" is not included.

The claim that God created stars is not "creationism",
and the claim that God designed the atom intelligently
is not "intelligent design".

What a policy is named is not what the policy is.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
mentions "fine tuning" as a side question.

<https://www.aclu.org/documents/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent-design>
(from 2005) only discusses claims about living things,
life, on Earth.

To include geology, astronomy, cosmology,
and any other discipline in your concepts of
"creationism" and "intelligent design" is a
mistake. Do not make this mistake.

To expect to hear nonsense about those other
disciplines - that's reasonable.

On 12/2/2023 8:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/2/23 2:24 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 12/1/2023 7:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/1/23 5:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/2023 8:46 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are people who believe in non-creator gods. Some of these
>>>>> people may not believe in a creator god or gods.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that Ron equivocates between at least two
>>>>>> definitions. He uses the term as a pejorative to attack the IDers,
>>>>>> but his expressed definition extends way past the IDers to people
>>>>>> he doesn't want to attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall Ron self-identifying as a creationist. I also recall
>>>>> reading that Dobzhansky did the same.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't made that point in this thread because you guys have
>>>> watched Nyikos lie about it for over a decade, and it was the
>>>> subject of the last holy water repost that forced Nyikos to start
>>>> looking for more things to lie about forever.
>>>>
>>>> I have admitted that I am a creationist.  Methodists are Christian
>>>> creationists.  That is just a fact.  Nyikos is the one that keeps
>>>> lying about the situation.  You don't have to be a scientific
>>>> creationist or an ID perp to be a creationist.  What does everyone
>>>> think theistic evolutionists have always been?  They are still
>>>> creationists, and retain the same creator that the other Christians
>>>> have.  There are a lot of different creationist theologies.  Among
>>>> the Methodists we have a YEC, 7 day creationist faction and old
>>>> earth creationists that include theistic evolutionists.  There were
>>>> recent grumblings that the YEC faction was going to break off, but
>>>> nothing happened.  Some of the old earth creationists would have
>>>> gone with them because the disagreement isn't about YEC, it is just
>>>> that the YEC faction mostly holds the differing views.
>>>
>>> But that's not what the OP was asking about. Read the room.
>>>
>>
>> You may have wanted to respond to Major.
>
> Nope.
>
Then your response was to the wrong person.

On 12/3/2023 7:39 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 21:06:57 UTC, RonO wrote:
>> On 12/1/2023 8:07 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 23:46:55 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2023 6:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what this "recreation" is. I do think
>>> that the useful interpretation of "creationism" -
>>> useful to characterise what somebody claims to
>>> believe or to know scientifically, whether they
>>> are sincere or not, honest or not - is that each
>>> species exists because creatures without
>>> ancestors were once made to exist in the past
>>> whose descendants are the modern creatures,
>>> with either limited evolution, or none, meanwhile.
>>
>> The creation of kinds is only one aspect of creationism. It is the
>> aspect that is the focus on TO, but when the Kansas creationists removed
>> what they didn't like from the Kansas State science standards they
>> removed the Big Bang, understanding radioisotopes from the chemistry
>> standards and some geology and age of the earth things along with
>> biological evolution. The ID perps have their Big Bang and fine tuning
>> denial for a reason.
>
> I say that creationism is only the creation of "kinds"
> (species) and the alleged insufficiency of evolution
> to explain the existence of "kinds". And "intelligent
> design" is only the alleged insufficiency of evolution
> to explain evolution.
>
> When creationists suppress other scientific subjects,
> it is not because creationists believe that that science
> is false, but because they want that science to be not
> known and understood. And it may be not because of
> creationism. Some of these legislators also want to
> suppress gynaecology and homosexuality and voting.
> There is no creationism there.

Young earth creationists have always believed in the 7 day Biblical
creation mythology. They are only anti-evolution because it is not
consistent with the order of creation written in Genesis. Biological
evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. They believe their creator
created the universe less than 25,000 years ago, that for our solar
system the earth was created first, and sun and moon weren't created
until the 4th day. It is the old earth creationists that want to change
the physical creation scenario so that the sun and moon could have been
created at the same time as the earth for obvious reasons, but the young
earth creationists still believe that the sun and moon were not created
until after land plants were created on the 3rd day. Young earth
creationists have to deny the Big Bang because they can't deal with
something that happened over 13 billion years ago. They have to deny
radio isotopes because it tells them that the earth is much older than
their upper limit of 25,000 years.

>
> As for intelligent design: IDists bring up universal
> "fine tuning", but it is not what "intelligent design" is.
> "ID" is the false claim that biological science is verifiably
> incomplete when evolution is included and the
> "intelligent designer" is not included.

The Scientific creationists (young earth creationism) also used the fine
tuning argument. The ID perps inherited all of their Top Six
god-of-the-gaps denial arguments from the scientific creationists. Fine
tuning is #2 of the ID perps Top Six.

>
> The claim that God created stars is not "creationism",
> and the claim that God designed the atom intelligently
> is not "intelligent design".

Unfortunately for you, it is and always has been part of Biblical
creationism. All you have to do is read the first chapter of Genesis to
know what they believe their creator is responsible for. Their god
created the heaven and earth. They believe that their creator did
everything described in the 7 day scenario. Really, they are only
anti-evolution because it isn't mentioned in the Bible, and biological
evolution is inconsistent with their 7 day creation scenario.

Ron Okimoto
>
> What a policy is named is not what the policy is.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
> mentions "fine tuning" as a side question.
>
> <https://www.aclu.org/documents/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent-design>
> (from 2005) only discusses claims about living things,
> life, on Earth.
>
> To include geology, astronomy, cosmology,
> and any other discipline in your concepts of
> "creationism" and "intelligent design" is a
> mistake. Do not make this mistake.
>
> To expect to hear nonsense about those other
> disciplines - that's reasonable.
>

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 00:40:56 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.
> >
>I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
>absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
>creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark, Noah nor the
>flood story. The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
>Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
>empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
>designer, that is a unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
>completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
>noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any opposition
>to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was present in my
>mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. But
>on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who found faults with
>evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the first time. I came to
>the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had been deceived. I was too
>trusting of people whom I believed were experts and _knew_ what they
>were presenting was truth.

Once again, I challenge you to cite those scientists and identify
those faults.

>Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time in
>my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the complexity,
>logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics, the beauty the
>interdependence of entities throughout nature, seemed too much to have
>just happened.
>
> I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
>turning to these logical, rational
>laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these existing
>and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and derive
>conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces, filling the
>needs of societies and think things through using these rules, laws,
>logical order and come to understanding and make discoveries. This
>enables science to work. If this were not the case, then there could be
>no science. I thought, what are the chances all this came about through
>pointless, aimless, hazardous, and purposeless processes from the very
>beginning.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 12/2/23 6:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/1/23 9:40 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>  >
>>> I do not consider myself to be a creationist, but rather an IDest. I
>>> absolutely reject the Adam and Eve story, I do not accept the 7 day
>>> creation 10,000 years ago. I don't acknowledge the Ark,  Noah nor the
>>> flood  story.  The creationist identify the creator as the God of the
>>> Bible. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing, certainly no hard,
>>> empirical scientific evidence that points to the identity of the
>>> designer, that's an unknown. As a matter of fact, I totally and
>>> completely 100% reject the Genesis creationist narrative. I continue
>>> noting the persistence evolutionist even insistence that any
>>> opposition to evolution is religious motivated. And this idea was
>>> present in my mind for decades when I was a dedicated, unquestioning
>>> evolutionist. But on a challenge, I read a books by a scientists, who
>>> found faults with evolution. I began questioning evolution, for the
>>> first time. I came to the conclusion and I strongly felt that I had
>>> been deceived. I was too trusting of people whom I believed were
>>> experts and _knew_ what they were presenting was truth.
>>
>> What was this book and who was this scientist? Was that scientist
>> really an expert? Perhaps you were misled by the book rather than by
>> previous information.
> >
> The initial book that  I read was, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis",  by a
> Dr. Denton. A

That just shows how bad you are at assessing credibility. Have you
looked at any of the critiques of that book, or are you too far down the
rabbit hole now?

>>> Yet, how and where did all I see around me come about. At this time
>>> in my life, I had never heard of intelligent design, but the
>>> complexity, logical order, rational laws of physics and mathematics,
>>> the beauty the interdependence  of entities throughout nature, seemed
>>> too much to have just happened.
>>>
>>>   I also occurred to me that we humans have a mind that is capable
>>> turning to these logical, rational
>>> laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy etc by appealing to these
>>> existing and constant, logical, and rational characteristics and
>>> derive conclusions, rules, design and build so many convinces,
>>> filling the needs of societies and think things through using these
>>> rules, laws, logical order and come to understanding and make
>>> discoveries. This enables science to work. If this were not the case,
>>> then there could be no science. I thought, what are the chances all
>>> this came about through pointless, aimless, hazardous, and
>>> purposeless processes from the very beginning.
>>
>> So you believe in some kind of supernatural creator, and you reject
>> common descent. You may not be a biblical creationist, but you're
>> still a creationist.
> >
> Supernatural creator?  Maybe so, maybe not. There is no way to _know_. I
> came to the conclusion of design independently of then intelligent
> design. I was quite surprised when I learned that the concept of design
> already existed.  I'm convinced that design, in most cases when looking
> at raw data or evidence design is equal to, or a better explanation for
> the evidence.

What other than a supernatural creator have you entertained? But this is
irrelevant. If you reject common descent in favor of separate creation,
you're a creationist.

> I know of no evidence in support of any specific characteristics or any
> kind of identity. What ever I might believe, is not of evidence.

If you wrote in coherent sentences, it might be possible to discern what
you meant.

>>>>> 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 Fri, 1 Dec 2023 13:23:45 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>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.

Especially when there are so many conflicting personal definition of
"lying".

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge