On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 16:57:44 UTC+2, RonO wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 12:14 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
> >>
> >> Technical accuracy: 10/10
> >> Usefulness: 0/10
> >>
> >
> > I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".
> >
> > Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of creationism
> > (and that the true definition is not the one in widest usage). An
> > accurate definition of creationism recognises the variation in usage.
>
> It is the TO fault to claim that there is only one true definition of
> creationist. What do you think that this is about? I am the one that
> is claiming that there are all kinds of creationists, and what matters
> is that they all believe in a creator. How can anyone be so wrong about
> what this issue is about?
>
Words have no meaning. Noises made by spurting air through
meat or rows of very primitive abstract markings have no meaning. These
are used because we can not communicate directly. So we use those
vulgar sound and visual signals for to communicate.

Game of usage of different from other's meaning and then to claim that
everybody are using wrong meaning and so are wrong based on some
"real" meaning is useless word game. It just makes communication
impossible.

> It is just a fact that the main reason why IDiots exist is because they
> are creationists of one sort or another. It is their common trait.
> Pretty much all of the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have admitted
> that their designer is the Biblical creator.
>
There are very lot of people who believe in creator God. Low minority of
them supports Discovery Institute and lot of those few do it based on
"enemy of my enemies is my friend" logic. There are few of them because
ID is weak and weak friend can be worse than enemy. Same is with
"scientific creationism" that lot of believers find kooky. So conflating
everybody who believe into creator God as "creationists" and all
"creationists" into "IDiots" is just making the vulgar signals messed up
and hard to follow.

RonO wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Wiki is not a valid cite, as even the likes of the collective
should be aware.

You don't get to define anyone else, or no more so than
they get to define you.

Take your nonsense Wiki: It defines Creationism as a
religious belief. Well. A religious belief is one based on
faith and not facts... abiogenesis, for example.

Abiogenesis is the furthest thing from science. It sits
well within the confines of religion. After all, it can't
be falsified. It's "Right" no matter what. So abiogenesis
is a religious belief, a faith based idea, the faithful
insisting that it's only a matter of time before an intelligence
Creates life by intent, by design, under laboratory conditions.

Abiogenesis is a religious belief, not a fact based notion,
and the devout insist that Creation will soon be proven...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740015935238373376

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 15:32:45 UTC, RonO wrote:
> On 1/21/2024 9:10 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 14:57:44 UTC, RonO wrote:
> >> On 1/19/2024 12:14 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> >>> On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
> >>>>
> >>>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
> >>>> Usefulness: 0/10
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".
> >>>
> >>> Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of creationism
> >>> (and that the true definition is not the one in widest usage). An
> >>> accurate definition of creationism recognises the variation in usage.
> >> It is the TO fault to claim that there is only one true definition of
> >> creationist. What do you think that this is about? I am the one that
> >> is claiming that there are all kinds of creationists, and what matters
> >> is that they all believe in a creator. How can anyone be so wrong about
> >> what this issue is about?
> >
> > No; "creationist" does not mean "There was a creator"
> > to most people, or to
> > <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/creationist>
> >
> > It means "There was no evolution" - or, much more
> > loosely, that natural evolution is a scientifically
> > unsatisfactory explanation of how things are -
> > but while that's wrong, I want to reserve "creationism"
> > for the particular error of believing that distinct
> > animal species, or distinct plants, were created
> > separately, and don't have a common ancestor
> > and common descent. That God created biological
> > "kinds" that are distinct and that have remained and
> > will remain distinct.
> There are many variations of the definition due to what the issues have
> been, but before there were YEC anti-evolution scientific creationists,
> a creationist was just someone that believed in a creator. You can't
> get stuck in a rut with definitions that are no longer accurate in terms
> of the anti-evolution creationism.
>
> There have been old earth and young earth creationists for centuries.
> After biological evolution became an option there were some old earth
> creationists that accepted biological evolution to one degree or another.
>
> The Reason to believe IDiots are old earth anti-evolutionists, and so
> are most of the ID perps, but not all the ID perps are anti-evolution
> creationists, but they are still ID perps because they believe in the
> same creator as the other ID perps.
>
> After Darwin flat earth creationism came back as a fundy belief.
>
> You should just believe the Wiki on this one. Hindu and Muslim are
> creationists. Hindu's just believe in another creator or creators.
> Muslims believe in the same creator as the ID perps and the
> anti-evolution scientific creationists.

If "creationism" means "creation" then there
is no need to say "creationism". That isn't a
solid proof that the words have different
meanings, but in my opinion, it makes it
stupid if they do.

Regardless, we know that creationism
means specifically,

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed
every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
and brought them unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof."
(Genesis 2:19)

Other religions may offer similar stories
of gods designing animals, and plants etc.,
in the holy books or word of mouth.
From a not very holy book of Buddhism
comes Sun Wukong, Monkey King,
although this is not the origin of monkeys;
other monkeys exist.

These accounts differ in when creatures
were brought into existence and why.
What they have in common for the purpose
of talk.origins is a stance opposed to
evolutionary theory in biology. This isn't
written in the holy books but they have to
have it, because of the comprehensive
evidence which proves evolution and
common descent, and which refutes
the descriptions of gods creating each
species individually. It's necessary for
them to claim that some other scientific
fact, or some unjustified assertion,
makes evolution impossible in spite of
the evidence, or makes evolution between
"kinds" impossible. This would be fair
argument if done fairly, which it isn't;
a small amount of evidence that a theory
is wrong can be enough to overthrow it.
(However, the evidence must be
high quality.) The claim is that "Since
evolution cannot have happened, it must
be that gods did it."

Some people choose to doubt some of their
religion's dogma while retaining the religion.
(People have been killed for doing that.)
With respect to creationism, these doubters
include people who believe that species were
created at different times, and not all during one
week 6025 years ago, and people who believe
that some starter species were created and
then they evolved. Chiefly because not
everything that is alive now could be carried
on Noah's ark, I think. But also to make humans
be made by God even if everything else evolved.
Where a god - or an extra-terrestrial alien - makes
a living being of a new type from non-living matter,
I count it as creationism.

And there are people who accept common descent
and evolution of older species into new ones, but
with God either controlling that process, including
just turning creatures into other creatures, or else
just having it turn out the way that he wanted
because apparently gods can do that. I split that
from creationism, because none of the living things
that we take an interest in are created separately,
and because the differences from the actual evolution
are invisible or non-existent, and so are not arguable,
and not especially useful to argue where that is possible.
What's a real problem is creationism that blatantly
denies science and that interferes with education.
The story of a god who created new things separately
and one by one is what we should recognise as
creationism, and should criticise, as we must.

A god who uses evolution is not a threat to science -
unless their plan of evolution still disagrees
significantly with science. For instance by actually
having a plan - teleology - or in having a species
abruptly fall extinct because the god is displeased by it.
I don't know if that is actually claimed.

Robert Carnegie wrote:

> If "creationism" means "creation" then there
> is no need to say "creationism". That isn't a
> solid proof that the words have different
> meanings, but in my opinion, it makes it
> stupid if they do.

Try saying colored people, instead of people of color.

Your argument is against reality. People see distinctions.
Get over it.

Back in the 1990s a person who was born a man but
decided that they were a woman was "Transgendered."
Today there are idiots who get fighting mad if you say
"Transgendered" instead of "Transgender."

Which honestly is idiocy, because they're claiming that
their gender gender is "Trans" -- they are "Transgender"
-- when in fact it's male or female...

But people have their issues. Just look at you! You
can't seem to deal with anything!

Abiogenesis is NOT science. Objectively, it is NOT science.
It's a belief system. It's faith based. And here you are
DESPERATELY trying to rationalize your refusal to accept
that faith-based people who believe in Creation aren't
Creationists.

Get over yourself. Move on.

A healthy person might laugh, or at least giggle, BECAUSE
IT'S TRUE! A spazz will keep twisting & turning, trying to
escape reality...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740174235998240768