|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:36 pm
As many have stated, Evolutsionists, as scientists, will create a theory, and attempt to prove it wrong. Nothing has come of this attempt. But creationists don't do things the same way - anything that they find out that doesn't work for them is never released.
Evolutionists are largely science based - we have no specific religion to tell us what to believe, so we are open. We believe that evolution is extremely likely, because of the proof. But creationists do have religion, as a restriction, if devoted, to "force" them to believe what they're told.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 6:31 am
Please don't use the term evolutionist. It implies that the theory of evolution is some sort of belief system. It isn't. It doesn't need to be defended. You may notice that I don't defend arguments; I simply state them. If they are logical, then they are, themselves, the only proof that they need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:34 pm
gigacannon For the record, I like everyone in ED, even if they don't like me. Merry Christmas! Even the n00blets that post bumps and spam in ED forums for gold?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:21 pm
gigacannon Please don't use the term evolutionist. It implies that the theory of evolution is some sort of belief system. It isn't. It doesn't need to be defended. You may notice that I don't defend arguments; I simply state them. If they are logical, then they are, themselves, the only proof that they need. So what do you suggest we call evolutionists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:27 pm
"advocates of the theory of evolution"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:01 pm
Uh...Ok, but could someone actually REPLY TO THE POST?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:51 pm
I was joking about the 'advocates of...'. '-ist' can usually go on the end of any belief or theory when describing those who believe that that particular theory or belief is correct.
Athest, pragmatist, marxist, communist, captialist, socialist etc. They're not religions.
And yes, you're correct, I would say.
Evolutionists generally only believe the theory because of the overwhelming evidence. If there was a new theory, with more evidence, that made more sense, the evolutionists would probably think critically about the new theory, and if they were convinced, they would change their beliefs.
However, the creationists have much evidence directly to the contrary to their theory, and yet they still believe it. Why? Because that's their belief, and logic doesn't hold too much sway, for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:54 am
The term 'person' will do quite well. Any one person who understands the theory of evolution would see that it occurs. It is precisely because people do not understand the theory of evolution that they say that it is not possible. If you assume that there exists an individual capable of creating imperfect copies of itself, then evolution must occur.
The truth is that most people believe in all the natural laws which make the theory of evolution true, the are just ignorant of the details of evolution and are forbidden from admitting that there is any truth to the theory of evolution by blind dogmatism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:14 am
Well, obviously, not everyone uses logic to come to their conclusions.
I've never seen a creationist explain why diseases (which most most people accept to have been caused by bacteria or viruses) become resistant to medication if they aren't wiped out initially.
Always arguing about how unlikely it is for life to come about coincidentally, as opposed to created by god... but... that's not what the theory of evolution is about. It's about the reason why organisms seem to change to better suit their environment.
And 'person' wouldn't make much sense in the context of this question:
'What is the difference between a person's thinking process and a creationist's?'
What, now they're not people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:36 am
All human beings have the same thought processes. A creationist simply has been influenced in such a way that makes them ignorant. Someone who assume that evolution occurs has simply been raised in a more scientific, secular environment.
Creationism is a label for a particular kind of ignorance. Well... that's the way I see it. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:54 am
The main difference is that the Creationists started with the conclusion and tried to find evidence to fit. And then made some up when they couldn't find any.
"Evolutionists" looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion which best fitted.
That's the most basic difference between the two camps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:32 am
gigacannon Please don't use the term evolutionist. It implies that the theory of evolution is some sort of belief system. It isn't. It doesn't need to be defended. You may notice that I don't defend arguments; I simply state them. If they are logical, then they are, themselves, the only proof that they need. It could also term someone who is trained in the field of evolution. After I get my degree, I will be an ecologist and an evolutionist (hence the degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology). If you can't use the -ist suffix, what would people like biologists, environmentalists, natural scientists, chemists, and physicists be? Science isn't a belief system, but once you are trained in a field, you should be able to call yourself whatever -ist term you were trained in. I don't think that proponents of creationism should get the -ist. I think they should have some training in it first (course, then they'd see that there is no hard proof for it, but that's life!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:37 am
novembermoon I don't think that proponents of creationism should get the -ist. I think they should have some training in it first (course, then they'd see that there is no hard proof for it, but that's life!) There are quite a few Christian Universities where you can study Creationism...and they don't show the holes in the arguments, only show how to fool others into believeing in the same stuff as you. They can't teach proper science there or they would give their students the tools to see past their lies. But they don't. The just learn dogma by rote and spew it out endlessly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:39 am
I personally think the best term for an "evolutionist" would be
anti-creationist. They are defined by what they dont believe in, not their belief in one scientific theory. The evolutionists guild would be silly, I one for one dont believe in creation for a number of reasons, evolution just happens to be one of the more important ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
