Hahahaha, oh Georgia..

[MikeH]

This is what we'd refer to as a dumb poll question. And also, how British (as it seems) are as much into knee jerk reactions without caring about the underlying facts as much as the people they disdain.

If the question was Creation or Evolution, how are Evolutionary Creationists supposed to respond? I can pick either one of those if you asked me an either/or.

'Creationism' is now a term which has been co-opted to mean the Earth is really young and evolution doesn't happen at all. It's done sensible conversation on the subject no end of harm.

[MikeH]

Yeah, what are the rest of you doing wrong? You should be leaving gullible folks like us in the dust.

From what I hear on the news it's only 1% of you doing the work, the rest of you just laze around being poor. Your 1% must be totes amazeballs.

[PLATO]

I would not mock and ridicule someone who thinks the Christian creation myth is a metaphor that fits quite well with the history of the universe as we know it.

I would mock and ridicule someone who 'believed' in the face of all the contrary evidence that the earth is ~4000 years old.

One is a perfectly reasonable belief, one is ludicrous.

You: "Okay, Mr. creationist...How does your belief explain the scientific fact that the world is older than 4000 years?"

Creationist: "Uhh...the scientist are lying!"

You: "****ing moron."

Okay...maybe sometimes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

'Creationism' is now a term which has been co-opted to mean the Earth is really young and evolution doesn't happen at all. It's done sensible conversation on the subject no end of harm.

And on the same level "Evolution" in these contexts has been co-opted to mean God doesn't factor at all.

Therefore, Creationist Evolution folks are in a pickle. Can't argue yes to either stereotype.

[giblets]

This is what we'd refer to as a dumb poll question. And also, how British (as it seems) are as much into knee jerk reactions without caring about the underlying facts as much as the people they disdain.

If the question was Creation or Evolution, how are Evolutionary Creationists supposed to respond? I can pick either one of those if you asked me an either/or.

"Evolutionary creationism" isn't a thing. If you think God caused the big bang you're not a creationist. Not every issue has to have a middle ground for people to waffle about in.

[PLATO]

"Evolutionary creationism" isn't a thing. If you think God caused the big bang you're not a creationist. Not every issue has to have a middle ground for people to waffle about in.

If God created the universe by the big bang, then that is not a view point that God created the Universe?

[giblets]

Maybe God created everything 6000 years ago, but his views have evolved over time.

[PLATO]

Maybe God created everything 6000 years ago, but his views have evolved over time.

Maybe he created it last week and all our memories and science are just his way of messing with us.

[The Mad Monk]

From what I hear on the news it's only 1% of you doing the work, the rest of you just laze around being poor. Your 1% must be totes amazeballs.

We are.

[PLATO]

We are.

Yep.

[kentonio]

Evolutionary creationism would be a much more useful term if creationists could understand that evolution and abiogenesis are separate things, and stop using evolution as a catchall term. Abiogenesis vs Creationism is a much stronger debate for them than Evolution vs Creatism which they already lost.

[MikeH]

We are.

[DaShi]

Fair enough, but I have a God given right to believe you are wrong!

What a silly belief.

[The Mad Monk]

Funny thing is, when the Big Bang was first laid out it was hailed as proof that God created the universe.

[MikeH]

Yeah, I don't understand why the religious debate has got so dumb in some quarters recently. It's a new phenomenon.