[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1300192917' post='4785996']
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1300157257' post='4785882']
Again, you can argue the "prime mover" view of god, i.e. Einsteins God of physical laws who set up the initial parameters for the universe (the physical constants) and let the whole thing unfold, but that is redefining the term creationist as most people understand it. The actual creation story as written in the bible is, as I said, trivially disprovable until you start jumping through literary and linguistic hoops. Which is why most Christians I know accept it for what it is, a myth.
If I were to start spreading the belief that bananas are elephants, does that change what an elephant is? And I was unaware that reading it being conscious of the language it was originally written in is "jumping through literary and linguistic hoops."
[/quote]
So do you have an actual point?[/quote]
no more point than you I suppose. I guess if anybody were to throw around flowery words that didn't really mean anything in that context and attached them to the blanket statement that they disagreed with something it would sound like an argument.
[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1300157257' post='4785882']
Again, you can argue the "prime mover" view of god, i.e. Einsteins God of physical laws who set up the initial parameters for the universe (the physical constants) and let the whole thing unfold, but that is redefining the term creationist as most people understand it.
[/font]Yes! That is redefining "creationist"! That is exactly what I am trying to do! As "Creationism" is currently defined, it is pure bunk. It doesn't have to be that way though and it is currently that way because of absurd teachings for [font="sans-serif"]millennia[/font].
[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][/quote]
Ok, you've kinda killed the discussion right there. It's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.[/quote]
No it's not. He started by establishing that "creationism" is both wrong and not really creationism. You didn't give him a counter example, you just said, "'creationism' is wrong," which agrees with him, and he never changed his position from his original assertion. Therefore, it is not the fallacy of which you speak. Had he started his argument saying he believed established creationism rather than saying, quite specifically, that that was not what he was, then it would be.[/font]