What is the end goal for creationists these days?

Divide · Dec 19, 2017

Halbhh said:
You have to leap off the cliff to fly.

I agree with you Brother, and especially with this. That's very profound and very on the mark. It brings back a memory for me. When my kids were toddlers and it was bedtime. Trying to put them to bed, they had bunk beds and I remember my kids liked to climb up to the top and sit there...then when they seen I was close enough, they would throw themselves off off the top bed! They expected that I would catch them and knew that I would. So much so, that I had to be really paying attention because they had so much faith in me that they would literally fling themselves off of the top bed! Whether I was ready or not. I always seemed to catch them (PTL!)...but the kids leap of faith always impressed me. They had total confidence in me.

It's that kind of leap of faith that our Lord wants from us. As a child...

dmmesdale · Dec 19, 2017

Speedwell said:
Naturalistic explanations are not being sought in order to exclude the supernatural. Explanations are being sought which can be verified with empirial evidence. Period. If someday empirical evidence is discovered which points to the supernatural, then it will become part of the explanation.Not all explanations are created equal. Few rise to the status of a scientific theory like evolution. For the time being, multiple universes are no more than speculation on the part of scientists working to construct a theory.

If empirical evidence is the standard then produce the empirical evidence for life from nonlife and common ancestor between apes and man. Also, produce the empirical evidence for male-female sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction across a wide variety of sexually reproducing creatures. The step by step blind process evolution demands. That being where the males and females develop at the same rates without plans or goals. No punting to generic links, please.

The German Race has been selected to dominate the Earth. Anthropologist Ludwig Woltmann.

National Socialism is applied biology. Rudolf Hess.

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race, allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments. Darwin.

Quote.

Evolution is driven by competition, and competition brings extinction. Darwin notes, matter-of-factly in the Descent, that one tribe extinguishing another is the very engine of human evolution. In his words, “extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments.

General theory of evolution.

‘The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.

Speedwell · Dec 19, 2017

dmmesdale said:
If empirical evidence is the standard then produce the empirical evidence for life from nonlife and common ancestor between apes and man. Also, produce the empirical evidence for male-female sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction across a wide variety of sexually reproducing creatures. The step by step blind process evolution demands. That being where the males and females develop at the same rates without plans or goals. No punting to generic links, please.

First tell me why. Why should I collect evidence and prepare it to your level of science knowledge, bring it here and present it to you? The evidence is freely available on the web, in libraries, in university collections. It is no more difficult for you to seek it out than for me. Why should I do the work for you?
It seems to me more in line with the purpose of this board that we should both familiarize ourselves with the evidence first and then discuss it.

The German Race has been selected to dominate the Earth. Anthropologist Ludwig Woltmann.

National Socialism is applied biology. Rudolf Hess.

I'm not interested in the opinions of dead Nazis. I wonder, why are you?

TLK Valentine · Dec 19, 2017

Divide said:
I agree with you Brother, and especially with this. That's very profound and very on the mark. It brings back a memory for me. When my kids were toddlers and it was bedtime. Trying to put them to bed, they had bunk beds and I remember my kids liked to climb up to the top and sit there...then when they seen I was close enough, they would throw themselves off off the top bed! They expected that I would catch them and knew that I would. So much so, that I had to be really paying attention because they had so much faith in me that they would literally fling themselves off of the top bed! Whether I was ready or not. I always seemed to catch them (PTL!)...but the kids leap of faith always impressed me. They had total confidence in me.

It's that kind of leap of faith that our Lord wants from us. As a child...

And yet, I'll bet my blessings you still look both ways before crossing the street...

dmmesdale · Dec 19, 2017

Speedwell said:
First tell me why.

Because you made the claim. I am asking for backing. Empirical evidence for life from nonlife. Empirical evidence for common ancestor and empirical for sexual reproduction from asexual.

Why should I collect evidence and prepare it to your level of science knowledge, bring it here and present it to you?

You can't.

The evidence is freely available on the web, in libraries, in university collections.

You addressed a specific type, empirical.

It is no more difficult for you to seek it out than for me. Why should I do the work for you?

You cannot because it is not empirical science. Cannot be repeat tested, cannot be observed or demonstrated. Cannot go back in time to test your assumptions against what actually happened. If it is not empirical then it is not science. Certainly not hard science.

It seems to me more in line with the purpose of this board that we should both familiarize ourselves with the evidence first and then discuss it.

There is no empirical evidence for life from nonlife. All the empirical demonstrates life requires living sources.

I'm not interested in the opinions of dead Nazis. I wonder, why are you?

This thread is not about me. National Socialism is applied Darwinism. Darwinism, off the page and into the real world. The goal was extinction of inferior races. Also forced sterilization as applied in the United States of Hispanic, Blacks, and Native American women by progressives prior to 1940s.

National Socialism is applied biology. Rudolf Hess.

Speedwell · Dec 19, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Because you made the claim. I am asking for backing. Empirical evidence for life from nonlife. Empirical evidence for common ancestor and empirical for sexual reproduction from asexual. You can't. You addressed a specific type, empirical. You cannot because it is not empirical science. Cannot be repeat tested, cannot be observed or demonstrated. Cannot go back in time to test your assumptions against what actually happened. If it is not empirical then it is not science. Certainly not hard science.
There is no empirical evidence for life from nonlife. All the empirical demonstrates life requires living sources.

This thread is not about me. National Socialism fulfilled Darwin's prediction.

National Socialism is applied biology. Rudolf Hess.

The question of whether there is any evidence can wait. My question to you is, why should we hand it to you on a plate? Who made you the arbiter of science?

dmmesdale · Dec 19, 2017

Speedwell said:
The question of whether there is any evidence can wait.

Wait for what? Hell to freeze over? You can't demonstrate anything empirical relative to the three instances.

My question to you is, why should we hand it to you on a plate? Who made you the arbiter of science?

Stop making it about me. (2nd time) Either demonstrate or go home. You can't. It is all blind faith and wishful thinking. Not empirical science.

Darwin wrote it and the Nazi's applied it.

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race, allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments. Darwin.

Speedwell · Dec 19, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Wait for what? Hell to freeze over? You can't demonstrate anything empirical relative to the three instances.

Not according to your notion of empirical evidence. That would be one of the things we would have to clear up before we proceeded.

Stop making it about me. (2nd time) Either demonstrate or go home.

It is about you. You're here making demands. Why are you in a position to demand anything?

Darwin wrote it and the Nazi's applied it.

Darwin is long dead too.

E

dmmesdale · Dec 19, 2017

Speedwell said:
Not according to your notion of empirical evidence.

Look up the definition. How hard can it be?

Speedwell · Dec 19, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Look up the definition. How hard can it be?

I know it already. Nothing in the scientific method requires that a past event be fully recreated. Repeatable testing of the evidence left behind by that event is sufficient.

But you still haven't answered my question...

dmmesdale · Dec 19, 2017

Speedwell said:
I know it already. Nothing in the scientific method requires that a past event be fully recreated. Repeatable testing of the evidence left behind by that event is sufficient.

No it is not. Not if the inference is imaginary nonhuman creatures and alleged events which have no basis or precedent. Like all life from nonlife. It is blind faith. Not empirical science. Historical inferences not empirical science.

Speedwell · Dec 19, 2017

dmmesdale said:
No it is not. Not if the inference is imaginary nonhuman creatures and alleged events which have no basis or precedent. Like all life from nonlife. It is blind faith. Not empirical science. Historical inferences not empirical science.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of that tenet of the scientific method, but scientists find it satisfactory and are not likely to change because of it. Perhaps the worst that can be said of it is that it introduces an additional amount of uncertainty in the conclusions of science, but without it we would not know anything of the past at all.

dmmesdale · Dec 19, 2017

Speedwell said:
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of that tenet of the scientific method, but scientists find it satisfactory and are not likely to change because of it. Perhaps the worst that can be said of it is that it introduces an additional amount of uncertainty in the conclusions of science, but without it we would not know anything of the past at all.

It is not my opinion and it is not empirical science.

Elliot Sober points out, many possible pasts often correspond to any given present state. Establishing the past with certainty, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, can therefore, be very difficult.

This is not the exacting science which goes into making cell phones or computers or plotting a trajectory to the moon. It is voodoo. In the meantime you have not demonstrated anything empirical about any of your assumptions relative to the three circumstances.

Speedwell · Dec 19, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Elliot Sober points out, many possible pasts often correspond to any given present state. Establishing the past with certainty, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, can therefore, be very difficult.

Sober is quite right. But I notice he did not say it was impossible or useless.

This is not the exacting science which goes into making cell phones or computers or plotting a trajectory to the moon. It is voodoo. In the meantime you have not demonstrated anything empirical about any of your assumptions relative to the three circumstances.

And you haven't shown me why I should.

Bungle_Bear · Dec 19, 2017

dmmesdale said:
If empirical evidence is the standard then produce the empirical evidence for life from nonlife and common ancestor between apes and man. Also, produce the empirical evidence for male-female sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction across a wide variety of sexually reproducing creatures. The step by step blind process evolution demands. That being where the males and females develop at the same rates without plans or goals. No punting to generic links, please.

Which part of "are being sought" do you not understand?

Nithavela · Dec 20, 2017

I think the end goal is to hold out long enough for the cuts in public education to filter through to the legislative and executive branches.

AV1611VET · Dec 20, 2017

Nithavela said:
I think the end goal is to hold out long enough for the cuts in public education to filter through to the legislative and executive brands.

Don't you mean "branches"?

Nithavela · Dec 20, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Don't you mean "branches"?

Yes, I did. It's early and my english isn't fully warmed up, I guess. Thank you.

ViaCrucis · Dec 20, 2017

pitabread said:
When I used to participate in the general C/E debate over a decade ago, a common refrain from the creationist/ID side was how evolutionary biology was doomed, more and more scientists were rejecting it, and that it would eventually be replaced by some sort of scientific creationism or ID.

None of this has obviously come to pass, with creationism/ID making zero dent against mainstream science. Not only that, but creationism has even been losing popular support insofar as USA polling goes.

All I really see from creationists these days when it comes to prognostications is run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophesy.

Have creationists given up on overturning the scientific establishment? Is it now just a matter of sitting around, chanting about the evils of evolution and waiting for the world to end?

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

Granted, I haven't been a creationist in well over a decade now, but when I was the "goal" was in a sense about cultural change and victory. The end game was to reverse several decades of cultural ground losses to the big bad bogeyman secularists, and reclaim that lost territory. The cultural and political dimensions of the whole thing, which included more than just evolution, but a host of issues; was fundamentally interpreted in the context of a major spiritual war being fought, and what was at stake was the souls of mankind; and that changing the cultural landscape in such a way would bring about revival and a great bringing in of lost souls--all of which was also perceived also within the larger narrative of us being in the "end times" and since the end was ever approaching this was ever urgent--while we could not ultimately change the growing tide of hostility to Christianity (after all the Big Bad would eventually take control over everything), we could at least score some extra victory points before then.

The issue isn't academic here. The issue is one in which the perception is a vast demonic conspiracy and invisible war between good and evil; and a belief in the imperative of Christians to take and hold claim to the focal points of culture. It's one part Dominionism, one part Dispensationalism, and one part "good old days" pseudo-nostalgia.

-CryptoLutheran

Ophiolite · Dec 20, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Darwin wrote it and the Nazi's applied it.

And? In what way is that relevant to anything other than your amusing misinterpretations of science?

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Confessional Lutheran

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency