What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[AV1611VET]

I only ever hold his "followers" to account -- since they stopped caring or even listening to anything He had to say a long time ago.

Like you did, so you could keep your job? (Just asking.)

Too bad you can't do likewise for ol' Chuck.

And where do I have "ol' Chuck" right now? as compared to where "ol' Chuck's" followers would have him? according to my posting history?

Hint: Cotton

 

[AV1611VET]

ol' Chuck, o course, is not on the side of Jesus' followers, therefore he is not on the side of Christ, which makes him... what, again?

Ol' Chuck will probably be sitting at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, while most of his followers will go to Lake Phlogiston.

 

[dmmesdale]

No more so than Jesus Christ is responsible for some of his followers burning crosses on the front lawns of people of darker skin colors than themselves...

If you can make a case for that sort of behavior from the Gospels specific to Jesus, then have at it. You can't.

It does not matter if Darwin was a nice guy anymore than it matters if the inventor(s) of Zyklon-B or Nuke bombs dropped in Japan were nice guys. Who cares. The Nazi's rationally applied Darwinism. The KKK did not rationally apply Jesus as depicted in the source documents. That is the difference. Jesus depicted was a pacifist.

 

[Speedwell]

If you can make a case for that sort of behavior from the Gospels specific to Jesus, then have at it. You can't.

It does not matter if Darwin was a nice guy anymore than it matters if the inventor(s) of Zyklon-B or Nuke bombs dropped in Japan were nice guys.

No, but by your reasoning the chemistry behind Zyklon-B and the nuclear physics behind the A-bomb must have been false, concocted science.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you can make a case for that sort of behavior from the Gospels specific to Jesus, then have at it. You can't.

I know I can't, which is why I've been saying I can't.

It does not matter if Darwin was a nice guy anymore than it matters if the inventor(s) of Zyklon-B or Nuke bombs dropped in Japan were nice guys. Who cares. The Nazi's rationally applied Darwinism. The KKK did not rationally apply Jesus as depicted in the source documents. That is the difference. Jesus depicted was a pacifist.

Will He still be a pacifist when he returns?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ol' Chuck will probably be sitting at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, while most of his followers will go to Lake Phlogiston.

Interesting opinion... how fortunate for ol' Chuck and the people who've read his work that your opinion counts for absolutely nothing.

 

[USincognito]

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.

That is a false quote. The part is blue is from commentary by anti-evolution propagandists. The actual quote from Descent of Man is:

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,--such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility.​

 

[USincognito]

Darwin wrote it and the Americal progressives applied it.

Darwin wrote nothing about eugenics. Further eugenics is the opposite of evolution (notice the "natural" in natural selection).

I don't know why Creationists think this emotional and false slander helps them other than rhetorically. A misapplication of evolutionary concepts does not, in any way, invalidate that fact that evolution happened or the theory of evolution which explains how it happened.

 

[USincognito]

Three deaths in childhood out of ten children was quite normal in the 19th century, even among the children of unrelated couples. Six of Darwin's children lived to be over 70; the eldest, Leonard Darwin, lived to be 93 (January 1850 to March 1943). Also, so far as I know, the Bible doesn't forbid the marriage of first cousins.

When YECs can't address the science, they attack the man's family.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Like you did, so you could keep your job? (Just asking.)

What are you babbling about? (just asking)

And where do I have "ol' Chuck" right now? as compared to where "ol' Chuck's" followers would have him? according to my posting history?

Hint: Cotton

Who cares where you "have" anyone?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who cares where you "have" anyone?

Elizabeth Cotton cared enough.

Cared enough to go visit him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Elizabeth Cotton cared enough.

Cared enough to go visit him.

Cared enough to lie about visiting him, you mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cared enough to lie about visiting him, you mean.

You were there?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You were there?

Chuck's children were -- and they all attest that she wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Chuck's children were -- and they all attest that she wasn't.

With guards like that, who needs security cameras, eh?

 

[TLK Valentine]

With guards like that, who needs security cameras, eh?

Indeed -- Someone needs to protect the truth from opportunistic charlatans like Cotton.

 

[dmmesdale]

That is a false quote. The part is blue is from commentary by anti-evolution propagandists.

It is commentary but not propaganda.

The actual quote from Descent of Man is:

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. (p.70) Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,--such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility.​

​

Keep going until, ''the end, in most cases, being promptly determined by the inroads of conquering tribes.''
p.71

The Idea of Race

 

[HARK!]

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?

I can't speak for them. I can only speak for myself. About ten years ago I created a thread titled "Science Proves Creation," on MySpace. It was a big hit. If I recall correctly, it got thousands of replies. Unfortunately, I didn't save my work. I just started working on creating a similar thread this evening. I'm going to take my time with it; and make sure that it's written articulately and logically; and that I back up of my assertions with rock solid citations. My time is limited; so it might take me a little while. Sorry for the wait.

 

[dmmesdale]

Darwin wrote nothing about eugenics.

He wrote about extinction. The context of my 621 was about forced sterilization of non-Euro women here prior to WW2 by progressives. Certainly, the latter can bring about the former. If they cannot have babies they go extinct. They had a two-fold goal, increase birth rates by Euros and decrease non-Euro births. It was the science/medical establishment and their ideas were from Darwin. They were progressives.

Further eugenics is the opposite of evolution

Garbage.

(notice the "natural" in natural selection).

Humans are natural and do select.

I don't know why Creationists think this emotional and false slander helps them other than rhetorically.

Perhaps you don't know the difference between emotional and factual. You can't make a rational case so you vilify. Empty accusations not subs for rational cases. False slander (?) presupposes true slander. What's the difference? It is a fact the goal of the Nazis was to wipe out the Jews in Europe in part because they were considered subhuman, corruptors of the gene pool etc.

A misapplication of evolutionary concepts

Not misapplied.

does not, in any way, invalidate that fact that evolution happened

Well they certainly did try to wipe out the Jews in Europe. (Extinction) Did they succeed in Germany? Poland?

or the theory of evolution which explains how it happened.

More empty accusations. They applied Darwinism according to his own clear writings. If you are saying the Nazi's misapplied then make your case because as it is the Nazi's clearly and rationally applied Darwinism according to his clear dictates.

 

[Ophiolite]

He wrote about extinction. The context of my 621 was about forced sterilization of non-Euro women here prior to WW2 by progressives. Certainly, the latter can bring about the former. If they cannot have babies they go extinct. They had a two-fold goal, increase birth rates by Euros and decrease non-Euro births. It was the science/medical establishment and their ideas were from Darwin. They were progressives. Garbage. Humans are natural and do select.
Perhaps you don't know the difference between emotional and factual. You can't make a rational case so you vilify. Empty accusations not subs for rational cases. False slander (?) presupposes true slander. What's the difference? It is a fact the goal of the Nazis was to wipe out the Jews in Europe in part because they were considered subhuman, corruptors of the gene pool etc. Not misapplied. Well they certainly did try to wipe out the Jews in Europe. (Extinction) Did they succeed in Germany? Poland? More empty accusations. They applied Darwinism according to his own clear writings. If you are saying the Nazi's misapplied then make your case because as it is the Nazi's clearly and rationally applied Darwinism according to his clear dictates.

Really you should be directing your ire towards the Reverent Robert Malthus who provided the key element for Darwin's theory. That's the Reverend Robert Malthus, Christian minister who arguably, more than any other, created the mind set among the governing elite that was responsible for the deaths of one million Irish in the Great Famine. And that was a full decade before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. So climb off your agenda driven, high horse and stop twisting facts to suit your delusions.