What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[Steve Petersen]

So you are basing your argument on one variable out of many that effects only a minority of the global population and consider only a few centuries of history. I don't believe that merits being taken seriously.
Please note - the assertion may be correct. I would be interested to know either way, but these data do little to clarify the matter.

In the aggregate, global lifespan and caloric intake have been increasing for a while.

Life Expectancy

Food per Person

Global Rise of Education

Global annual population growth rate (in %) has been declining since the early '60's: World Population Growth

 

[Ophiolite]

In the aggregate, global lifespan and caloric intake have been increasing for a while.

Life Expectancy

Food per Person

Good . Adding more variables. Thank you.

 

[bhsmte]

This is not about you or your unsoliciated psych assessments which are really personal attacks.

And yet, the behaviors are still there for all to see and or deny.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Good . Adding more variables. Thank you.

If you want to do some checking of your own, this is an interesting site:

Gapminder Tools

 

[AV1611VET]

... various creation stories are mentioned.

Education at its best.

 

[dmmesdale]

Do I know better than a noteworthy preacher from 2,000 years ago,

Right Jesus. Do you know better than Jesus?

who may be a composite of multiple characters

And monkeys may fly out of your behind.

and whose secular knowledge was immensely limited in comparison with today's,

Jesus was 2000 years closer to the events in question and was quoting reliable sources predating (1500 years?) his existence on Earth. But you know better than all that. Yeah sure.

then in regard to the matter of the age of the Earth . . yes.

So you assert you do know more than Jesus yet you do not know if Jesus was a composite or based on a single historical figure?

In regard to my moral compass,

Not the subject.

since much of its nature was acquired through his teachings . . . not especially.

Don't know what you mean here but it is not that important nor is it relevant.

 

[Ophiolite]

Right Jesus. Do you know better than Jesus?

I've already answered that.

And monkeys may fly out of your behind.

Please don't be vulgar.

Jesus was 2000 years closer to the events in question and was quoting reliable sources predating (1500 years?) his existence on Earth.

2,000 years in a time span of more than 4,500,000,000 is incidental. And I do not acknowledge any passage in the NT where Jesus asserts, or supports the literal interpretation of Genesis. So, thinking on it, your original question was a strawman.

But you know better than all that. Yeah sure.

If the historical Jesus actually insisted upon a 4,000 +/- year old Earth then, yes , I do know better. However, as I have just noted. I don't accept that he did so.

So you assert you do know more than Jesus yet you do not know if Jesus was a composite or based on a single historical figure?

I am comfortable that I know more than any person, group, entity, or other personage (single or multiple) that asserts the Earth is young.

Now, none of this relates to the OP, so if you wish to continue a specific discussion of these points either open a new thread, or send me a pm. Further posts from you in relation to these points in this thread will be ignored.

 

[Larniavc]

LOL

The "problem" used to be teaching it in science class.

Now it's teaching it 'outside of a theology class.'

Faux pas?

My mistake. I did not mean to imply any further than the science class: Creationism in a Home Ec class is perfectly acceptable

 

[AV1611VET]

My mistake. I did not mean to imply any further than the science class: Creationism in a Home Ec class is perfectly acceptable

Let's make a cake!

 

[Saucy]

Which is part of AiG who specifically state that their faith comes before any physical evidence.

Do you understand the implications of this? This means that they do not follow the body of evidence: they only follow the evidence that supports what they already believe.

They are free to do so but that ain’t science and does not belong in a science class.

It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion. That should be accepted in the scientific community. It's not less scientific because it involves the belief of a God. Most of the science done in world history has been done with a Creator God in mind.

The difference is, it's "real" science if it fits your bias, but pseudo-science if it doesn't. And please don't try to convince me that there's no bias within scientific circles. They also start out with a hypothesis or an idea they believe is true and do the experiments to conclude whether they were right or not.

There are a lot of options and theories that exist. We COULD'VE very well have been created by a God. We could've been seeded by aliens. Maybe we did evolve from single celled organisms. If you ask me, they are all just as far-fetched as the next one, but it's a matter of faith. You put your faith into science and scientists, which is your right.

 

[Speedwell]

It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion. That should be accepted in the scientific community. It's not less scientific because it involves the belief of a God. Most of the science done in world history has been done with a Creator God in mind.

And much of it still is, when you consider the number of scientists who are believers and how little science has to say about the existence of God one way or the other..

This thread is not about the existence of God.

 

[Larniavc]

For example they assert Dino extinction was caused by a meteor or a series absent any supporting evidence.

Did you mean to say that? Are you unaware of the Chicxulub crater?

 

[dmmesdale]

I've already answered that.
Please don't be vulgar.

May this and may that does not mean anything. It is an insinuation. That is why I responded with the monkey quote. You do not present any evidential basis for your insinuations. How bout this, you may kill your wife.

2,000 years in a time span of more than 4,500,000,000 is incidental.

Garbage. If that is true then all of recorded history is incidental since it is all recent relative to 4.5 bil years. Is that your reasoning? Lets be consistent with your thinking and trash all of human history. But you are not consistent but selective and therefore anti-academic.

And I do not acknowledge any passage in the NT where Jesus asserts, or supports the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Yeah that is called cherry picking and ignoring based not on a detached view of all the available. Was it history to them? You got your mind made up before the fact and facts exist to be ignored or dismissed if they do not jibe with your front loaded preferences. Do you have ancient precedent? No.

So, thinking on it, your original question was a strawman.
If the historical Jesus actually insisted upon a 4,000 +/- year old Earth then, yes , I do know better.

Where explicitly did Jesus insist 4,000 years? Why are you inventing these bogus claims? Do you think you can get away with it?

However, as I have just noted. I don't accept that he did so.

That Jesus did what? It was you who bought up 4,000 years, not anyone else. He referenced Adam and Eve, Moses and Noah. Treated these as historical.

I am comfortable that I know more than any person, group, entity, or other personage (single or multiple) that asserts the Earth is young.

Right you are comfortable submitting Jesus, as depicted in Scripture, was wrong and you are right. That you have a common ancestor with a banana and humans are nothing more than big-brained apes. 98% similar (?) even though brain and skull size contains far more than a 2% difference.

Now, none of this relates to the OP,

Actually it does since it is about creationism and Jesus was a Creationist.

so if you wish to continue a specific discussion of these points either open a new thread, or send me a pm. Further posts from you in relation to these points in this thread will be ignored.

What choice do you have?

 

[Larniavc]

It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion.

That is true. But that is not what AiG is doing.

What they are doing is say “if the scientific method yields results incompatible with our beliefs we stop using the scientific method”.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Education at its best.

No playing favorites AV

 

[pitabread]

That is true. But that is not what AiG is doing.

What they are doing is say “if the scientific method yields results incompatible with our beliefs we stop using the scientific method”.

Exactly. Both the ICR and AIG have faith statements where they categorically state they reject anything and everything that doesn't fit their preformed beliefs.

That's not science. It's religion.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually it does since it is about creationism and Jesus was a Creationist.

Jesus was a conservative Evangelical Protestant? Who knew?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right Jesus. Do you know better than Jesus?

If he was incorrect about being a deity, then probably.

And monkeys may fly out of your behind.

Would have to be pretty small to fit in there to begin with

Jesus was 2000 years closer to the events in question and was quoting reliable sources predating (1500 years?) his existence on Earth.

I don't consider the bible to be a reliable source. Also, what would he need to quote the Old Testament for? He's supposed to have been there himself, right?

But you know better than all that. Yeah sure.

The claim that Jesus was the son of a god and did have access to reliable information on the history of this planet needs to be substantiated before I consider Jesus to be a reliable source himself.

 

[dmmesdale]

Would have to be pretty small to fit in there to begin with

Can appreciate your sense of humor.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can appreciate your sense of humor.

I certainly am glad I've retained a sense of humor, though this one is a bit harsh for my taste:

May this and may that does not mean anything. It is an insinuation. That is why I responded with the monkey quote. You do not present any evidential basis for your insinuations. How bout this, you may kill your wife.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some dark jokes, this just sounds more like a cruel suggestion, though. But here are some nice, somewhat offensive jokes you might enjoy:

1. If I was a serial killer, I would call myself "The Suspense" so my victims would say "The Suspense is killing me!" And we would both laugh before I killed them.

2. I saw 3 guys beating up a kid, so I went over to help. He had no chance against all 4 of us.

3. Don't make jokes about paraplegics. They can't stand it.

Not my original jokes here, just some renditions of ones I found and edited to make sure they were appropriate enough for this site (in the case of the second one).