What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[pitabread]

i dont think so, as you can check in my signature link.

The entirety of your arguments depend on false equivalence of manufactured objects and living organisms (i.e. a blatant logical fallacy). Perhaps it's time you thought of a new argument.

 

[USincognito]

My only goal is for evolutionists to admit it is called the Theory of Evolution because it is still that a theory. It is far from proven and a lot of the so called evidence is making something scientists see fit what the scientists want it to fit.

Aaaarrrggghhh!!!

If you watch any debates on evolution and creationism 99% of the time you will see the creationist wanting to debate the subject and look at the fact and the evolutionist wanting to shout at and be abusive to the creationist without discussing the facts.

Oh my. That is some selective viewing you must have engaged in. I can point out to you a Kent Hovind group on Facebook where 97% of the Creationist content is insults, demeaning straw men and insipid, mocking memes.

 

[USincognito]

Right, you guys know better than Jesus, is that it?

Cool straw man bro.

 

[USincognito]

Why is it a problem? Isn't that was real science should be about? It shouldn't be a monopoly on what it thinks is the truth. If there are different views out there, they should be represented and revealed.

Are we to take this to mean you'd be open to Holocaust or Moon landing denial in the classroom? What about astrology and and alchemy?

I don't see creationism as anti-science. Believe it or not (which you obviously don't), there are plenty of PhD scientists, in biological studies and the like, who are creationists. Many work at the creation museum. There are different organizations all around the world with REAL scientists working with them.

I don't know how deeply you delve into the output of Creationist organizations, but a lot of it tends to be this:
- read scientific paper
- try to spin it in favor of Creationism
- wash, rinse repeat

And when they try and do actual science, like Jeffrey Tomkins, they wind up making fools of themselves like using a buggy version of a genome browser and being the only geneticist in the world to get the results he did.

 

[USincognito]

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.

No, that's not at all how they "start out". They start out with an observation then work up a hypothesis.

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.

You're misusing theory (or don't understand what it means in a scientific context) and you're really stretching the definition of faith to it's limits.

 

[pitabread]

I can point out to you a Kent Hovind group on Facebook where 97% of the Creationist content is insults, demeaning straw men and insipid, mocking memes.

Kent Hovind still has followers? Yikes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kent Hovind still has followers? Yikes.

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

 

[USincognito]

Kent Hovind still has followers? Yikes.

Perhaps not as numerous, but as rabid as ever.

 

[driewerf]

Don't bother us.
That is it.

Which needs to be translated as
"We want the freedom to preach, but deny you the freedom of speech".

 

[driewerf]

Quoted in it's totallity for context:

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.

now answering bit by bit

It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion. That should be accepted in the scientific community.

Sure. But when that happens the scientific community will look for differences between competing theories and try to sort them about. When Einstein came with the Theory of Relativity, challenging Newton, the physicists started to look for differences between these two theories (the bending of star light near the sun, time dilatation etc). Until only one theory remained in agreement with the empirical data.

Most of the science done in world history has been done with a Creator God in mind.

And much of the science has been done with a geocentric world in mind. This means nothing.

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.

Wrong. the difference between science and pseudoscience is that the scientific community accepts the outcome of empirical data. When the data contradicts a theory the theory is either adapted or discarded. Pseudo scientists like creationists will ignore or deny data that doesn't fit their preconceived idea.

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.

Exactly. And again this differentiates scientists from creationists, or other pseudo scientists. The fact of testing hypotheses and the acceptance of what empirical data tells.

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.

• We COULD'VE very well have been created by a God -- Except that there is no shred of evidence for the existence of any god, let alone for a goddidit
  
• We could've been seeded by aliens -- Except that there is no shred of evidence for the existence of these aliens let alone for an aliensdidit
  
• Maybe we did evolve from single celled organisms -- For which we have empirical evidence!

The Boraas experiment and the experiment by Ratcliff et al
Experimental evolution of multicellularity
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

We have other pieces of evidence like the total absence of multicellular life in very ancient rocks, or the central role played by RNA in protein synthesis, as predicted by Leslie Orgel 20 years before it's observation!

So no, accepting that multi cellular life evolved from single cells is not a matter of faith and is not as far fetched as goddidit or aliensdidit. It's a matter of empirical evidence.
And that's what differentiates science from pseudo science.

 

[juvenissun]

Now if the arrangement could be mutual, I think we all would agree to it.

Creationists want to do something. Non-creatonists want to stop it.
Who is bothering who?

 

[juvenissun]

Which needs to be translated as
"We want the freedom to preach, but deny you the freedom of speech".

You deny creationist. Not the vice versa.

 

[juvenissun]

Generally the backlash comes as a result of creationists trying to influence the education system.

If it wasn't for the fight over education, I don't think nearly as many people would care what creationists do.

Let students learn both. Stop interfering. I say mine, you say yours.

 

[Ronald]

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?

Since Darwin, only about 10% of the world population are atheists. Even after TOE is forced down our children's throats in schools and practically all universities have turned away from their origins as Christian based, ya'll still have your measly 10% of ungodly people. Faith in God is strong and you are the minority.
Everything that is good comes from God. Good and Evil have about reached their precipice and will soon be separated during a time called the Great Tribulation Period/Judgment Day. All those who have rejected God/Jesus will be destroyed. Sorry I must be blunt. The wages of sin is death and this is not just physical death, it is spiritual death. You will not be aware of this until the moment of your death -- unless you are saved by grace through faith in Jesus. This faith is a gift, but you must receive it in humility, like a child. Your arrogance and pride will keep you away from God.
This may be your final warning!

 

[pitabread]

This may be your final warning!

You're adorable.

 

[Speedwell]

Creationists want to do something. Non-creatonists want to stop it.
Who is bothering who?

Yes, creationists want to impose creationism (and the associated fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study) on all public school children, regardless of their faith. Who is bothering who?

 

[Speedwell]

Since Darwin, only about 10% of the world population are atheists. Even after TOE is forced down our children's throats in schools and practically all universities have turned away from their origins as Christian based, ya'll still have your measly 10% of ungodly people. Faith in God is strong and you are the minority.

That's because the theory of evolution makes no statement about the existence of God, one way or the other. It is not necessary to be an atheist to accept evolution as a reasonable scientific theory.

 

[Ronald]

You're adorable.

I may be, but death isn't. That fact that you can be callous about God and death and laugh about it is a sign of someone who maybe God has let go to his own demise. Mocking creationism is mocking God or His existence and that is a dangerous position to take.

 

[pitabread]

Let students learn both. Stop interfering. I say mine, you say yours.

In the USA at least, teaching creationism in publically funded schools is a violation of constitutional law. So no dice.

If you want to teach it, that's what churches are for.

 

[pitabread]

That fact that you can be callous about God and death and laugh about it is a sign of someone who maybe God has let go to his own demise.

If that truly is the case, then I would want no part in 'worshiping' such a being in the first place.

At any rate, I find fear-based evangelism to be rather disgusting. You're basically trying to coerce people into believing. If you believe that's an effective way of getting believers, have it at it. I'm not interested.