What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[Speedwell]

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.

Mocking creationism is mocking creationism, period. Belief in God (and in our salvation through the death and resurrection of His son, our Lord) does not require belief in creationism.

 

[Ronald]

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.

In your case, but I wasn't speaking to a Christian. I was speaking to an Agnostic, one who has come to a conclusion in their own mind that God is not knowable. Agnostics are just atheists who don't want to admit they are for whatever reason. They want to take a less provocative and extreme position, to appear on the fence, balanced but in between somewhere - which is nowhere. The mocking of Creationism is in fact mocking God. If He did not create us, then something else took place -- ah, evolution. The TOE is fundamentally at it's origin an alternative view of how life came to be -- absent God.
Now I do realize that almost half the population of Christians out there are "Theistic Evolutionists", who have been corrupted by this theory and therefore must distort the literal interpretation of Genesis, a foundational belief and therein effecting their views about other doctrines in the rest of the Bible as well. "If Genesis is not to be taken literally, then most likely many other things in the Bible shouldn't be as well." This kind of thinking leads to questioning the entire Bible, picking and choosing what sounds scientifically plausible and what doesn't: "Did Jesus really perform those miracles?" ... "Did he really rise from the dead?" ... "Is there really only one way to salvation?" ... "Will there really be a Judgment Day" and so on and so forth.

 

[Speedwell]

In your case, but I wasn't speaking to a Christian. I was speaking to an Agnostic, one who has come to a conclusion in their own mind that God is not knowable. Agnostics are just atheists who don't want to admit they are for whatever reason. They want to take a less provocative and extreme position, to appear on the fence, balanced but in between somewhere - which is nowhere. The mocking of Creationism is in fact mocking God. If He did not create us, then something else took place -- ah, evolution. The TOE is fundamentally at it's origin an alternative view of how life came to be -- absent God.
Now I do realize that almost half the population of Christians out there are "Theistic Evolutionists", who have been corrupted by this theory and therefore must distort the literal interpretation of Genesis, a foundational belief and therein effecting their views about other doctrines in the rest of the Bible as well. "If Genesis is not to be taken literally, then most likely many other things in the Bible shouldn't be as well." This kind of thinking leads to questioning the entire Bible, picking and choosing what sounds scientifically plausible and what doesn't: "Did Jesus really perform those miracles?" ... "Did he really rise from the dead?" ... "Is there really only one way to salvation?" ... "Will there really be a Judgment Day" and so on and so forth.

You would be much better off if you found out what other people believed rather than just making it up. Clearly you have no idea what agnostics actually think and your characterization of "theistic evolutionists" is offensive as well as inaccurate.
Keep in mind that you don't own Christianity--your version of it is not necessarily better or truer than anyone else's, nor does it give you the right to dictate to others what they must believe.

 

[Ronald]

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.

I don't believe in Hell-fire evangelism, I just really don't think there is much time to do anything else but warn you. You have evidently been a member (Well -Known) on this forum and others have obviously tried to witness to you to no effect. We are told to spread the gospel BUT if they don't listen, "to shake the dirt off your sandals and move on!" There are evangelists and that is a gift that I DO NOT HAVE. Mine is in exhortation and prophecy. I was always drawn to what will happen in the future and therefore the End-Times has been a focus of mine for over twenty years. I have written a book about basic Christianity that also addresses the concept of Hell and the End Times. Do you see my avatar? It is the cover or my book, Hell ... If I Know -- with a worldly city being hit by asteroids, nukes and a super volcanic eruption in the front. It's literally hell on earth and it's coming to a neighborhood near you. It won't be in the movies this time.
You asked for the end goal for Creationists? The end goal for everyone in life is reconciliation with God through Jesus. The beginning of the story is in Genesis and the end is in Revelation - which is about to take place. We have already experienced the beginning of sorrows, the birth pangs. The Great Tribulation/Judgment Day has a purpose and that is to put an end to sin so that we can all get along. A Millennial Kingdom will arrive after the cleansing. Don't we all want to have peace and live in harmony? It is a fundamental yearning of everyone and God put's this desire in us because it is something to hope for. We cannot live in a sinful world for eons without end, He did not intend for us to suffer and struggle and war with each other forever. His plan is perfect and you are either with Him or without Him and that is your choice.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

I understand that you have a strong personal belief in a particular God and that this belief is not only important to you, but perhaps pre-imminent in your thinking.

Understand that I, and others, also have strong personal beliefs that inform our behaviour in and attitude to this world. If you have arrived at your personal beliefs in the same way as most Christians it is primarily through faith in scripture and perhaps personal revelation. I have arrived at my beliefs through careful objective scrutiny of evidence using scientific methodology.

I'm not going to debate which of these is the superior method for deciding the truth. That would be fruitless. When I was a Christian I had no difficulty melding the two methods. Science provided insights into how God had created the universe. Since I did not think God was a deceiver I valued the details of that creation, expressed over billions of years, that science revealed.

I still respect those who blend faith and science. However, I do not find it easy to respect those who close their eyes to evidence, who trot out tired arguments , misinterpret and mislead, and make false accusations. That, unfortunately, is the approach used by many promoting Young Earth Creationism. Setting aside the subject, would you not be inclined to mock an idea whose proponents used these disreputable techniques? If not, why not?

 

[pitabread]

In your case, but I wasn't speaking to a Christian. I was speaking to an Agnostic, one who has come to a conclusion in their own mind that God is not knowable.

Sort of. My own philosophy is that if there is a supernatural deity or divine being of some kind, it's not likely represented by any human religions.

My own study in religion and its history has lead me to the conclusion that religions are cultural creations.

They want to take a less provocative and extreme position, to appear on the fence, balanced but in between somewhere - which is nowhere.

My own views have nothing to do with outside appearances. It's simply that I believe my own opinion of the supernatural has no bearing on the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Ronald]

You would be much better off if you found out what other people believed rather than just making it up. Clearly you have no idea what agnostics actually think and your characterization of "theistic evolutionists" is offensive as well as inaccurate.
Keep in mind that you don't own Christianity--your version of it is not necessarily better or truer than anyone else's, nor does it give you the right to dictate to others what they must believe.

"Agnostic :a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." Webster's dictionary
I think Webster had an idea of what an Agnostic thinks. He probably did a little more research than I.

 

[Speedwell]

"Agnostic :a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." Webster's dictionary
I think Webster had an idea of what an Agnostic thinks. He probably did a little more research than I.

What you said was,

"They want to take a less provocative and extreme position, to appear on the fence, balanced but in between somewhere - which is nowhere. "

Is that in Webster's too? That agnostiocs take the position they do because of the appearance they want to give to others?

 

[Larniavc]

I don't believe in Hell-fire evangelism, I just really don't think there is much time to do anything else but warn you. You have evidently been a member (Well -Known) on this forum and others have obviously tried to witness to you to no effect. We are told to spread the gospel BUT if they don't listen, "to shake the dirt off your sandals and move on!" There are evangelists and that is a gift that I DO NOT HAVE. Mine is in exhortation and prophecy. I was always drawn to what will happen in the future and therefore the End-Times has been a focus of mine for over twenty years. I have written a book about basic Christianity that also addresses the concept of Hell and the End Times. Do you see my avatar? It is the cover or my book, Hell ... If I Know -- with a worldly city being hit by asteroids, nukes and a super volcanic eruption in the front. It's literally hell on earth and it's coming to a neighborhood near you. It won't be in the movies this time.
You asked for the end goal for Creationists? The end goal for everyone in life is reconciliation with God through Jesus. The beginning of the story is in Genesis and the end is in Revelation - which is about to take place. We have already experienced the beginning of sorrows, the birth pangs. The Great Tribulation/Judgment Day has a purpose and that is to put an end to sin so that we can all get along. A Millennial Kingdom will arrive after the cleansing. Don't we all want to have peace and live in harmony? It is a fundamental yearning of everyone and God put's this desire in us because it is something to hope for. We cannot live in a sinful world for eons without end, He did not intend for us to suffer and struggle and war with each other forever. His plan is perfect and you are either with Him or without Him and that is your choice.

Is that what you really believe?

It all seems a bit bleak.

 

[Ronald]

I understand that you have a strong personal belief in a particular God and that this belief is not only important to you, but perhaps pre-imminent in your thinking.

Understand that I, and others, also have strong personal beliefs that inform our behaviour in and attitude to this world. If you have arrived at your personal beliefs in the same way as most Christians it is primarily through faith in scripture and perhaps personal revelation. I have arrived at my beliefs through careful objective scrutiny of evidence using scientific methodology.

I'm not going to debate which of these is the superior method for deciding the truth. That would be fruitless. When I was a Christian I had no difficulty melding the two methods. Science provided insights into how God had created the universe. Since I did not think God was a deceiver I valued the details of that creation, expressed over billions of years, that science revealed.

I still respect those who blend faith and science. However, I do not find it easy to respect those who close their eyes to evidence, who trot out tired arguments , misinterpret and mislead, and make false accusations. That, unfortunately, is the approach used by many promoting Young Earth Creationism. Setting aside the subject, would you not be inclined to mock an idea whose proponents used these disreputable techniques? If not, why not?

Disreputable techniques? I believe the TOE to be a fraudulent view of reality, no need to mock it. It is not empirical science based on all the information needed, such as the original conditions, elements, etc., they are guessed at, assumed. They illustrate a fictitious progression of animals turning into man as if there was any fossil evidence or transitional forms. Anyways, it's useless as you say to argue this -- you have already made up your mind. Let's just wait and see how evolution survives -- just a couple more years, maybe not even that.

 

[Larniavc]

It is not empirical science based on all the information needed, such as the original conditions, elements, etc.,

I think you may be conflating ToE with abiogenesis.

 

[dmmesdale]

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.

It is violation of a court ruling. Schools are mostly funded thru state and property taxes. (95% in mine)That is local. Classroom time spent on your nonsense fake history in minimal and boring. Nobody cares because it is useless.

 

[Ophiolite]

"If Genesis is not to be taken literally, then most likely many other things in the Bible shouldn't be as well." This kind of thinking leads to questioning the entire Bible, picking and choosing what sounds scientifically plausible and what doesn't: "Did Jesus really perform those miracles?" ... "Did he really rise from the dead?" ... "Is there really only one way to salvation?" ... "Will there really be a Judgment Day" and so on and so forth.

I get it. I understand our different worldviews. You think asking difficult questions is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is violation of a court ruling. Schools are mostly funded thru state and property taxes. (95% in mine)That is local. Classroom time spent on your nonsense fake history in minimal and boring. Nobody cares because it is useless.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[dmmesdale]

I think you may be conflating ToE with abiogenesis.

It is all the same myth.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is all the same myth.

You mean like Christianity and Hinduism?

 

[driewerf]

Creationists want to do something.

Selectively force their religion through everybody's throat with the use of taxpayers.

Non-creatonists want to stop it.

And respect the First Amendement in the process.

Who is bothering who?

Obviously the creationists.

 

[dmmesdale]

Selectively force their religion through everybody's throat with the use of taxpayers.

You folks are no different than Hillary. Blame us for what you guys do. Hey you got perhaps 6 hrs of classroom time in two grades. Textbooks nobody reads and if they do it is superficial. Congratulations.

They do not care about evolution. What they do care about is kids entering college with a 6th grade reading level. Evolution is not even on their radar.

https://www.jamievollmer.com/pdf/the-list.pdf

 

[xianghua]

It's impossible to provide data for a supernatural force.
If you could provide data to support your position,
then it would be of natural origin.

no problem. and again: we can prove that nature were designed:
the self replicating watch argument

 

[xianghua]

--