What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[Ophiolite]

So, grown up. Leave Creationists alone.

Why do some evolutionists hassle Creationists? (I am talking specifically about Young Earth Creationists and not the group sometimes called theistic evolutionists.) If you have any prejudices I ask you to set them aside for a few minutes and read my understanding of why this is so, then consider it dispassionately.

The two worldviews, Evolutionism and Creationism, are - in their purest form - like two immiscible liquids, or, as we have seen in some exchanges on the forum, gunpowder and a lit match. Can the two operate peacefully side by side, with minimum interaction? Yes, they can.

All that is required is acceptance that the two viewpoints are based upon different epistemologies, alternative ways of seeking "truth". Evolutionists need only accept that Creationists base their beliefs upon scriptural inerrancy, a literal translation and a deep seated faith. In that worldview any conflict between the Word as revealed in the Bible and the findings of science must be found in favour of the Bible.

Creationists need only accept that Evolutionists seek an understanding of "appearances"; how does the world "appear" to function; how did the diversity of life "appear" to arise. They need not trouble themselves with the fact that most Evolutionists believe these "appearances" reveal "truth" or something close to it. Nor should they challenge the understanding of "appearances" by inappropriate application of science.

Unfortunately, this potential for an outbreak of peace between the two camps has been disrupted by attempts in the US to breach the gap between secular and sectarian by insisting Creationism be given equal billing in science education. This is perceived as a real danger by Evolutionists. Among the concerns:

• It challenges separation of state and religion
• It requires the teaching of a hypothesis based not on evidence, but faith
• It undermines the methodologies of science
• It ignores the many alternative creation stories

This is why Evolutionist will not leave Creationists alone. If it Evolutionists demanded equal time in the pulpit to promote evolution, the Creationists would have a justifiable objection. But such is not the case. Creationists are asking for something that is neither necessary for their faith and have attempted to do it, in some well-documented instances, by underhand means.

If Creatonists will adopt the simple positions of acceptance out lined above, we Evolutionists can even promise to find Richard Dawkins a nice retirement home somewher.e

 

[pitabread]

Nobody cares because it is useless.

We've already had discussions about applied evolution, and I've provided you direct examples. Looks like you've already forgotten and appear stuck in the same cycle of denial as your fellow creationists.

Oh well.

 

[pitabread]

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

Your argument is based on a fallacy and consequently doesn't prove anything. And repeating a fallacious argument over and over doesn't make it valid.

 

[dmmesdale]

All that is required is acceptance that the two viewpoints are based upon different epistemologies, alternative ways of seeking "truth". Evolutionists need only accept that Creationists base their beliefs upon scriptural inerrancy,

Wrong. More correctly, the plain teachings of Jesus along with Paul contradicts evolution. They are two incompatible models for the history of life here. It has little to do with scriptural inerrancy.

a literal translation and a deep seated faith.

You are out of your element relating to scripture translation, again making ignorant schoolboy errors. Also, double standards about faith since your side demonstrates faith positions. Esp as it relates to common ancestor between modern apes and man when you cannot identify the alleged nonhuman creature. We would say assuming all life here is from exclusive nonlife is blind faith absent precedent and counter to all we know about life and therefore unscientific.

In that worldview any conflict between the Word as revealed in the Bible and the findings of science must be found in favour of the Bible.

Science makes no findings, scientists do and a lot is based on bias, groupthink, etc. They have outside pressures.

Creationists need only accept that Evolutionists seek an understanding of "appearances"; how does the world "appear" to function; how did the diversity of life "appear" to arise.

You have, for example, zero empirical evidence all sexual reproducing creatures originated from asexual reproducing life forms. All you have is a story, and that is not science.

Unfortunately, this potential for an outbreak of peace between the two camps has been disrupted by attempts in the US to breach the gap between secular and sectarian by insisting Creationism be given equal billing in science education.

The opinion of scientists is not science education in the first place if they cannot back up their claims with actual evidence or precedent.

This is perceived as a real danger by Evolutionists. Among the concerns:

• It challenges separation of state and religion
• It requires the teaching of a hypothesis based not on evidence, but faith

• We have multiple sources written evidence for our beliefs so you are not being truthful. Also, yours requires faith so it is not one or the other.

This is why Evolutionist will not leave Creationists alone.

If you want the truth then go to the pulpit but as it is you all embrace fictions and try to impose because you are God haters of some sort. You just can't deal with the fact we have to give account of life lived to our Creator. We have responsibilities to God and our fellow man and will be held accountable. These universal obligations transcend time and space and apply to all persons everywhere. Yours assumes governments mean the rule of men over men by the use of alleged legit force which is a paradigm fit for slaves, not free men endowed with universal rights from God.

If it Evolutionists demanded equal time in the pulpit to promote evolution, the Creationists would have a justifiable objection. But such is not the case. Creationists are asking for something that is neither necessary for their faith and have attempted to do it, in some well-documented instances, by underhand means.

.

 

[Speedwell]

If you want the truth then go to the pulpit but as it is you all embrace fictions and try to impose because you are God haters of some sort. You just can't deal with the fact we have to give account of life lived to our Creator.

.

Except that many of us love God and look forward to our salvation through the death and resurrection of His Son.

But the OP was asked about what you are going to do. You are promoting the religious doctrine of a slowly declining Protestant minority. What does the future of that look like to you?

 

[Ophiolite]

Wrong. More correctly, the plain teachings of Jesus along with Paul contradicts evolution. They are two incompatible models for the history of life here. It has little to do with scriptural inerrancy. You are out of your element relating to scripture translation, again making ignorant schoolboy errors. Also, double standards about faith since your side demonstrates faith positions. Esp as it relates to common ancestor between modern apes and man when you cannot identify the alleged nonhuman creature. We would say assuming all life here is from exclusive nonlife is blind faith absent precedent and counter to all we know about life and therefore unscientific.
Science makes no findings, scientists do and a lot is based on bias, groupthink, etc. They have outside pressures.
You have, for example, zero empirical evidence all sexual reproducing creatures originated from asexual reproducing life forms. All you have is a story, and that is not science.
The opinion of scientists is not science education in the first place if they cannot back up their claims with actual evidence or precedent.

• We have multiple sources written evidence for our beliefs so you are not being truthful. Also, yours requires faith so it is not one or the other.

If you want the truth then go to the pulpit but as it is you all embrace fictions and try to impose because you are God haters of some sort. You just can't deal with the fact we have to give account of life lived to our Creator. We have responsibilities to God and our fellow man and will be held accountable. These universal obligations transcend time and space and apply to all persons everywhere. Yours assumes governments mean the rule of men over men by the use of alleged legit force which is a paradigm fit for slaves, not free men endowed with universal rights from God.


.

Your ignorance in the matter of science is awesome in depth, breadth and inconsistency. The closed nature of your mind makes further discussion with you not only pointless, but injurous to sound mental health. Pray enjoy your delusions.

 

[dmmesdale]

Your ignorance in the matter of science is awesome in depth, breadth and inconsistency. The closed nature of your mind makes further discussion with you not only pointless, but injurous to sound mental health. Pray enjoy your delusions.

That is a personal attack and not an argument. Personal attacks are no sub for arguments nor are they scientific. Am not interested in your unsoliciated assessments.

 

[pitabread]

That is a personal attack and not an argument. Personal attacks are no sub for arguments nor are they scientific. Am not interested in your unsoliciated assessments.

They're not wrong though.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am talking specifically about Young Earth Creationists and not the group sometimes called theistic evolutionists.

I like Bishop Usshers book and I enjoy Francis Collins book. Of course we know which book is a classic. Still I see no conflict between YEC and Theistic Evolution. You have to look at three things: context, context & context.

1) Who the Bible was written for.
2) How do we apply the Bible to our lives today.

1 cor 10 "1 Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us,"

Romans 15:4 "For everything that was written in the past was written for our instruction,"

 

[Ronald]

Soon is a relative term. I'll be satisfied as long as I don't die first.

Your poem has some truth to it, we should practice what we preach. Your error: We can know God and He gave us His WORD. If you want to know God, just look at Jesus, the exact expression and glory in the full. We are not grasping at empty air, heaven is for real. Maybe you should watch that movie of that little boy who went there, Todd Burpo.
Life has no meaning or purpose if we just go through all these motions, learn all this stuff, grow in maturity and then just die and lose it all. Our purpose is to reconcile with God through Jesus and then the gift He gives is eternal life. You could die tomorrow - what would your life mean if that happened? You can say, we just live to contribute to our children and the next generation, which is admirable and true but they die too. The past generation did all that put this generation seem to not give a hoot about the past, the old ways. Decades go by and the younger generation doesn't even care about history or even the last decade, they are the progressives moving forward, discovering new ways they think are better. And so passing it on is also futile. Solomon said, Everything under the sun is vanity of vanities and chasing after the wind ... without God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you want to know God, just look at Jesus, the exact expression and glory in the full.

Jesus lived as an example for us to follow. He went about preaching, teaching and healing the sick. "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." John 14:12

 

[Ronald]

That may be so in America but over here in the UK it’s fine.

In fact for a lay person to talk at any length about one’s faith is considered bizarre behaviour in normal conversation.

Yes, Europe is losing their faith, becoming secular. For many hundreds of years you could not escape the strong influence of faith. If you removed Jesus from history in Europe or anywhere else, you wouldn't have much art or music. But the list is longer, if you removed Jesus from history, you would have barbarian hordes, governments at best like the Roman Empire where they would just go out and conquer and subdue their foes and take their spoils. Back further, you saw the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Medo-Persian empires -- that's what you would have. The USA would just be another empire ruled by a king. There would be no democracy - lol, no public opinion. No, you would do your job and shut up or else. You wouldn't even be able to protest your politically correct ideologies. Jesus has had a influence on the entire world like no other person and He has actually changed the world and restrained evil in many ways.
Your testament to your lack of appreciation of Jesus and His blessings that He has given you and Europe is a shame and quite ignorant. Your view is that civilization evolved into what it is today without God. That's is blind and foolish.

 

[Ronald]

Jesus lived as an example for us to follow. He went about preaching, teaching and healing the sick. "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." John 14:12

Well, that's one verse to describe what Jesus did and who He was.

 

[Larniavc]

Your testament to your lack of appreciation of Jesus and His blessings that He has given you and Europe is a shame and quite ignorant. Your view is that civilization evolved into what it is today without God. That's is blind and foolish.

You seem to be quite the expert on me. How do you square the notion that many more secular countries than the USA (the majority of western democracies) enjoy high standards of living?

Neither myself, my wife, or indeed any of my close friends are religious and we all seem to be doing very well. We all have degrees and good jobs and stable families.

Is that what you mean by ignorant, blind and foolish?

And I think you may need to research when and where democracy was developed: it’s not America.

 

[pshun2404]

You seem to be quite the expert on me. How do you square the notion that many more secular countries than the USA (the majority of western democracies) enjoy high standards of living?

Neither myself, my wife, or indeed any of my close friends are religious and we all seem to be doing very well. We all have degrees and good jobs and stable families.

Is that what you mean by ignorant, blind and foolish?

And I think you may need to research when and where democracy was developed: it’s not America.

While the majority in the most atheistic nations (Russia; the People's Republic of China; North Korea, and so on) enjoy one of the lowest standards of living (via the oxy-moronic enforced compliance method)....

 

[bhsmte]

While the majority in the most atheistic nations (Russia; the People's Republic of China; North Korea, and so on) enjoy one of the lowest standards of living (via the oxy-moronic enforced compliance method)....

Scandanavia and other european countries, have much lower beliefs in god than the US and many have; lower crime rates, better education, better healthcare and lower poverty levels. I wonder if Jesus would be for; lower crime rates, education, lower poverty and providing healthcare for all.

 

[Speedwell]

While the majority in the most atheistic nations (Russia; the People's Republic of China; North Korea, and so on) enjoy one of the lowest standards of living (via the oxy-moronic enforced compliance method)....

Atheism in Russia runs to about 12-14% of the population. About half of the Russian people are Christian.

 

[joshua 1 9]

the younger generation doesn't even care

 

[Ophiolite]

That is a personal attack and not an argument. Personal attacks are no sub for arguments nor are they scientific. Am not interested in your unsoliciated assessments.

Correct. You have demonstrated you are not interested in reasoned arguments or evidence. Why should I waste my time presenting them.

 

[Larniavc]

While the majority in the most atheistic nations (Russia; the People's Republic of China; North Korea, and so on) enjoy one of the lowest standards of living (via the oxy-moronic enforced compliance method)....

I think you may need to look at the statistics of relious affiliation in Russia and China.

They are far more relious than the UK.

Which contradicts your post.