What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[dmmesdale]

Now I understand.

Bet you hate paying taxes, right?

Hate paying taxes is nonrational.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Evidently, you are continuing to ignore the facts:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
ESTABLISHED BY
CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past | The Institute for Creation Research

Seriously? What's wrong with you?? I at NO STAGE said that theists were unable to engage in science and scientific endeavours, I said "CREATIONISM" is useless and in fact is an impediment to science and scientific endeavours...

Feel free to show me where creationism itself contributes useful science and we can discuss it.

 

[Larniavc]

I would like an explanation because every person who rapes believes he has the right.

What do you mean an explanation?

What kind of advert for Christianity are you if you need it to be explained to you why rape is wrong?

Is this conversation for real?

 

[SkyWriting]

Seriously? What's wrong with you?? I at NO STAGE said that theists were unable to engage in science and scientific endeavours, I said "CREATIONISM" is useless and in fact is an impediment to science and scientific endeavours...
Feel free to show me where creationism itself contributes useful science and we can discuss it.

Being that creationism is a train of thought, I've provided evidence
that supporters of Creationism have advanced science greatly.

Just stick to the facts, and you can relax.

 

[SkyWriting]

Universal human rights that apply to all persons everywhere. Human rights that transcend the king or ruling authorities. For example the universal human right of women not to be forced raped by men. It applies to all women everywhere. Because it applies to all women everywhere, it transcends the rule of men and is derived from God.

What scriptures mention rights or the concept of rights?

 

[SkyWriting]

I would like an explanation because every person who rapes believes he has the right.

I don't think that is correct. Evil-doers are testing their "god" to see what is permissible.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Being that creationism is a train of thought, I've provided evidence
that supporters of Creationism have advanced science greatly.

Just stick to the facts, and you can relax.

No problems sticking to the facts, thanks though @SkyWriting .

That humans are capable of compartmentalising is of no surprise to anyone. Now, back to continuing on with the facts, have you any examples of where Creationism has made meaningful contributions to Science (besides as a psychology subject regarding compartmentalisation, that is)

 

[SkyWriting]

No problems sticking to the facts, thanks though @SkyWriting .

That humans are capable of compartmentalising is of no surprise to anyone. Now, back to continuing on with the facts, have you any examples of where Creationism has made meaningful contributions to Science (besides as a psychology subject regarding compartmentalisation, that is)

Then you are guilty, becasue your claim was

"I said "CREATIONISM" is useless and in fact is an impediment to science and scientific endeavours"

and my facts show the opposite. There is no evidence of impediment.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Then you are guilty, becasue your claim was

and my facts show the opposite. There is no evidence of impediment.

what...? What 'facts' did you show?? Perhaps you can explain the tremendous dearth of Creationists in Science then? If it's of no impediment, how is it that they're so hugely under represented in the scientific community outright let alone in the biological, palaeontological, geological and archaeological sciences in particular?
How Many Creationists in Science? | NCSE

From the conclusion of The Inter-relationship of Science and Religion: A typology of engagement - University of Huddersfield Repository regarding students of varying (Christians and Muslim) backgrounds:

"All need sensitive handling, not just those who are vocal about the issues or who are assumed to have difficulties because their religious stance is known. The engagement typology has been developed from detailed evidence of students’ views and may help teachers contemplate the likely composition of their science class, and determining how to best tackle this and other potentially sensitive topics with them. The study indicates that many teachers underestimate the extent to which the topic of the origin of life is controversial and troubling to some students. As a result, there is a danger of inadequate supportive intervention."​

so, there's a directly identified impediment, especially those with a Creationists background regardless of religion...

From the Conclusion section of Educational Malpractice: The Impact of Including Creationism in High School Biology Courses :

"Our results indicate that the inclusion of creationism in high school biology classes significantly increases the probability that students accept creationism and reject evolution when they arrive at college."

"Although exposure to creationism in high school is not strongly correlated with a particular type of creationism in college (e.g., intelligent design, day-age, progressive creationism, etc.; see Moore 2008a), students’ misconceptions often remain “well ingrained even after a thorough coverage of the evidences supporting evolution” in college (see discussion in Johnson and Peeples 1987). In fact, our data suggest that the omission of evolution from high school biology courses may be preferable to a mixed approach that validates nonscientific explanations of diversity (Fig. 1).

We were disappointed to see that the introductory biology course did not significantly affect students’ response to the MATE questions. Similar responses have been reported by others (e.g., Martin-Hansen 2008; Robbins and Roy 2007). This shortcoming may have resulted from our instruction, students’ poor understanding of the nature of what science is and how it is done (college students’ acceptance of evolution is influenced by their understanding of the nature of science; see Johnson and Peeples 1987), or to the students having worldviews that conflict with science (Coburn 1991). Regardless, these results suggest that students’ high school experiences in biology have a greater impact on students’ acceptance of evolutionary theory than does a single college-level introductory biology course."​

Oh, Look, it's almost as if they have some sort of 'Impediment' to learning science or something...

This one's GREAT for demonstrating the actual impact of someone that had to learn the science behind Evolution.... a good read:
When My Science Teacher Taught Evolution, I Asked: “Were You There?”

....and There you have it.

<Mic Drop>

 

[dmmesdale]

What scriptures mention rights or the concept of rights?

It is all over the Old Testament including Exodus. Pharoah was not absolute ruler and violated the rights of the Israelites. Killed first born males etc. Was judged. David did not have the right to take Bathsheba the wife of Uriah (?) and have him set up to be killed. There is Amos 5:11 involving raising the rent on the poor as unjust. Lex Rex in 1604 was based on the Bible.
Lex, Rex | Samuel Rutherford
Perhaps the four key principles of the book are:

1) God gives no moral power to the King to commit immoral acts.
2) Kings can and must be justly held to their constitutional oaths, no less so than the people.
3) God stamps no person with the imprint of king, leaving such a designation to the people.
4) All kings owe their offices and powers to Christ.
5) Obedience to kings in unlawful acts is rebellion against Christ.

Kings rule by consent of the people.

 

[dmmesdale]

Are you honestly asking if it is not wrong to rape women?

Are you now, or have you ever been a monster?

I am asking for a rational answer which excludes appeals to outrage and personal attacks. Examples were provided and ignored where force rape was legal. You seem to think your moral judgements take effect backwards in time. For one they are anachronistic.

Your error is to assume a moral absolute with no objective basis to do so given your position of rights from men. Atheists cannot live in according with the consequences of their positions because it brings about contradiction and consequences which most of humanity rejects.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I am asking for a rational answer which excludes appeals to outrage and personal attacks. Examples were provided and ignored where force rape was legal. You seem to think your moral judgements take effect backwards in time. For one they are anachronistic.

Your error is to assume a moral absolute with no objective basis to do so given your position of rights from men. Atheists cannot live in according with the consequences of their positions because it brings about contradiction and consequences which most of humanity rejects.

There's no moral absolutes, I'd even challenge you on having morals that are absolute. I'm also interested to hear your reasons for why atheists position would bring about contradiction and consequences which most of humanity rejects too...

Do women have a universal right not to be force raped or do they not? I would like an answer and an explanation.
Do your judgements take effect backwards in time as it relates to slavery and rape? On what natural basis?

Let me wade in here (not that I'm answering for @Larnievc mind you...) - Every person has a right to their own body and what happens to it. This is subject to the capacity of that person to make informed (or capable) decisions to that end. So, pending some unforeseen extreme example you might come up with next, I certainly believe a woman does have a universal right not to be force raped - and for that matter, men also have that universal right, not sure if you intentionally made the distinction for women only... The guards in your Russian Gulag example you mentioned in the post I retrieved your quote from were wrong to do what they did.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To Psycho Sara,


An eight year old painted this from a vision she had when she was four. She started seeing visions of heaven and Jesus and both her parents were atheists! Akiane Kramirik

Nice painting. Make him a little more average looking and have a bit of a darker tone to his skin, and it'll be a good match for his description in the bible.

The media twists things about reality as we have all seen. It's interesting how the boys father was skeptical about his son's experience and he would ask many questions about things he never taught him about but the boy seemed to know theology way beyond any boy could have attained at his age. He was curious, since he saw Jesus, what he looked like, so his father would keep showing the boy images, paintings from all eras and centuries of Jesus and asked. "Does he look like this ... is this him?" Todd would look and shake his head no. This went on and dozens of rejections came up. He then came across this story of Akiane and her visions and saw her painting - which is something a prodigy could only paint at her age. He showed his son, "Is this him?" His son looked and said yes, that's him!"

How unfortunate that the painting isn't a perfect match for how Jesus is described in the bible, then. Also, that kid added some weird stuff, like Jesus wearing a rainbow robe.

Jesus died and came back and over 500 people witnessed his ascension as well.

Or just 2, depending on which biblical verse you think is right about it. Eye witness accounts are some of the worst evidence, and even the witnesses were skeptical, since Jesus apparently decided to come back looking different than he originally did.

Btw, you are misunderstanding me. Most of us are insignificant, unimportant ... maybe to our families for awhile and then maybe the wisdom or fond memories last and stories are told, bla, bla, bla. You are right, God doesn't need us, if we don't accomplish what He wants, he'll get someone who will. But it's interesting how His plan is perfect and is right on schedule. All who have been written in the Book of Life are accounted for ... a few more to go. It works out to about 1/3 of the population of the world. There are about that right now, 2.3 -2.4 billion Christians and so "the gospel of this kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." Matt. 24:14 And that is the final sign of the end of the age, the return of Christ, The Great Tribulation.

Nah, one of the qualifications for the Christian end times is that "no one will see it coming". That is, as long as there are people claiming that the end is near, that end ain't the one described in the bible.

Scholars have agreed we have accomplished this in the last few years, the gospel has been preached throughout the entire world.

This is actually incorrect; there are missionary sites that show zones in which there are people that have never been exposed to Christianity.

The common answer for purpose in life without God is contributing something to society and leaving something behind. I was refuting that idea and gave the reasons. My point was your gain in life and your loss, the importance to you. Don't you think it's a shame to lose all your life ... that it comes to an end, with nothing beyond?

Sure it's a shame, but my feelings about it have no influence on reality. If death is truly the end for all of us, it won't change just because I believe otherwise. I can't make myself believe something just because I view it as better; just because I want it to be true.

That's the futility of life without God. I'll take eternal life, thank you very much. Salvation is not to chance, since chance has no power, no influence, no message and is nothing. Salvation is a gift. He knocks on your door and if you open it, He comes in and sups with you. If you keep your door closed, that's not chance, that's your choice!

-_- but I am keeping the door open; it's never been shut, really, but these past 9 years I have been holding it as wide open as the door can go.

The meaningless deaths you presume may have some purpose you do not see or understand.

Or they have none, who knows? Neither of us, that's for sure.

The wages of sin is death and so it has it's consequences. But what if that person you think sacrificed his life for someone else and only to add to the list of dead actually went to a better place?

I was specifically thinking of the guy as an atheist such as myself, so no better place unless the afterlife doesn't depend on belief. The majority of people that die, heroically or otherwise, aren't Christian.

Wouldn't that be a reward. Actually soldiers would be fools to risk their lives especially for foreign people in Afghanistan or Iraq, if they didn't have faith in life after death.

-_- they'd be fools for risking their lives if they did believe in an afterlife, because what's the point in protecting this temporary world if there is an infinite one coming after it that's objectively better?

Their faith propels them and gives them courage. When you believe, you perceive death differently.

I absolutely agree, though based on how people treat death, not many Christians seem to believe strongly enough not to feel immense despair.

When someone close to you dies, you grieve differently, you aren't devastated because you know you will see them again.

Unless all your favorite people ain't Christian... or believe in the wrong religion. Whichever applies; I don't want belief simply for the good afterlife, you know. After all, I view even hell as better than nothing.

Don't you want to see your loved ones again ... and forever?

Even by your own beliefs, I won't get to see a lot of them. I'm a 4th or 5th generation atheist. To clarify something, though, I wasn't raised to be an atheist. I was simply not raised to be a believer; when asking about god and the like, my family members simply replied "we don't know if god exists or not", and my grandmother actually lied and said that god does exist, even though she doesn't actually believe.

Again, what I want is irrelevant to what I believe. I can't believe something just because I want it to be true, and I won't stop believing something just because I don't want it to be true.

 

[Speedwell]

Being that creationism is a train of thought, I've provided evidence
that supporters of Creationism have advanced science greatly.

Just stick to the facts, and you can relax.

NONE of the scientists on that list were creationists. Most of them were not even Protestants.

 

[pitabread]

Atheists cannot live in according with the consequences of their positions because it brings about contradiction and consequences which most of humanity rejects.

Curious, but what exactly do you mean by this?

 

[DogmaHunter]

My only goal is for evolutionists to admit it is called the Theory of Evolution because it is still that a theory.

LOL!

That's one of those statements that just stay hilarious...
Although it's becoming harder and harder to take those uttering that, seriously.

Atomic theory
Germ theory of desease
gravitation theory
Theory of heliocentrism
Theory of plate tectonics
...


Theory = graduation stage of any scientific idea. ie: the BEST explanation available that can account for all the data.


Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

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.

Actually, what I see in such debates is the creationist engaging in extremely dishonest gish gallops, while strawmanning science beyond belief, which results in them ranting/preaching for 5 minutes which would require HOURS of explaining to address all the errors, fallacies, etc.

What I see in such debates are dishonest creationists strawmanning science and breaching fundamentalist religion.

While the "evolutionists" just get visibly frustrated with such dishonest behaviour.
I would too.

 

[Larniavc]

I am asking for a rational answer which excludes appeals to outrage and personal attacks. Examples were provided and ignored where force rape was legal. You seem to think your moral judgements take effect backwards in time. For one they are anachronistic.

Your error is to assume a moral absolute with no objective basis to do so given your position of rights from men. Atheists cannot live in according with the consequences of their positions because it brings about contradiction and consequences which most of humanity rejects.

I’m going to go ahead and keep thinking rape is wrong and leave you to justify rape in whatever sick way you see fit.

You’re a perplexing advert for Christianity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evidently, you are continuing to ignore the facts:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
ESTABLISHED BY
CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past | The Institute for Creation Research

So, pretty much accross the board people who lived before Darwin or before Evolution was widely accepted by consensus.

Hey, newsflash, Julius Ceasar didn't believe in or even knew about quantum mechanics!!!

Surprise!

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

"both"?

Is that supposed to be science on the one hand and then creationism on the other?
Because "both", as in "2", will not cut it in that case....


List of creation myths - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

So, pretty much accross the board people who lived before Darwin or before Evolution was widely accepted by consensus.



Surprise!

Wrong. It takes more than that to be a creationist.