What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[bhsmte]

And most people, ruled by these atheists, live with a very low standard of living...which was the point.

How do you explain all the other countries, that have much lower beliefs in god, but have the highest standards of living in the world?

 

[dmmesdale]

How does one hate a deity, they dont believe exists?

Well i would say the hate speech along with the rants are a dead give away. Hurling accusations. You know things like that.

 

[bhsmte]

Right you hate God you do not believe exists. Also contradictions have free rent in your head.

LOL

 

[dmmesdale]

Do you mean legitimate rape (as popularised by Godly Todd Akin)?

What part of force rape do you not understand?

 

[bhsmte]

Right you hate God you do not believe exists. Also contradictions have free rent in your head.

Specific post numbers would be nice, that shows non believers hate god vs what you make up in your own mind.

Piece of advice; if you want to know what someone thinks about a topic, just ask them.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Right you hate God you do not believe exists. Also contradictions have free rent in your head.

It must annoy you immensely that I'm right, evidenced by your tirade of personal insults here...

 

[JoeP222w]

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?

There seems to be a false assumption that Creationism is against Science. Its not. That would be a false dichotomy. However, evolution is not science. It cannot be observed, it cannot be repeated, it cannot be tested, since it is historical by definition. That which has happened the past cannot be tested by the scientific method.

Moreover, the truth of any matter is not determined by popularity.

 

[pshun2404]

How do you explain all the other countries, that have much lower beliefs in god, but have the highest standards of living in the world?

It was simply a point made as a response to the absurdity of the original claimant. There is no direct relationship between belief systems and social status or standard of living. Since the earliest times we can discover in civilizations, mankind wants to lord it over one another and separate into social orders...ruler/priests, hunter/warriors, artisan/merchants, and workers (farmers, laborers, slaves, etc).

But the real problem is that far too many people are greedy, selfish, and power hungry and want all others to bow to them...male tries to rule female, clan over clan, tribe over tribe, principality over principality, nation over nation, religion over religion, political system over political system...all this is symptomatic of the problem...each person wants to be their own god and decide good and evil for their self.

 

[dmmesdale]

It must annoy you immensely that I'm right, evidenced by your tirade of personal insults here...

Provide two explicit examples of force rape in the Old Testament. Provide the names of the victims and the perps. Seeing as how you are the Bible rape expert.

 

[pitabread]

There seems to be a false assumption that Creationism is against Science. Its not. That would be a false dichotomy.

Major creationist organizations like AiG and the ICR have faith statements that they require their members to adhere to whereby they reject anything outright that disagrees with their preformed beliefs. That's not science.

In addition, creationists have a history of trying to quash science they disagree with. In some extreme cases, such as in Turkey, they've succeeded (teaching of evolution is banned in Turkey).

However, evolution is not science. It cannot be observed, it cannot be repeated, it cannot be tested, since it is historical by definition. That which has happened the past cannot be tested by the scientific method.

Of course it can be tested. The formation of scientific hypotheses and theories allow for predictions based on what one would expect to find if those hypotheses and/or theories were valid. And then those predictions are tested based on whether or not the observable evidence conforms to those predictions.

The idea you can't apply scientific testing or inquiry into something just because it took place in the past is just nonsense.

 

[bhsmte]

It must annoy you immensely that I'm right, evidenced by your tirade of personal insults here...

Mucho cognitive dissonance, which is not pleasent.

 

[bhsmte]

It was simply a point made as a response to the absurdity of the original claimant. There is no direct relationship between belief systems and social status or standard of living. Since the earliest times we can discover in civilizations, mankind wants to lord it over one another and separate into social orders...ruler/priests, hunter/warriors, artisan/merchants, and workers (farmers, laborers, slaves, etc).

But the real problem is that far too many people are greedy, selfish, and power hungry and want all others to bow to them...male tries to rule female, clan over clan, tribe over tribe, principality over principality, nation over nation, religion over religion, political system over political system...all this is symptomatic of the problem...each person wants to be their own god and decide good and evil for their self.

Does not address the reality of my point.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yeah explicit and none of your examples are. I wrote explicit examples of force rape. Where force rape actually happened and the consequences.

So there's the rub. Both those passages are historical record as far as you're concerned, are they not? That's as forced as you're going to get and it's recorded in the old testament for all to see. Your handwaving hasn't made it go away at all, not even a little bit.

• Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

• 
  
• This involves our understanding of statutory (totally different from force) in which the female is not able to give consent.

• ] I'd be interested to see your evidence in support of this assertion, because it doesn't seem to be anywhere I've read...

  Deut is 2nd law which presupposes 1st law which is Exodus. Spec Ex.22:16-17 involves seduction, not force rape.
  [*] Exodus 22:16-17New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  Sundry Laws
  16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall a]">[a]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.

  Well, that's nice and all but I'm not convinced this is supposed to be some sort of pre-emption to the Deuteronomy update (if it is indeed speaking of the same thing) - in every lawbook known, the later law is an update to the earlier law, so if anything could be twisted enough, the earlier Exodus law would be superseded or clarified by the Deuteronomy law, but in this case, it isn't and the two deal with different matters albeit subtle. Deuteronomy doesn't talk about a Dowry, but more of a Fine (in this case, half the value of an unspoilt virgin). Exodus talks of consenting (i.e. seduction) scenarios and Deuteronomy talks of non-consenting (i.e. rape) scenarios. They just aren't the same thing. If as you say, the Deuteronomy is talking of the statuatory rape of 'underage brides' or some such nonsense, then what the heck is the father doing selling her off to her rapist for more of the same!? Be real.
  

  [*]That is why they have that never divorce clause in there. He is stuck with the female he seduces and it is all by the consent of the father. If the father does not approve the deal is off. Never married nonvirgins not marriageable in that culture. They had to be virgins.

That's right, the Mysogeny Handbook of tricks.

If you look at the other examples (Dt.22) which you ignored. Cherry picking (again and again and again) you have death for adultery and force rape. That is why you guys do not know what you are talking about and neither do your sources. This lesson is free and you probably still won't get it!

Deuteronomy 22:22-27 all deal with a virgin already betrothed to marry, or is married (i.e. another MAN's sexual property), so this is just the protection of property laws, not lawful protection of the woman. I note in these passages where a woman gets stoned to death for not being a virgin and the same for not screaming out loud enough if she were to be raped in the city. I don't even have to say anything further on this, I feel...

This thread is not about your moral framework. It is not about you.

Like I said, I accept your admission you were wrong about my, and that of many other atheists' moral position too.

 

[dmmesdale]

So there's the rub. Both those passages are historical record as far as you're concerned, are they not? That's as forced as you're going to get and it's recorded in the old testament for all to see. Your handwaving hasn't made it go away at all, not even a little bit.

• ] I'd be interested to see your evidence in support of this assertion, because it doesn't seem to be anywhere I've read... Well, that's nice and all but I'm not convinced this is supposed to be some sort of pre-emption to the Deuteronomy update (if it is indeed speaking of the same thing) - in every lawbook known, the later law is an update to the earlier law, so if anything could be twisted enough, the earlier Exodus law would be superseded or clarified by the Deuteronomy law, but in this case, it isn't and the two deal with different matters albeit subtle. Deuteronomy doesn't talk about a Dowry, but more of a Fine (in this case, half the value of an unspoilt virgin). Exodus talks of consenting (i.e. seduction) scenarios and Deuteronomy talks of non-consenting (i.e. rape) scenarios. They just aren't the same thing. If as you say, the Deuteronomy is talking of the statuatory rape of 'underage brides' or some such nonsense, then what the heck is the father doing selling her off to her rapist for more of the same!? Be real.

Deuteronomy 22:22-27 all deal with a virgin already betrothed to marry, or is married (i.e. another MAN's sexual property), so this is just the protection of property laws, not lawful protection of the woman. I note in these passages where a woman gets stoned to death for not being a virgin and the same for not screaming out loud enough if she were to be raped in the city. I don't even have to say anything further on this, I feel...

Like I said, I accept your admission you were wrong about my, and that of many other atheists' moral position too.

Your assessments are based on ignorance along with anachronistic judgements. Now provide two explicit examples of force rape in the Old Testament. Provide the name of the two females rape victims and the names of the two perps. Also document the fate of the two rapists. Seeing as how you are the Bible rape expert. This should be easy. Any first year Bible student would know it.

 

[JoeP222w]

Major creationist organizations like AiG and the ICR have faith statements that they require their members to adhere to whereby they reject anything outright that disagrees with their preformed beliefs. That's not science.

While there may be organizations as such, they do not speak for all of those who hold to Biblical truth.

In addition, creationists have a history of trying to quash science they disagree with. In some extreme cases, such as in Turkey, they've succeeded (teaching of evolution is banned in Turkey).

Goes to my second point, that Evolution is not science. Also a really bad generalization that all creationists try to "quash science". Turkey is also most certainly not a Christian nation, so to argue that "creationists" did that is a very great stretch.

Of course it can be tested. The formation of scientific hypotheses and theories allow for predictions based on what one would expect to find if those hypotheses and/or theories were valid. And then those predictions are tested based on whether or not the observable evidence conforms to those predictions.

That appears to be a confirmation bias fallacy.

The idea you can't apply scientific testing or inquiry into something just because it took place in the past is just nonsense.

Do you have the ability to travel back in time? At best you can make guesses about the past.

 

[Speedwell]

Goes to my second point, that Evolution is not science. Also a really bad generalization that all creationists try to "quash science". Turkey is also most certainly not a Christian nation, so to argue that "creationists" did that is a very great stretch.

So you have to be a Christian to be a creationist?

Do you have the ability to travel back in time? At best you can make guesses about the past.

Not necessary. Past events leave evidence of their occurrence behind which can be examined evaluted.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Your assessments are based on ignorance along with anachronistic judgements. Now provide two explicit examples of force rape in the Old Testament. Provide the name of the two females rape victims and the names of the two perps. Also document the fate of the two rapists. Seeing as how you are the Bible rape expert. This should be easy. Any first year Bible student would know it.

I still stand by the record of mass rape - these numbers obviously so large that documenting the individual names of the victims is too cumbersome (or inconsequential) and the repercussions for the rapists were non-existent. That aside, I can only imagine you're talking about Genesis 34 - The Rape of Dinah and 2 Samuel 13 - Amnon and Tamar? Let's discuss them:

Genesis 34 - The Rape of Dinah

In this story of Morality, Dinah is the rape victim and Shechem is the rapist. Shechem tried to make amends after falling in love with Dinah and was then lied to by Jacob and his Sons to avoid the marriage because they felt the rape of Dinah was an insult to the Israelite People (not that Dinah herself was raped, mind you) - they deceptively accepted a marriage pledge that included living with Shechem and his village anyway so they could kill all the men as well as Shechem, steal all their stuff and captured all their women and children, making off with everything to go on the run in fear of their lives, eventually to setup Israel with their plunder and booty.
​

2 Samuel 13 - Amnon and Tamar

In this story of morality, Tamar is the rape victim, Amnon is the rapist. Amnon, who is the King's Son, raped Tamar and then continued on living the Prince lifestyle for another two years before being struck down by Absalom's men. Absalom then went into hiding for 3 years in fear of his life having killed the King David's Son, Amnon, then another two years after he came back before he was able to see the King again, not knowing if he would be struck down himself.
​

So, in neither of these cases was the old testament Law followed. Why did you want to cover these?

 

[Astrophile]

And as GirdYourLoins pointed out, I have no issue with evolution, but I want it taught as a theory, not some absolute fact.

How would you have evolution taught as a theory? Would you teach it in the same way as, for example, electromagnetism, special relativity, general relativity, thermodynamics, kinetic theory, nuclear physics and quantum physics? Would you be willing to have schools and universities teach the theory of evolution so as to show how it explains the observed facts of biology?

 

[Astrophile]

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

Why did the Institute for Creation Research omit the name of Richard Owen (1804-92), the man who coined the word 'dinosaur', a 'most distinguished vertebrate zoologist and palaeontologist', and 'an outspoken critic of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection' - https://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/Richard_Owen ? Is this omission due to ignorance, or does the ICR think that Owen was not an important scientist or not a creationist?

 

[Saucy]

How would you have evolution taught as a theory? Would you teach it in the same way as, for example, electromagnetism, special relativity, general relativity, thermodynamics, kinetic theory, nuclear physics and quantum physics? Would you be willing to have schools and universities teach the theory of evolution so as to show how it explains the observed facts of biology?

I just think there's a difference between what we have proven and what we only theorize. We can proven gravity exists. But we can't prove that any animals have evolved from one species to another. We've seen animals adapt, but they've never changed into something else entirely. Micro-evolution: observed. Macro-evolution: not observed.