Creationists admit "We are losing badly"

[Quetzal]

God evolved, that is why the missing links are missing. No brainer!

"No brainer" isn't too far from the truth here...

 

[User Name]

The bigger question that needs to be addressed is not how we got here, but what is our purpose - surely mankind exists for some purpose other than filling up space!

Why? For what reason must there be a purpose other than what we ourselves assign individually?

What is "purpose"? Purpose, in short, is a subjective quality that minds assign to objects. There is no such thing as "objective purpose":

The meaning of "purpose"

​

 

[Hedshaker]

Evolution is taught in the schools, Creation or ID is not.

That's incorrect I think. Various creation myths of various religions are, or should be, taught in religious education classes. Just not in science classes since creation or ID is religion, not science.

 

[Hedshaker]

What is "purpose"? Purpose, in short, is a subjective quality that minds assign to objects. There is no such thing as "objective purpose":

The meaning of "purpose"

​

Exactly :thumb:

 

[CherubRam]

That's incorrect I think. Various creation myths of various religions are, or should be, taught in religious education classes. Just not in science classes since creation or ID is religion, not science.

That is your opinion based upon your faith.

 

[CherubRam]

Attention Atheist and Evolutionist.

The bible says that this Universe did not always exist, science now confirms this. The bible says that God evolved. Now I ask you, Is not that kind of thinking to evolved for men who lived thousands of years ago?

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no [god / God] (el / El) formed, nor will there be one after me.

 

[Hedshaker]

That is your opinion based upon your faith.

What? Creationism is not science based on my faith?

So then, is the Theory of Evolution based on the collective faith of the scientific community?

Think before you answer because it sounds like you are suggesting a world wide conspiracy based on Evolutionary "faith", which you will need to back up with evidence. In fact, I think you should start with the evidence.

In your own time.........

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolution is taught in the schools, Creation or ID is not.

Before an idea is taught in science classes, it has to earn its place in the marketplace of science. Creationism (including ID creationism) hasn't done that. But that's to be expected given that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century.

 

[Zeke]

That's incorrect I think. Various creation myths of various religions are, or should be, taught in religious education classes. Just not in science classes since creation or ID is religion, not science.

Creation through Intelligent Design is religion, Every instrument used by Science would have come through that religion, Other religious artifacts could include Corvettes, Trains, Ships, bubblegum, Musical Instruments, Butterfly nets, ETC....., I would agree all those were myths imagined in the Mind/Conscience until they became part of reality out of that nothing/invisible thought received in the Mind/ Conscience from some where.

 

[patrick jane]

None of these descriptions fit all the good scientists, at least not them as scientists. Plenty of believing scientists.

Bible has a lot to say about people who are deceitful and haters of truth, knowledge and wisdom though.

Creationism is a stain on Christianity. It is a form of Christianity that has ceased to be theology, that is thinking about God.

The warning of Augustine still holds:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of this world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and relative positions… Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. "

I take it you don't believe the Genesis account of creation ?

 

[Quetzal]

I take it you don't believe the Genesis account of creation ?

Looks like a safe bet, PJ.

 

[CherubRam]

Before an idea is taught in science classes, it has to earn its place in the marketplace of science. Creationism (including ID creationism) hasn't done that. But that's to be expected given that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century.

If I remember correctly, Einstein and other scientist believed in God.

What percentage of scientists believe in God?

However, when those results were filtered to include only members of the National Academy of Sciences, the number dropped to 10 percent. A Pew survey taken in 2009 records that 33 percent of scientists believe in God and another 18 percent in a higher power, compared to 94 percent of the general public.
Why don't scientists believe in God? - Christian Truth
www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html

Search for: What percentage of scientists believe in God?
How many percent of scientists are atheist?

One fact that concerns some Christians and elates some atheists is that 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God.

 

[Jose Fly]

Um....ok. :idunno:

 

[patrick jane]

Obama Cush

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

One of the few intelligent design blogs left is "Uncommon Descent". Recently, Sal Cordova--an ID creationist--was banned from the blog, which seems kinda odd since he's a fairly well-known creationist and ID apologist. But in banning him, his fellow creationists sent him a letter that explains he was banned for also participating in a non-ID creationist site. That letter states (in part)...



I guess it's progress to see ID creationists finally coming around and recognizing the reality of the situation....ID creationism is dead, long since so. Millennials are accepting the reality of evolution in greater numbers, are leaving Christianity, and are citing the faith's anti-science attitude as among their reasons for leaving.

All good news. :up:

No. Good news would be, if you were to be permanently banned from this site.

 

[everready]

One of the few intelligent design blogs left is "Uncommon Descent". Recently, Sal Cordova--an ID creationist--was banned from the blog, which seems kinda odd since he's a fairly well-known creationist and ID apologist. But in banning him, his fellow creationists sent him a letter that explains he was banned for also participating in a non-ID creationist site. That letter states (in part)...



I guess it's progress to see ID creationists finally coming around and recognizing the reality of the situation....ID creationism is dead, long since so. Millennials are accepting the reality of evolution in greater numbers, are leaving Christianity, and are citing the faith's anti-science attitude as among their reasons for leaving.

All good news. :up:

Bible believers will never stop trusting Gods word:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Many people feel that its easier to exist living a lie is all.


everready

 

[jgarden]

Why? For what reason must there be a purpose other than what we ourselves assign individually?

What purpose does an elephant have? A Tiger, mouse, cockroach, orang-utan? The animal kingdom are here too so what must be their purpose?

Humans are the only creature in the animal kingdom capable of questioning the purpose of their own existence.

I choose to believe that mankind has a greater purpose than just to occupy space in the universe.

 

[CherubRam]

God evolved, that is why the missing links are missing. No brainer!

Attention Atheist and Evolutionist.

The bible says that this Universe did not always exist, science now confirms this. The bible says that God evolved. Now I ask you, Is not that kind of thinking to evolved for men who lived thousands of years ago?

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no [god / God] (el / El) formed, nor will there be one after me.

Evolution is faith based, that is not my opinion but a matter of fact. If Evolution was a scientific fact it would be established by now. The missing links are missing for a very good reason.

It has always been taught that the creation days are epochs of time. It was not until recently that the creation days were called literal days. Example: God said to Adam, "in the day you eat of that fruit you will surly die." But yet, after Adam ate the fruit, he continued to live for almost a thousand years, until he finally died. Much of the bible is written in parabolic form like a riddle.

 

[Hedshaker]

Humans are the only creature in the animal kingdom capable of questioning the purpose of their own existence.

I choose to believe that mankind has a greater purpose than just to occupy space in the universe.

Choose whatever you like. Your choice will have no effect what-so-ever on Reality.

 

[Selaphiel]

I take it you don't believe the Genesis account of creation ?

Which of them? There are two different ones from two different oral traditions.

A literal reading of those two accounts is meaningless. However, to equate that with "you don't believe the Genesis account of creation" is to assume that the modern fundamentalist reading of the text(s) (there are two accounts) is correct, a reading that is pretty much divorced from all Christian theological tradition the first 1700+ years. In other words, your question is ridiculously loaded.

Evolution is faith based, that is not my opinion but a matter of fact. If Evolution was a scientific fact it would be established by now

This statement just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is a scientific theory, do you understand the relationship between fact and theory? A theory does not become fact when scientists are certain enough, that is a complete misunderstanding of the entire scientific enterprise. A theory is a framework of explanatory concepts that explains a set of facts. An observation is a fact, it is data, a theory is a coherent explanation of a set of observations. The strength of a theory is determined by the amount of data it explains. Given the correct understanding of theory, the theory of evolution is among the strongest theories of modern science.

Choose whatever you like. Your choice will have no effect what-so-ever on Reality.

Then again, neither does yours.

Obviously, whether there is purpose/meaning to existence cannot be determined by a methodology that by its definition excludes the question of teleology. The question of meaning is a philosophical and theological question. Using 'theological' in the broad sense of "thinking religion" so it includes Buddhist and other non-theistic forms of religion as well.

To determine that what science can tell us equals all there is to say about reality is to already have made a whole lot of philosophical assumptions. Assumptions that are in no way (it is not possible given the definition of the scientific methodology) justified by the scientific methodology itself, in other words it is the self-contradictory extreme naive form of logical positivism. That is not to say that scientific theories are not relevant to the question, it simply says that science qua science cannot answer it in the affirmative or the negative.