Talking some sense into randman

faith's comments frequently broke the rules. she was mean, nasty, insulting. she should have been banned several times over. the admins bent the rules for her, specifically because many of us asked for her to be allowed to stick around -- myself included.if faith got bashed a little, she was only getting back what she was dishing out. the problem is not that every reasonable person should be a dawkins-loving athiest. the problem is that we don't have any reasonable creationists. do they exist? i have not met very many.the reasonable people see through the crackpot junk, the lies, and the pseudoscience. they can tell when a source is clearly off their rocker. so most reasonable people do not support the kinds of crazy yec claims. you will however see a lot of reasonable theistic evolutionists, and a lot of reasonable christians in science professions who keep their faith and science separated. you'll find a lot of them HERE.perhaps the problem is that those kinds of creationists don't count in your perspective. they're not REAL creationists, because they dont't argue against evolution with the standard creationist misgivings. they're not REAL creationists because they often argue against YOU. this is exactly the same as religious bias. the only kind of REAL christians are the evangelical kinds, right? and even then, just your particular church? actually, it is. even today, i gave you an argument based on my own working knowledge of the language the bible was written in, and a hebrew idiom. your argument was to restate the initial premise. that's not backing up a claim. some of the other religious folk here actually study the bible -- some of them for a living. i know dr. bill is a priest, if he's still around, and i'd be suprised if brian wasn't doing something in the field.but when the creationist interpretation doesn't stand up to clear biblical evidence, you can't really call fowl. it might be out of place in a science forum (but so is creationism). i'm glad you agree with my point above. yes, i've had personal experience with these too.but it is not what i see going on in the evolution camp here. there is the occasional militant athiest here, but mostly it's the creationists that come in swinging. mostly, it's the creationists that aren't willing to consider alternatives, and refuse to understand basic scientific concepts.or, in your case, refuse to answer posts that could challenge a position. how is that NOT insular? how is that not the same behaviour as a cult member who refuses to even discuss something that might dislodge them from their belief? dodge and avoid the question -- it's the same symptom. cult members often think that it's all of the other people who refuse to understand them. then there's this:

quote:

---

3. PARANOID - WE ARE BEING PERSECUTED

​

Any time you say anything negative about the group, whether justified or no, it is regarded as "persecution". Any criticism of the individual is also seen as persecution only because they are the "true Christian" or "enlightened" one - not because they, as an individual, have done the wrong thing. However, at the same time they will feel free to criticise whatever you believe, say and do because they are "the only ones who are right".

​

http://www.ex-cult.org/General/identifying-a-cult

---

this is a creation v. evolution side. conflict is to be expected. but you seem to try to attack evolution at any cost. you resort to arguments that are 100 years old. and then when someone brings up facts, you run away. for instance, you haven't answered my "gill slits" post, nor have you posted a screenshot of the neanderthal in your daughter's lesson. and yet you fail to understand that many of your opponents here essentially believe BOTH. admittedly, i don't know a lot about quantum mechanics. i do know a little, but not a lot. however, referring to qm as the great solution that works everything out is frankly a little bit of a masturbatory fantasy. quantum mechanics is great and all, but it's not grand unification. i never used "evil" but why do you suppose the creationists are intellectually dishonest, as one that exhibits intellectually dishonest behaviour such as dodging questions?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-19-2005 07:33 PM

---

אָרַח

That's your perception of what happened. My perception is the exact opposite. I'd like to see how many staunch creationists and IDers would agree with you. It seems to me perceptions are split along beleif systems such that the worst insults and breaking the rules by evos are routinely ignored as if they never occur. There are Moslems from the Middle East that say the same things about Christians, and Palestianians that say the same thing about Jews or Isrealis, and I know some old white men that say that about black folks.Could it just be that perhaps something else is going on here, that creationists and IDers are not the unreasonable people you think they are? I don't think you know what you are talking about now. Theistic evolutionists are not creationists by definition. I think you also fail to recognize that I am not necessarily a creationist. Once again, you demonstrate the basic irrationality I am talking about. For example, I would consider Jimmy Carter and Bush both to be real Christians even though they are worlds apart on issues. Really, I think your statements are proof enough of what I am talking about.I've got to go now. I'll try to return later to the rest of your post, but I promised my daugher I'd take her to Harry Potter tonight even though I hate opening weekends.Oh, I forgot. I am a closeminded bigot so I must be lying about watching Harry Potter because, you know, all us fundies hate the books, or is it evangelicals....

Ya know randman....I hope you get that thread promoted. Cuz right here next to me is the national geographic from 1998 where the pakicetus is depicted as having webbed feet.I'm going to scann the illustration and I'm going to upload it. Because I think the caption underneath it will surprise you.

Hi Percy. With all due respect, are you considering all that's being stacked on Randman's plate? I've been there myself often, when so many people are posting so much for just one person to try and adequately respond to. The one person who must try to keep up with all that the people put before him has all the other responsibilities of life, including family, business, work, social, children, et al to both think about and do.I've found that with my busy life I must limit my posting to a few threads and when I get heavily involved with any given thread, I need to pretty much just work that thread. Maybe Randman will need to limit himself to fewer threads in order to keep up.Edited to add Percy's quote.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-19-2005 09:28 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

If you or randman (or anybody else) wants to reduce the number of responses, you can ask to open your topic in a Great Debate thread. That way you need only answer one responder.

FYI - I look forward to seeing it as a new topic.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I've been there too on a couple of threads. I find the solution is to sit back and consolidate your position by combining responses as much as possible, rather than trying to broadcast several similar responses to several people. It may mean taking more time for a single response, but less time overall, with the advantage that you can substantiate you postion in one place.

I prefer mixing it up with more folks, so long as I'm not overwhelmed with complaints about not keeping up. Often I simply wish to contribute a comment to a thread without obligating myself to being drawn into participation beyond what I want or can handle as sometimes happens. Each of the majority who are going at the one are free to throw in a comment and be gone, since there's others to fill in, but if the lone counterpart does so, it's considered cutting and running. Randman is getting a bad rap, imo, by some folks who don't understand what it's like to be the lone contender in a given topic. The board would be well served if these folks were more understanding of this problem and treat the one with more respect and civility in the debates.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Yah, that works sometimes, but often not, because most will not accept a general reply. Most want their specific slant on the issue addressed with a response to their particular posted message. Your profile log then ends up with all these "yes's" in the column indicating responses needed.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Randman is the "lone contender" in so many topics because he sticks his nose into everything. If he doesn't want so many responses, he should limit his own responses to a few topics. I've told him myself that he would have a better reputation around here if he concentrated on quality rather than quantity. I have a lot of "yes's" in my column too - but in my case it usually means that I've resisted the temptation to have the last word. In randman's case, it usually means that somebody is begging him for an answer that he refuses to give.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

care to discuss the moths at new topic on the moths?
http://EvC Forum: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection

faith herself, towards the end of her stay here, made some comments about being good so as not to incur the wrath of the admins. like i said, i remeber specifically arguing in her defense, for her to be allowed to stay here because i was participating in a discussion with her at the time, and i didn't want the debate to disappear.they made suprisingly allowances for her. you really think she didn't break any rules? insult anyone? say mean-spirited things?

quote:

---

In other words, take your self-important lecture on proper behavior and stuff it.

​

http://EvC Forum: Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

---

that whole post's good. it's basically what you just said, plus a condescending attitude. oh, that's bull. ask crashfrog. he was mean and nasty too, and got suspended repeatedly. i say unreasonable, because they don't listen to reason. a good example, for instance, is never admitting when they're wrong. i've been known too (i did recently, actually, when someone caught an error of mine in a reply to you). you, on the other hand, never come close to listening to reason. when something comes up that could severly damage your stance, you run away, or stick your fingers in your ears. that's unreasonable, because you cannot be reasoned with.need i remind you of all the questions i've asked that you haven't even responded to with a dodge?i say i have not met very many reasonable creationists because i haven't. most of them participate in this very same behaviour, among other intellectually dishonest practices and various forms of deceit. it's not a prejudice, it's experience. that only confirms what i've just said. how would YOU define creationism? necessarily? what does that mean. "i may or may not be?" are you running for supreme court or something? i was comparing it to a kind of religious attitude that i'm sure you're aware of, and HOPEFULLY disapprove of. i wasn't saying you were guilty of this particular crime, just something similar in another area, as demonstrated above. you're going to hell, randman. (but only for going on opening night)

---

אָרַח

NOW i'm curious.

---

אָרַח

buz: while that is a very good point, there are actually relatively few claims we're trying to get rand to answer. for instance, right now, i'm trying to get him to address the "human gill slits" post, and show me a screencap of the neanderthal in his daughter's web-program-thing for school.these aren't huge concerns, really. they'd take a few minutes at worst.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-20-2005 01:39 AM

---

אָרַח

Not compared to what was thrown at her. In fact, I think overall that she showed remarkable restraint considering the unnecessary smears and hostility directed towards her. It astonished me in fact that you guys would not have seen that. Maybe, but perhaps he should have been stopped very early on. That's your opinion. Imo, I have not done this once ever here on this forum, but I am getting tired of repeating arguments, and more often than not, you guys answer in a manner not relevant to the point I have made, and so eventually the discussion stalls because frankly, you are the one dodging, and most of the time, I tend to think you couldn't explain the repetitive position put forth by me, and so it's time to move on.There are plenty of other groups that have similar attitudes to your's. They think none of their critics are reasonable. They all don't listen, etc,....I've seen it a lot, and it's evidence not that all the critics are wrong, but the insular group mentality is causing a problem with the individuals in the group. Imo, that's what is occurring with you here. I've laid out my position so thoroughly here that if you still don't know what it is, that is all the more evidence you are either not listening, or cannot hear it, for some reason.