Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

Do you understand that saying the content of a post is *** or *** is different than saying that the poster is *** or ***?Bright folk have been known to say really *** things at times.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Bolder-dash,When your own behavior is just as bad or worse as those you're discussing with then it isn't possible for moderators to single anyone out. I've told you this a number of times. You seem to think your feelings of outrage justify bad behavior and ignoring moderators. If you would follow standard procedure by bringing discussion problems to the attention of moderators by posting a note to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 and then leaving moderation to moderators instead of going off the deep-end behavior-wise before anything can be done then I think you'd have a much better experience here. You're your own worse enemy.As I said, I think there have been a number of thoughtful comments in this thread, it would be nice to see some thoughtful responses.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo!! Geez!!Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Evidently not my day.

I agree that the very un-christian postings of some of the Christians on this site is disheartening.I think that the reason that I see the problem as coming more from the other side, is that there are so many more of them. When one of the few creationists venture out there are several from the other side who pile on with a bit of "we've got a live one here" attitude. I realize it is difficult to reconcile the scientific method with philosophy and theology but sometimes maybe it might be best to start with what we can agree on and branch out from there.Don't get me wrong as I have learned a great deal from being on this site and thanks for that. Maybe as there are so few creationists the basic aim of the site should be reviewed. Just a thought.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

So then I think I probably should give my opinionon this.I think that GDR's contribution in this thread has been the most relevant. At the heart of my own diminishing participation is how the members view this forum, which was very well presented by Jar in Message 40: This is particularly ironic, since I have seen time and again people accuse the creationists playing the influencing game instead of getting down to the facts and proper scientific debate. At the end of the day however, it seems everybody wants to win a public battle.Unfortunately, Jar is most definitely wrong. The official purpose of this forum is not to show how wrong creationism is, it is to discuss and debate on which worldview makes the most sense of the evidence, both from a scientific and a logical perspective. Now, the forum also expanded to include discussion on a whole variety of other views then evolution or creation.Now on this point, Percy can correct me if I am wrong. Obviously, if the purpose of this forum is to show tobystanders that creationism is wrong, I would no longer be interested in being an admin.When the majority of members adopt this view, then at that point you start losing the rational creationists. This has been my own personal experience, to the point that I have no time to waste entering in discussions with people such as Jar.The other thing that discourages thoughtful creationists from participating is the ''either ignorant, deluded or wicked'' false trichotomy. Once again, I have no time to waste talking with someone who does not even consider that maybe I have come to my conclusion the same way he did to come at his: I looked at the evidence, and concluded what I thought was the most fitting explanation. Whenever someone adopts this approach towards someone else, the quality of the debate simply cannot go past passable, at best.So to conclude, I don't think moderation has anything to do with the diminished participation of creationists, but it is rather the attitude of the members.

We don't ever see creationists helping each other out... at all... ever. People on the science side work together and help each other out. For instance, when the conversation wanders a bit into something like geology, I am absolutely certain that others more knowledgable with geology will come and help me out because I'm a geology dummy. But on the side of creationists, you will never see another creationist coming to help a fellow member who's in trouble.

From the Clergy Project letter. Note the highlighted parts.Biblical Creationism is not simply bad science, it is lousy theology.As a Christian I must speak out against those who "deliberately embrace scientific *** and transmit such *** to our children".For those who are interested in what the CENSORED words are, I have provided a link to the source.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I can't agree that the attitude of evolutionist members is causing a decline in creationist participation, but I do agree that our side exhibits deplorable behavior much more often than I feel comfortable with.EvC Forum exists to make possible productive debate between evolutionists and creationists. The forum itself takes no position in the debate, but that doesn't mean it takes no position on anything. In particular, the normal definitions of words are in play. Anyone who wants to debate the definition of, for example, science or geology or Christianity can propose a thread for that purpose so that other discussion threads can avoid being distracted with arguments over terminology.--Percy

You'll have to explain how this is relevant to what GDR said, because I do not see a very clear link.

Hi TazThe thing is I suppose that there are the various domains of science. You can have cosmologists, geologists, biologists and all sorts of other gists. As a creationist without a scientific background you only have the Bible and your particular understanding of it.Also there is only so much time in the day and there are few creationists. I find that if I get involved in more than one thread I have difficulty keeping up as there is life outside EvC. Really, there is. I'm serious. I think for most of the creationists they are going into a gun fight with a pea shooter and they may see themselves as something analogous to David vs Goliath and there is something admirable about that.Another problem I think is that a materialists on the site are particularly dismissive of faith. When a creationist comes under attack for their faith their whole worldview is under attack. It doesn't rank in the same category as having someone whom you know is far less knowledgeable on your particular area of expertise disagree with you. One is hurtful, the other is frustrating. Maybe you can understand when they so strongly defend their position even though their argument is based on misinformation.

Hi Slevesque,I sympathise with much of what you have to say. I realise that, for a creationist, participating in this forum must be something of a trial. I do have to take issue with this though; But what else can we think? Given that I am convinced that evolution is very clearly true, what explanation can I have for any given creationist's failure to see that? In truth, there are only so many possibilities.He could be wicked, deliberately lying.He could be insane.He could simply be an imbecile.I don't think that those are true though, not in most cases. Most creationists are honest enough in what they believe. Few are insane (although some clearly are). Most are not idiots (although in my view, more than usual are).But what of those honest creationists who are not insane idiots? What could explain their apparent inability to see sense?Well, charitably, I would not like to assume that they are lying, or that they are mad, or stupid. It seems much kinder to assume;a) That they are simply ignorant of the information needed to see through creationism's falsehoods, or;
b) They are deluded, having fallen for the cheap charms of some very bad arguments.Please don't think that to call someone ignorant or deluded is some kind of cheap insult here. In this context, it is the most charitable assumption, After all, we are all ignorant of something. Human knowledge is vast, we can't know it all and we are all ignorant of the majority of what is known collectively. Similarly, we are all operating under our own personal delusions, it's nothing particularly shameful.Of course it could be;c) I am wrong, evolution is false and creationism is true;but I do not think that likely. Certainly I think it less likely than the idea that some people are ignorant and deluded and if I gave the possibility of my being wrong very much weight, I would, after all, be forced to switch sides... But, assuming that I am correct and evolution is real, what you describe above would fall within the category of delusion. You looked at the evidence, but came to the wrong conclusion. That would count as a delusion. There's nothing shameful about it, but delusion it is.Further, you must think the same of me.Why do I deny the Christian God? Why do I embrace the false doctrine of evolution? Why do I criticise the Bible? What explanation can you give for my perverse attitudes? Surely, if you are right, then I must be mad, bad, ignorant, idiotic, insane or merely deluded.Do you have another option?Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Essentially I agree with your statement. The problem is that when you start out with a statement that someone's whole lifestyle is out of whack because they employ "lousy" theology; you are alienating them and discounting your position in their minds.There is much more gentle, charitable, Christ-like language that can be used to make your point. Frankly, if you really are concerned your belief they are passing on misinformation about the Christian faith to their children, then you might try and make your point in the manner which is most likely to convince them.I'm not saying that I follow my own advice perfectly and likely someone can go back through my posts and make a hypocrite out of me, but that doesn't make my point any less valid.

I think moderation policy does play a role in the diminished participation of creationists.The problem, as I see it, is that the requirement for scientific evidence based discussion greatly disadvantages creationists and ID proponents. What's really required to participate in a debate here is adequate knowledge of both evolution and whatever creationist or ID proponent viewpoint is under discussion.There are actual scientists posting here, but there seem to be very few (probably zero) participants on either side who know ID or creationism any better than any lay person.It's just far more difficult to find a minimally equipped ID proponent that it is to find an adequately equipped ID opponent. I won't deny that some anti-ID/creationist posters employ dog-piling, bad logic, and straw man attacks. But creationists don't seem to do much better in Great Debates where they get to agree on a single opponent. Creationists don't seem to do any better in threads where they propose the agenda.My impression is that the typical ID proponent posting here knows very little about ID at all, and even less about evolution, cosmology, the scientific method, or any other relevant scientific topic. I'm not sure there is even a single exception. Often discussions don't go very far before before the ID proponent says something so fundamentally wrong, that even the non-scientists can see the error. When the ID proponent starts a topic, usually a blatant error is in the original post. Then the dog-piling starts.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

My impression: they're scared of you. I mostly lurk here but spend time posting on other YEC-heavy boards and often refer posters to EvC to discuss topics in more detail. The responses I get are usually along the lines of, "You can't expect me to post on that forum, I'll be eaten alive!".Lots of people have simply figured out that their shit won't fly here, and so have taken their poo-flinging to more hospitable locales like evolutionfairytale or worthy christian forums.LurkerEdited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.

Did you read the quote from the Clergy Project Letter?Is what I say any different than what is in the Clergy Project Letter?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well, when science comes under attack it is hurtful, too. It's my livelihood we're talking about.The material science community continually improves on the quality of life by keep coming with better material for people to use. Without things like fiber steel, fiber optics, etc. the nation's infrastructure as we know it wouldn't exist today. Bridge design, high rise skyscrapers, and even an average person's home have been vastly improved in the last 50 years alone because of the concerted effort of the engineering and scientific community.I am currently working on a non-corrosive material that has a higher yield strength than conventional reinforcing steel. We'll be doing some more testing next week. We're the first group to be investigating this new material for construction design. We're in direct contact with another group that's working for the army to use the same material for vehicle armament.The benefits that will result from our research will be more far reaching than most people can think of. Imagine cutting the weight of high rise buildings by as much as 30%, thus vastly reducing the risk of earthquake damage. Imagine structures in marine environment that doesn't corrode or rust. Imagine homes that can withstand earthquake several times greater than conventional earthquake design. Imagine our bridges lasting 4 times longer than conventional steel reinforced bridges. Imagine 9/11 happening but the reinforcing material doesn't yield because of extreme high temperatures like what happened with the twin towers.The point is scientific research produce REAL results. I have yet to see anything of substance coming from the creationist community.So, yeah, I'm deeply offended when I see creationists trying to downsize science. This goes beyond personal belief. Remember the dark ages when science was banned for 800 years because of superstition? We'd be colonizing space by now if it weren't for people so determined to cling on to age old superstitions of the past.Added by edit.Just came to my mind. Google fly ash. Did the creationist community come up with the idea to use fly ash in concrete mixing, thus vastly reducing the amount of material dumped into landfill? Hell, no.If creationists wanted to be taken seriously, they need to start producing real results for us to see and use. They need to start doing honest-to-god research to better the human living condition.Here is what a society that embraces science and technology looks like. Here is what a society that embraces religious dogma and superstition looks like. A few years ago, someone pointed out to me a fact that I'd been able to confirm since. The Arab community has some very bright individuals, and I mean scary bright. Yet, the number of research that goes on in the middle east is virtually non-existent. And we're talking about some very affluent oil rich countries here. Children in many areas of the middle east spend all their time in school learning about the koran and god instead of math and science.Is that what you want for our society? Think about it. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.