The smoldering of EVC

The non-atheist view is that there is more to reality than only the rearrangement processes of naturalism. That view is met with rudeness and mocking here, it has become a sport to ridicule and drive posters away who have that view. You forgot one, 'Faith'. Non-atheists threads are promoted so the HAMMER game can begin. Examples;EvC Forum: Why the Flood Never HappenedIn that one, start reading at message 841, then explain to me why you believe any creationist who lives a life would want to come here and take that kind of abuse.and;EvC Forum: On The Limits of Human TalentAgain, after reading that, why would any non-atheist come here thinking any points they had to make would be treated with respect?EvC Forum: Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZDWHY IN THIS WORLD would any self respecting non-atheist come here for a one on one great debate knowing that a hammer thread will be started in the coffee house for no other reason than to ridicule and mock ONE poster? Some "one on one" that is. Please read messages 9, 50, 69, 147, and others in that thread, and explain that to me.

Lets look at some of the loving patience that you refer to;

quote:

---

It could only be a "natural assumption" for someone incredibly ignorant, in the same way a child might believe it possible to be carried off by a bunch of balloons.

---

Then, after Faith announces that she's finished with the thread, we have more patience;

quote:

---

Watching Faith at work reminds me of a science fiction novel from the late 1960's,

---

quote:

---

I'm quite certain that Faith will keep her own faith safe, shielded by her armor of ignorance

---

quote:

---

It's clear you know very little and I'm very happy to see you admitting it. I think that the more you learn, the harder it is for you to continue the charade. That's why you often resort to exaggerated derision.

---

All of message 854, with its big flurry of green dots. Then, administration's back;

quote:

---

But this is just you mouthing off inanities again.

---

quote:

---

The flood is the most natural explanation only to someone as completely ignorant of geology as yourself.

---

quote:

---

Is trumpeting your ignorance and ineptitude really a good strategy?

---

quote:

---

How could the opinion of someone as ignorant of geology as you just described have any value?

---

And it goes on and on, even after Faith clearly left the thread. Atheist love fests have become part of science. These forums, and websites like talkorigins increasingly display it, and hopefully that display will serve to wake more and more people up to that fact.

It's equally true that atheists (and theistic evolutionists) don't come here to learn anything from creationists either. Sure, they come here sometimes to learn things from other atheists, to refine their own talking points, reinforce their own beliefs, but never to challenge their own beliefs. Atheists seem to get testy very quickly when one of their most passionate faiths, an old earth, gets challenged in any way, by anybody. It's important to note that without an old earth, evolution (Darwinism) can't work. Not only old material that makes up the earth, but it also had to be in orbit around the sun with temperatures and climate similar to what it has today, for hundreds of millions of years, or all their intellectual fulfillment for their atheism is gone. Today's science has trouble keeping satellites in orbit around the earth for more than a decade. A somewhat different thing I know, considering atmospheric drag and a few other differences, but it's still somewhat similar. Relying on purposeless nature to provide them with all the time and conditions needed for evolution to work could be subject to falsification. But any questioning of a old earth by today's scientific community would never see the light of day.

Again, the passion that naturalists have for an old earth, and the emotion that challenges to it inspire them to erupt with here, aren't the fault of Faith or any creationist. The sarcasm and anger that she was on the receiving end of don't do anything to reverse or reduce the "smoldering" that the o/p references. And it's been made clear to me that the atheists/naturalists here don't know much about anything other than science, and aren't interested in knowing much, including when they make political decisions. My main point is that for forums like this to be welcoming and attractive to posters of all opinions, a lone poster against a gang shouldn't be treated so rudely, making it look like a sport to see who can shout them into submission. If the answer to that is, "that's the way it is at all one sided forums" that's fine, but it doesn't help keep that forum from losing popularity.

I never noticed much creation/evolution debate before the mid-nineties, before most people had internet access, and before "Darwin's Black Box" came out. Those two things almost simultaneous occurrence (that book, and widespread internet access) caused what appears to be a 10 to 15 year surge in the debate that is fading now, probably largely because many feel that most everything that can be said about it has been said. But now that atheism has won in the courts, now that Michael Behe seems to have made himself more scarce than Osama Bin Laden was 10 years ago, I think more could be discussed if those followers of the scientific community could tone down the anger, they really have nothing to be angry about. (or do they?)

Well said, but it's important to note that equally, the reasons people are creationists are much more complicated and varied than most in the scientific community (and at forums like this) are willing to acknowledge. Only scientific scrutiny, or scrutiny from other sources of knowledge? What misconceptions did you learn at church? How did you figure out that they were misconceptions? Hopefully, you didn't let an atheist tell you. How about atheists who don't want to learn, don't want to consider ANY point of view that any creationist has to offer, and who doesn't want their personal beliefs challenged? About 95% of the posters at EvC fit that description, and though Boulder-dash seems to have disappeared, I'd say that's largely what inspired this thread. As was pointed out in the o/p, a (however slight) shift has taken place in the titles of threads being proposed, and being participated in here. They’ve gone from having a more scientific content to being more about largely insignificant one-sided bashing of traditional religion. But one (of several) things about these forums that contributes to my satisfaction (and I’m sure Boulder-dash’s as well) is the increasing clarity that the former claims that Christianity and naturalistic science don’t conflict is, and always has been, untrue.

I know that many evolutionists label themselves as non-atheists, but self labeling usually doesn't go too far, especially when they participate in what is basically a two-way conflict. "By their fruits shall ye know them", ever hear that phrase?Another 'satisfaction' that I get as the discussions continue on at these forums, is watching you, more than anyone else, prove just how true it is that when some of Christianity is compromised with atheism, that Christianity falls completely. Whether you're somehow genuine (maybe a Bishop Spong follower) or a complete phony, you prove it either way.

It's a factual answer to believe that there could be more to reality than what science can understand, more than one time dimension, more than three space dimensions etc. That there are more sources of knowledge than science. You gatta admit, it's no more ridiculous than claiming that all material throughout the entire universe exploded billions of years ago from an area the size of the head of a pin. Only in some of my replies, responding in kind. [qs]Yes it must be disturbing not to have any support from fellow believers, but you are not debating with the Peanut Gallery. You are debating against a single person.A single person who has the side thread to get ideas from, get moral support from etc. Good luck with that, with finding opponents. It's no different than a scatter of posts from a side thread, if you're in the minority. (which you never are, of course)Trust me, the great debate forum here will be the first thing to die, if the side threads continue to be permitted. And that's another "satisfaction" that the o/p refers to. With each passing day that these forums exist, the phoniness in most "theistic evolution" gets clearer and clearer for just about any open minded visitor that these forums may get.

Is it a requirement, or just a suggestion of "Club Christian" to agree with atheism, to mock Christianity, to refer to God as a "she", to claim that "Christ wasn't much of a Christian"?

Science doesn't have exclusive rights to the word "evidence". Not only can evidence come from sources of knowledge other than science, an organization of scientists with a special interest can claim it has evidence for a conclusion it prefers, when it really doesn't, at least to be convincing enough to those who don't automatically prefer the predetermined conclusion. I read it to mean she thinks YOU are laughable. Maybe she'll read this thread and let us know - I'm not going to bother with a PM to her. They do when they feel strongly enough about it to post on forums such as these, and harmonize with each other as they do, as the majority. Creationists post much more individually here. I realize that, and it will probably never stop. As you said, the number of popular books about it has faded lately, and I doubt if there were many popular books about it 30 years ago. But there did seem to be about a 12 year surge (2000 - 2012, roughly) and this forum got started at the perfect time for it to flourish. It's equally frustrating when predetermined, atheistic conclusions about the ancient past are given the false mantle of science, especially when they're not testable, and not falsifiable, something science supposedly requires of itself.

One slip of the finger and two hours of work down the drain. Not worth it.

I think the best way to clarify why that is happening is because science is actually divided in two, there's actual science, and there's metaphysical science. All those of the scientific community try to blend them, and make them indistinguishable, and they're having a difficult time doing it. I'll go and propose that new thread in the next few hours.

Actual science and atheist science is more what I had in mind. I don't care, I'll respond to whom and what I want, and I'll take all the time I need. I'll try not to be absent for more than a couple of days at a time. I can't forsee it going on too long. If there's a lot of anger and rudeness, I'll include my response to that in my closing summary - it will help make my points.