|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why we should not expect many if any Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Percy writes: Personally, the reason that I prefer posting boards --specifically EvC --is that unlike twitter a written record of all of our many conversations is preserved as long as the site is maintained. Its the same reason that letters are more valuable than tweets or even phone calls.
Evidently most people find social media a more engrossing diversion than they did bulletin boards.jar writes: Too many people would rather talk than listen!
It seems to be a willful craving for confirmation bias most evident in the "Selfie". Percy writes: Many are called(or tweeted) yet few are chosen! This seems a "creation versus evolution" specific observation, but it isn't just the creation versus evolution debate that is diminished. Discussion and interactions on all topics, controversial or informational or whatever, is diminished across the entire Internet. The democratization of the Internet has shifted the center of gravity onto social media.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
It has been mentioned above, but I want to add my voice.
Many (most) of the forums that I used to regularly contribute to have trended down as participation in so called "Social Media" has risen. Climbing, flying, running, etc. forums have now become climbing, flying, running, etc. groups on Facebook. It seems to be the natural course if for no other reason then that is where the critical mass is. My distaste for this trend is specifically the loss of knowledge. 1: The ability in a FB post to put out any sort of organized presentation of knowledge is extremely limited, which means ... the knowledge sharing is really limited. 2: This forum (and most others) has a logical topic layout as well as a search interface and function that allows me to go back in time and access the vault. Facebook is HORRIBLE in this regard. Not only can I not access past information easily, I feel like I'm putting effort into a black hole. As far as more creationists showing up? Less and less likely I suspect. Grateful for this resource. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
But isn't that just a reflection of the whole culture; twitter instead of email instead of written letters...what is happening now...GoPro...selfies...apps to show you where your friends are...likes...
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Jar, I don't think that the wish to isolate themselves explains the absence of creationists here. For one thing, we have never seen those creationists anyway because they have no reason to be active and every reason to avoid encounters. Rather, we would only expect to see the active creationists visit us. Even though the inactive creationists may be interested in discussing "creation science", they will still want to do so only with other creationists and not with "evilutionists", so we should still not expect to see them anyway. On "Evolution Fairy Tale" maybe, but not here.
The active ones can be divided into two groups: the newbies and the old hands. Of the two, it's the newbies that we'd be much more likely to see, because the old hands know better than to talk with "eviliutionists", especially ones who are familiar with their claims. The newbies don't know any better and will barge in thinking that their claims are true and unassailable; as one former YEC described it:
quote: After having gotten creamed a few times, the newbie becomes an old hand, assuming that he continues to stick around. As an old hand, he learns to only confront ignorant "evilutionists" or to restrict themselves to church presentations, YouTube clips, debates (which are rigged in their favor), run-by flamings (ie, nasty emails the responses to which they refuse to respond to), etc. Above all they avoid any discussion of their claims and refuse to defend them. As such, social media would serve their purposes well. That's too bad, because having a discussion with an old hand would be far more interesting than with a newbie. The big problem with the newbie is that he usually doesn't even understand his own claim, let alone the science involved. At least there's more of a chance that an old hand would have a better understanding of his claim, but then he knows far too well to avoid discussing it. We just cannot win!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But EvC is just a very small part of the Avoidance syndrome; as I mentioned above they have their own TV and radio networks, browsers that filter web searches to protect the young, their own primary and secondary and even colleges with their own accreditation boards, their own Science Museums and "Science forums" and "Science Teachers" and actively shield the kids as much as possible from evil or liberal or progressive influences.
But the rest as you point out is also the case. They send the kids in with glowing eyes and a stack of Chick Tracts and really think those cartoons represent truth and reality. It's sad. The basic problem is of course that the Creationists position really is impossible to defend. Reality is a bitch.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
If EvC is to continue it will likely need to change its focus to some other area where there are still open and not yet settled questions. I agree, completely. It might be a good idea if Percy rebrands the website by essentially turning this in to an overall debate forum that doesn't necessarily have an emphasis on either "creation" or "evolution," but rather can be focused on specific categories like: Science, Politics, Sociology, Religion, etc.. Creationists are rare these days, and even rarer are creationists that can actually hold something of an intellectual discourse. Percy, what say you? Is it time for the site to itself evolve by changing the name and the focus?"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
This forum (and most others) has a logical topic layout as well as a search interface and function that allows me to go back in time and access the vault. Facebook is HORRIBLE in this regard. Not only can I not access past information easily, I feel like I'm putting effort into a black hole. As far as more creationists showing up? Less and less likely I suspect. Grateful for this resource. I got rid of all social media about 2 years ago. It served a purpose at first for me, especially reconnecting with people I lost contact with, but it's troubles became apparent real quick. In terms of posting one's religious or political views, FB has no anonymity and although you might want to share your personal beliefs with some friends, you don't necessarily want to put that out to your boss who sent you a lame ass friend request, yet you feel obligated to accept it. On a forum, I am Hyroglyphx, not my real name. There is a level of anonymity where we can simply share ideas without it affecting our day to day lives. Facebook and other social media outlets have so many negative drawbacks that I am glad that I got rid of all of it. Forums are much better, IMO "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Yes, the YEC position is impossible to defend. And the "old hands", the creationists who have sallied forth and gotten creamed, know that even if they can't admit it to themselves. That is why they avoid having to defend it by controlling all their venues. Debates are nearly perfect, because the creationist can freely lie about everything and anything while their opponent feels constrained to being truthful -- eg, in Bill Morgan's debate with Phil Summerfeld (on YouTube), Morgan quoted a PhD Molecular Genetics, making sure to over-emphasize her PhD, without ever mentioning that she's a professional creationist speaking as a creationist. Presentations also, though in an article about creationist debates I read about a presentation where the creationists learned that a couple guys familiar with creationist claims were in the audience so they had to quickly change their presentation.
The bottom line is that, even though YEC is impossible to defend, they persist in believing in it. That's why they're called PRATTs. It's like on Doctor Who: No matter how many times you kill or annihilate ( the Daleks / the Cybermen / Devros / the Master / YEC claims ), they keep coming back in subsequent episodes. They refuse to stay dead! The only thing that would result in a decreased number of YECs would be a decreased number of fundamentalists (to apply a single term to a number of different Christian YEC cults). The main thing lowering their numbers is the hemorrhaging of their youth, the next generation which they had raised themselves. The estimates of how many fundamentalist Christian youth leave the faith (with many of them leaving religion altogether) range from 65% to 80% -- interestingly, as I recall, the higher figures come from sources in the youth ministries. As a result, the only way those churches can maintain their membership numbers is through more aggressive recruiting, AKA proselytizing, for which they rely heavily on the "creation science" position which is so impossible to defend. YEC is not about to go away. But the experienced YECs know all too well to avoid EvC. And the nave newbies are now being drawn to other forms of communication, to social media, which is better suited to YEC's superficial hit-and-run tactics and avoidance of any actual discussion of their claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
jar writes: The whole characteristic of "Social Media" is simply a reflection of what the people want. It is just more evidence in support of my point. Just to be sure, you're referring to your point that people have changed, not the Internet? I don't really see that myself. People as a group are pretty much the same 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. What's changed is that Internet now attracts a broad cross section of people instead of mostly techies. The access point of choice to the Internet used to be a computer with a normal keyboard and a relatively large screen, now it's a tiny screen with a tiny faux keyboard. This encourages short interactions, like text messages with perhaps an image or two.
Social Media is just another avoidance mechanism; a way to avoid anything you wish to hide from, like reality. Well, yes, this is true. But it's a mechanism much preferred by the general population (who now dominate the Internet) compared to a discussion board. I'm working on taking the forum software in a social media direction, but real life continues to knock such plans on their heels. I'm working on a template-based implementation now, and once that's completed I can begin taking the software in the direction of libraries like Bootstrap and AngularJS, adding social media features at the same time. The idea is to have a social media site with a genuine and integrated discussion board. Advertising is the revenue model for Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/SnapChat/etc.-land, while discussion board software companies like dBoard (someday, God willing) and vBulletin and phpBoard actually sell or give away their crown jewels, the software. That's a bad model, but it's the one we're stuck with, so what's the best that can be done with it. I'm still figuring that out. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
There is nothing inherent in Social Media that would prevent discussions, instead it is the people themselves who simply don't discuss and debate. You can debate of course debate on social media, but the popular media really are not set up to encourage the kind of interchange that is really needed for serious debate, including allowing links to source documents and essentially any type of reference, quoting, and ready access to archiving and searching that are found on bulletin boards. Does that mean that people are different fundamentally? I think I am with Percy on this one. People are pretty much the same. It is just that their exposure to the internet has been different that what we grew up with. I am strongly disposed to value discussion and debate and other text based interactions based on habits I developed during the 80s and 90s. I also have a hard time considering not joining debate groups some kind of avoidance. The arguments we have here are of interest to a tiny part of the population. It is in real life and not internet life where there is little to no confrontation between creationists and evolution supporters. In fact, debates on this topic are such a small niche that it might be easier to question the mindset of people who participate than that of those who don't. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Perhaps the addition of a "share on facebook" button might accomplish a few things.
As for the idea that people have or have not changed, I am reminded of this internet meme:
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
In terms of posting one's religious or political views, FB has no anonymity and although you might want to share your personal beliefs with some friends, you don't necessarily want to put that out to your boss who sent you a lame ass friend request, yet you feel obligated to accept it. On a forum, I am Hyroglyphx, not my real name. There is a level of anonymity where we can simply share ideas without it affecting our day to day lives. This is exactly the issue for me. There's no way I'd let all the stupid shit I say here get out to my friends, family, and coworkers. I don't always debate, but when I do, I do it anonymously. I think part of that has to do with floating ideas that I'm not vested in to see how they stand up to scrutiny, or taking a position I don't agree with to get better ideas on how to combat it. Being anonymous allows me to not have to worry about people I know thinking I'm crazy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
It's like the old adage, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Yes, but guns enable people to exercise their anger, fear, etc. instantaneously. Does that mean that people are different fundamentally? Social media don't make people shallow - but they enable people to exercise their shallowness instantaneously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Percy writes: Being anonymous allows me to not have to worry about people I know thinking I'm crazy. Being anonymous also allows you to not have to worry about people you know are crazy thinking about you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
You hit the Do Nothing Button didn't you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024