Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Suggestions for the Evolutionists
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 23 (69646)
11-27-2003 11:19 PM


We often find ourselves offering new posters some advice. This is frequently directed at fundamentalists who come in guns-a-blazing and posting old junk. However, I think that both sides could use some introductory advice. I'm going to start this thread and try to collect a mini posters-manual for the scientific side of the argument. Later I'd like to try for the other side. We could develop it here and then perhaps have it made a special part of the forum (available at registration, or pointed to at the home page maybe).
Everything here is, of course, just a suggested starting point. I won't hate anyone who thinks it needs changing (and don't know your home addresses anyway ).
Suggested opening paragraph:
Welcome to EVC Forum! The "regulars" welcome you. The forum has been in place for a considerable period of time and the following might help you fit right in faster than you might otherwise. We all hope you get something out of the forum and can contribute something to it.
The core idea behind the forum is to discuss the controversial (to some) topics concerned with the intial formation and change in living things on earth. Thus evolution versus creation. However, a lot of other topics get introduced as well. Particularly religious ones.
Most of us here (and probably you too) have some pretty strong opinions about the topics discussed here. You may think you have something brand new to say that no one has thought of before. This view could cause you to make some very strong statements in your first few posts. We would strongly suggest that you read over a number of the different threads before you do that.
There is a search funtion available under "Forums Nav". You might use a few keywords from what you want to say to see if it has been discussed already.
In addition, it may help others to be more prepared to listen to you if you temper the strength of your statments. You might ask questions instead of making very dogmatic assertions.
Of course, you should also read over the forum guidelines and try to stick pretty close to what they suggest. They will, in no way, limit what you can post. They are there simply to assist you to take part in a real debate. That is a back and forth discussion without it degenerating into something like two 8 year olds yelling at each other: "IS", "IS NOT!", "IS!", IS NOT!"
As this section is directed at the more scientific minded here are a few suggestions for you to follow if you are of this mind set:
1) If you happen to be an atheist there is not good attacking someone's choice to take the existance of a God on faith. If they choose to do that they have a perfect right to do so.
There is no room for an evidence based discussion over the existance or non-existance of a God of a purely supernatural nature.
Only if someone wants to argue about God on an evidentury basis is there room for discussion. Then you might want to discuss the evidence put forward.
2) In a similar manner if someone want to believe in the literal word by word truth of the Bible as simply a matter of faith let them. There is no reason to bother about it. The arguement here is with the idea of "creation science". This is based on the idea that there can be scientific proof of the literal Bible. This is what some individuals (most especially in the USA but other places as well) want to force into schools and textbooks. This is fair game! Enjoy the hunt.
3)You will have your own particular style of debating. You may choose to be very agressive and run out 10 references to counter every claim made by the other side. You may choose to engage them in a slower back and forth discussion. Which one you pick is up to you. However, you may find that the discussion can go a little further if you are more gentle.
4) You will also have limited time to debate. As a way of manageing that time more effectively you may want to assess a new arrival a bit before spending a lot of time answering a new post. There is a steady stream of fundamentalists who drop by, post a few copies of stuff off the worst of the creationist web sites and will never been seen again. You will be wasting your time if you answer every line of the posts. Test a little to see if they really want to discuss the issues first.
5)Do NOT jump down the throat of those who post the above mentioned junk. You don't know how much chance they have had to be exposed to anything in the way of a broad education. Give them a chance to show that they can carry on a logical discussion and are willing to work at their side of it too. There are some very reasonable people who have strong beliefs and you might learn something by talking with them.
6) Even for those resonable folks who do hang around, don't expect them to think in the same way you do. Try to stick to one topic or so and see if the individual is someone you want to talk to. If after a bit they don't seem to be then you can move on.
7)You probably shouldn't expect to "convert" anyone with a deep set "true-belief". However, there are a number of people who lurk here and my well be honestly interested in both sides. Try to remember that you are representing the rational, scientific side and conduct yourself accordingly.
8)As a representative of the rational side you expect the opponents to supply logic and evidence for what they are trying to "sell", you should set a very good example by doing more of this than you expect.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 01-29-2004 9:51 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 01-30-2004 12:07 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 9 by SRO2, posted 04-04-2004 10:14 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2004 11:47 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 19 by coffee_addict, posted 04-06-2004 1:48 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 20 by Nighttrain, posted 07-06-2004 2:54 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 23 (81571)
01-29-2004 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 11:19 PM


Bump -- any chance anyone wants to add to this?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 11:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2004 10:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 23 (81582)
01-29-2004 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
01-29-2004 9:51 PM


I'll add that your point #5 is a good one, that I am guilty of not paying heed to. I admire your calm manner and cool head, Ned.
I like the idea of having this be a "must read," but the possessors of The Truth won't bother to read it anyway. That shouldn't stop us, though, from putting something along these lines up front somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 01-29-2004 9:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 23 (81591)
01-29-2004 11:13 PM


A repremand concerning things elsewhere
I had prepared this message earlier today, but putting it in the referred to topic would only get it buried. NosyNed's just bumped topic looks like a good place.
Brought in from the "Our Sun" topic.
Mr Jack, from message 2:
quote:
Seriously, nothing you mine from a creationist website has not already been refuted. Chances are you can find that refutation on TalkOrigins.org.
JonF, from message 4:
quote:
As already noted in the "Dates and Dating" forum, please do not post quotes from creationist web sites without checking out talkorigins.org or the old threads in this site or other reliable sources.
While the science side may hold creationist web sites in low esteem, if it were not for such quotations, much of the debate here would dry up.
Also, offering a rebuttal in the form of a statement along the lines of "Go to talkorigins.org" is essentially a bare link, with no supporting discussion (violation of forum rule 5). Especially when the link is just to the homepage of a very large site. Creationists would be guilty of the same offence, if their rebuttal to a point was "Go to the Answers in Genesis site for your answer".
That said, JonF did go on to present further argument.
Also, speaking of the AIG site, I strongly suspect that the "Shrinking Sun" argument is on their list of arguments that they recommend creationists don't use.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 01-30-2004 9:00 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 23 (81632)
01-30-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Adminnemooseus
01-29-2004 11:13 PM


Re: A repremand concerning things elsewhere
While the science side may hold creationist web sites in low esteem, if it were not for such quotations, much of the debate here would dry up.
True. And if it were not for mined and erroneous quotes, much of the entire controversy would dry up. I wish that all we saw were the occasional new argument, but I certainly don't expect that to happen.
Also, speaking of the AIG site, I strongly suspect that the "Shrinking Sun" argument is on their list of arguments that they recommend creationists don't use.
Nope, although "not enough neutrinos" is. Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis .
Of course, Kent Hovind still uses this and other equally poor argumetns. http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-29-2004 11:13 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 01-30-2004 10:53 AM JonF has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 23 (81652)
01-30-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by JonF
01-30-2004 9:00 AM


Re: A repremand concerning things elsewhere
Careful there JonF -- you not on topic. This is suggestions for you and me not "them".

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 01-30-2004 9:00 AM JonF has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 7 of 23 (81658)
01-30-2004 11:28 AM


I missed this thread when it first began. I like the idea of posting something like this as part of the guidelines. I could make it a link off the guidelines page. I think it needs a little refinement and some spell-checking, but otherwise it looks good. If you or anyone wants to do a rewrite or series of rewrites just post them in this thread.
A couple related ideas, sort of, on my to-do list are:
  • Member rating of posted messages. Each message by a user would include beneath his name:
    1. Rating for this message.
    2. Average rating for this member's messages in this thread.
    3. Average rating for this member's messages in this forum.
    4. Average rating for this member's messages across the whole board.
    The last one would also appear on the member's profile page. Possible rating levels (suggestions solicited):
    1. Outstanding
    2. Pretty good
    3. Okay
    4. Subpar
    5. Full of blarney
    Each member could rate each message as many times as he likes, but only his last rating would be used, and members wouldn't be permitted to rate their own messages.
  • Member webpages. Members can already have a link to a homepage as part of their profile, but I could add the ability for members to upload a page (pages?) to the site. I'd put an upper limit on the amount of space they could use so it wouldn't be abused by people building entire websites or archiving data. This is mostly so people could make pages that they could easily reference in posts, like your guidelines addendum, which is what gave me the idea to mention this.
Feedback welcome.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 04-05-2004 12:09 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 12:35 AM Percy has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 23 (81662)
01-30-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 11:19 PM


Perhaps you could supply a link to a site listing PRATTs and the standard evolutionary reply:
An Index to Creationist Claims
If someone finds these explanations lacking they should feel free to post their objections. However, this may have the same effect as shooting down quote mining and might end up stifling debate. Anyway, just a suggestion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 11:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (97739)
04-04-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 11:19 PM


Hi Ned.
I generally take exception to anyone attemting to call creation a "science"...creation is not now and never will be a "science"...Science could care less about the existance of god....Creationist attempt to label it science to give creationism credibility...but it is now and always be mearly a "belief system"...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 11:19 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 10:33 PM SRO2 has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 23 (97745)
04-04-2004 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by SRO2
04-04-2004 10:14 PM


Re: Hi Ned.
I'm afraid I don't see how that is a useful suggestion for a evo. Please stay on topic.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by SRO2, posted 04-04-2004 10:14 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by SRO2, posted 04-04-2004 10:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 23 (97750)
04-04-2004 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
04-04-2004 10:33 PM


Re: Hi Ned.
Well, it seems to be the counter argument creationists have...call it a science instead of a belief and evolutionists "HAVE" to accept it...it doesn't get any plainer than that...thats been the main thrust of the creationists argument as of late and as it were...therefore, it's completely on topic....do evolutionists accept I.D. as a science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 10:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 23 (97761)
04-04-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 11:19 PM


There is no room for an evidence based discussion over the existance or non-existance of a God of a purely supernatural nature.
Only if someone wants to argue about God on an evidentury basis is there room for discussion. Then you might want to discuss the evidence put forward.
Ned, imo, the letter should be condensed some, though most is quite well stated. The above items are fuzzy, this being one of the core problems with evo/creo debates. We believe many of our arguments for the existence of the supernatural dimension are evidentury whereas you people don't. Obviously you want the letter to favor your view. Some of us believe the supernatural possibility would render much of your dating data erroneous due to the fact that created things such as stones, planets including earth, the moon and sun would have a degree of appearance of age when created, for example.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 11:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 23 (97766)
04-05-2004 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
01-30-2004 11:28 AM


Hi Percy. I can see where I would end up with this message rating idea. When some of my counterparts in debates believe I'm mistaken, for example, I'm a liar. Mistaken doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary when engaging in somewhat intense debate. It's obvious from the posts of the month threads and such that only posters who are ideologically correct here in town are recognized as efficient. I'm not complaining here as much as I am making a point. I knew when I signed up here that it would be ideologically hostile territory. I'm afraid that the rating idea would end up being more of a popularity poll reflecting the majority view than an objective assessment of efficiency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-30-2004 11:28 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 04-05-2004 4:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 23 (97774)
04-05-2004 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
01-30-2004 11:28 AM


Frequently Posted Topics
Modeled after the usual {Frequently Asked Questions} you could have a frequently posted topics page. This would apply easily to literalists (if we evolved from apes ...), but I'm sure some of those on that side of the debate can supply some things that are common misconceptions of the evilutionists. I bet high on the list would be "it's just a myth" kind of statements ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-30-2004 11:28 AM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 23 (97821)
04-05-2004 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
04-05-2004 12:09 AM


I'm afraid that the rating idea would end up being more of a popularity poll reflecting the majority view than an objective assessment of efficiency.
I agree with Buz on this. Posts of the month are almost always evo posts simply because there's so many of us. Even though anybody can nominate a POTM, I guess creationists don't feel any of each other's posts are worth it?
I think he's right - us on the evo side have ample enough opportunity to pat each other on the back as it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 04-05-2004 12:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 10:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024