Difference between religion and science fora

I just want to say, in my short time here, I don't see some of the moderating, particularly with Nosey's ban of Faith, as anything more than a tool to silence criticism of evolution.For example, evolutionists here often continually make wild, unfounded statements. Robinroham and others, for example, openly state creationists reject evolution based on a desire for power.Now, he offers no scientific studies for this, and I suspect normally the average creationist or IDer would not go to the mods to try to force him to provide evidence or retract the statement.To do so would normally be asinine, stupid, etc, etc,....I mean of course the statement is unfounded, but that should not mean one cannot speculate, and unlike many of the evolutonists here, the average critic of evolution is willing to let such unfounded stuff slide.But somehow the evolutionists here behave differently.For example, someone speculates that so many messages that evolution is true colors someone's perception prior to being able to examine the facts. Some evolutionists demand "evidence" or "retract" or something like that.Why would they do that? They are adults, and know full well that the poster probably has not seen a study and maybe there never has been one, but all of us that went to public school and live in the US know full well that the message of ToE is very prevalent.Why would someone be such a jerk and try to use the rules to silence an argument?I think because that's what they are after, to silence a good argument with a bogus and hypocritical standard. it's not applied to themselves, is it?Are evolutionists being banned for making claims such as creationists are power hungry? There are no peer reviewed studies showing that, are there?But why is Faith banned, but the evolutionist posters are not?It's a double-standard, imo. Using rules to enact basic unfairness and a lack of even-handedness is wrong.My impression is not that creationists here don't back their claims up, but that some moderating is done in a manner to falsely silence those claims and their arguments. It's interesting that some call for banning using science data in the faith threads. It looks to me like more of an attempt to control what information can be posted, not a genuine attempt to keep the discussion within factual discourse.Maybe if some YEC was a mod or something to maintain a balance, or at least an IDer, the forum could be proceed honestly, but when wild, unfounded statements of evolutionists are routinely not censured and even celebrated, but creationists are nitpicked in order to silence their ability to present facts, it seems to me something is seriously wrong.But then again I am new here, and maybe this is just a hiccup in the process.This message has been edited by randman, 08-01-2005 05:25 AM

The confusion seems deliberate in the misuse of that term.Evolution can be defined 2 different ways.1. ToE
2. Pretty much all change, but let's use speciation for sake of argument.Evolutionists "prove" point 2, which no one disputes anyway, and then turn around and claim point 1 is proven, mainly because they use the same term, and they call it science.it's a fraud, and something evolutionists ought to quit doing, but they want to maintain the non-scientific aspects of evolutionism for some reason it seems, and that's unfortunate. They would do well to listen to one of their own, Michael Ruse, but I am not so sure they can.

From my perspective, it looks like more that Faith was making effective arguments, and that angered some such that they resort to character assisination and a mis-application of rules.

I'd be willing but I think some would have a fit if I became a mod, but I would be fair and lay out my reasons, and I suspect it wouldn't always agree with all the mods anyway (as it appears that is sometimes the case between the current mods), and I think no one would thus have anything to fear.

Yea, but let's be honest. You guys speak in a manner and sometimes even state evolution is proven. You present as facts all sorts of things that have not been proven, or have done so in the past in the way evolution is presented, but when a creationist reflects in kind, and uses the term "proof" or "prove", you jump all over them.It's hypocrisy.Evolutionists don't play by the same standards of evidence, not here and not in the debate in general.

What evidence? Here is some evidence I was taught that was supposedly a fact.1. Neaderthal was ape-like and not at the level of modern humans, the impression is that he could not, for instance, have mated with people.2. Cro-Magnon man was a missing link. Actually, I don't see any bioligical differences between Cro-Magnon and us except that Cro-Magnons were typically taller.3. Haeckel's drawings.4. the phylotypic stage in embryos5. fish gills in human embryos6. Fossils documenting evolution which was the very gradual change from one species to another (false impression since fossil record does not show that)7. Micro-evolution proves ToEWhich of these are factual and logical evidence?Are Haeckel's drawings "facts"? They were presented as facts.Are human gill slits "facts"? They were presented as facts.Looks like a sham to me.

Hmmm...My own feeling is that if the argument and debate gets sharpened as the topic is brought up again, then let it go on. If there comes a time, after awhile, that there the issue or argument is not getting clearer, and it's just a repeat, then I think maybe then it should be cooled down.Obviously, I have shown a tendency to bring up certain concepts such as aspects of quantum physics dealing with the nature of physical existence, aspects of how evolution is taught, etc,...I have brought up Haeckel's drawings a lot but at the same time, there is still considerable more being brought out on the topic, such as the interesting fact I did not realize until this last month, that Von Baer was not actually an evolutionist and a critic of Darwin, which is worth noting just as history considering how Darwin used Vom Baer's work.On Faith's posts, I haven't spent a lot of time on the geology area of the forum so I don't know what is being rehashed or what has not, but it's my experience this works both ways.Just how many times do we need to hear evolutionists insist that micro-evolution equates macro-evolution when obviously the other side doesn't buy that? Creationists and IDers, as you know, don't dispute speciation so we should be able to get past that, but we usually don't for some reason.It would be nice for some to actually try to show they understand the other side before bashing it, and that goes both ways of course.On the issue of facts, you raise a very good point, and that's something I have wanted to bring up. We have to look at how we determine something is a fact, and not just assert it is one, and that should always be a critical part of any discussion. The assumptions, observations, interpretations, etc,...play a large role in categorizing something as "fact."For me, it's not the labels whether "fact" or "interpretation" that count, but communicating the understanding of the event, thing, or process.

Thanks Faith. He does appear to be very disingenious here which seems to be part of a pattern when some are losing an argument.I'd like to hear some actual "evidence" as well, but don't necessarily expect it.

Awesome post.Imo, evolutionists need to start dealing with some of these criticisms instead of trying to use sophistry to argue their way around them.There could be a lot of real discussion of the problems of evolutionary theory, if evolutionists wouldn't try so hard to deny the problems even existed.