|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist Shortage | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
One cannot excape the feeling that resident evolutionists do not understand, or allow for creation science talk. Your bully pulpit site owner simply bans it from debate so as for it to stand or fall on it's own merits. Hmm. I'm no 'Darwinian,' and I am an ID proponent, but I haven't noticed any censorship with regards to stuff I post. I think this site is pretty balanced, in terms of moderation procedures. Are you sure you're not making this stuff up?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Virtually EVERY creationist who posts here has told you they have a problem with the moderation here, and that is the reason why they give up contributing, and you just act like a blind mute who can't read, and say, no no, that's not the reason...its factors outside our control, yadda yadda. You allow evolutionists to be as big of bullies as they wish, with encouragement from you often, you allow them to post nonsense one liners, and silly ad hominem attacks, you ban creationists from certain forums, you continually participate as both a moderator and a participant in the thread debate, and you hold grudges against posters who don't bow to you. That's interesting, because I'm certainly not one who conforms to the "orthodoxy" here, but I don't have the problems you list above. Why do you think that might be?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
How long have you been posting here? Several months IIRC.
Do you deny evolution? I'm an ID proponent, and it is my position that intelligent design has played a role in the history of life on earth. Do I deny common descent? No.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Hi RAZD,
I'm a deist, the original intelligent design belief (as opposed to the neo-paleyism of modern ID proponentists). It is my position that the universe was created in such a way that planets, life and evolution occurred, including all the laws\etc that govern\control them. Do I deny science in any way? No, as it just explains what is and how it works, not why it is. It details the creation. I have experienced some moderation early in my posting here, but generally not that much (probably about average level and usually now when in debate with a certain atheist here ... ). As you know, I'm more of the "neo-paleyism" type of ID proponent. I think that clues of intelligent design can be found within life itself, and that certain molecular machines were engineered by an unknown intelligence(s). This puts me at odds with the position of most of the individuals here at EvC, but curiously enough I have experienced absolutely no moderation. But is this really "curious"? I really don't think so, since it seems to me that the moderators here are pretty fair and balanced. Thoughts?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Bolder-dash has also done some effort at supporting his positions, but he also falls into emotional responses, and I think that is where most moderation is encountered. Yes, I've noticed that a lot of creationists get really emotional about this. I guess it's hard not to if you lack self-control. Another issue is the somewhat condescending manner of some of the individuals from the evolution side. I do think that many of the creationists make a big deal out of it and can't see through the condescending style, but at the same I think it needs to be realized that a lot of the creationists that come here didn't really benefit from a stellar education. Thus, politely showing them where they are wrong will help - except in the cases where the person is absolutely dogmatic.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
One phrase: I concur
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
First off, I appreciate the intelligence of your posts. But the thing is, you don't really ever direct challenges to the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution, at least not in a comprehensive manner. Mostly you are just willing to debate some of the more subtle aspects of the mechanisms; aspects which only one or two other posters here are informed enough about to even comment on. As of yet, I've argued in favor of the ID hypothesis of front-loading and proposed an ID hypothesis for the engineering of certain molecular machines. But here's the deal: ID and evolution can work together, and complement each other. You can have engineering and evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. What is exclusive is either the view that intelligent design must deny evolution or that evolution implies that every feature in biology must be the product of random mutation and natural selection (and other mechanisms).
As such it doesn't put you in any position to experience much of the biased moderation. And what you do experience, you don't seem to care about. To be honest, I haven't experienced any moderation, so there's no moderation I have experienced to be able to care about. Occasionally, there will be some individual who makes a snarky post in response to something I've said. But, c'mon, if that person can't control his/her temper then maybe you should discuss these things with someone who can, and just see through the snarkiness? I assure you that you will never, ever get anywhere if you hurl an insult back, because the conversation will ultimately turn into a flame-war. So, I'm asking you to simply refuse to bring yourself to the level of insulting someone who insults you. Does that mean it's not a level playing field? Yes, it certainly does. But other members of this forum will notice that someone is insulting you even though you're not hurling any insults, and they may very well call that person out. In my early days of posting here, a certain user was being rather insulting to me. So what did I do? I ignored the insults. Soon enough, the other members of the forum called that certain person out. We're all human, so we may all have our moments of rage. But try to keep in mind that we are human, so if someone insults you, just remember that you're related to them by ~99.99% of your DNA.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Of course that is one of the reasons he has not encountered moderation, he basically accepts the evidence of evolution, with a modified deistic\IDist beginning (closer to your portrayal of my position). Just to clarify: I'm not necessarily a deist, and when discussing ID, I'm taking supernatural designers off the table.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
I m well aware of the tactics used by this forum and other places (such as Wikipedia) that have the clear purpose of trying to control the debate on the subject through censorship and other means, just the same way they wish to control any discussion even of just the weaknesses in the theory in schools. That is not science, that is propaganda, which is mostly what this site wants to be. You have just stated that you accept an un-level playing field. Why? Well, actually, most of the members here haven't been condescending to me in the slightest, so I don't consider it an un-level playing field. But does it significantly matter if they're allowed to insult you and (apparently) you're not? Why would you even want to bring yourself down to that level?
Secondly, you say that evolution and ID can be accepted together, as if the evolution we are talking about is not Darwinian evolution. Actually, in this context, I was using the word "evolution" to refer to "common descent." But it is my position that engineering and teleology have played roles in the history of life on earth, so by your definition of evolution, then yes, my position is at odds with that of most of the individuals here, as I stated previously. And given that I do hold a position that is "unorthodox" to this forum, and am an ID proponent, why is it that I have had no experiences with moderation? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
You seem to delight in taking positions of neutrality. I would change that to: I attempt to take positions that are as objective as possible. The 'Darwinians' here are indeed often condescending, but they are not condescending to me. I was simply pointing that out so that you would understand that, to me, the playing field is perfectly level.
ID indeed must deny evolution, as the word is used to mean a system. Huh? ID is used to mean a system?
Now ok, you have said you are now using the word evolution as a substitute for common descent, which is of course confusing, because one doesn't know when you no longer simply mean common descent. Because you go on suggest that Random mutations and natural selection indeed can be part of the package of your version of ID. I guess its sort of a water downed version which is not really sure if it is saying processes are guided or they aren't. Maybe you could be more clear on this. Does your theory rule out Darwinian evolution or doesn't it? That all depends on how you define Darwinian evolution. If you define Darwinian evolution as simply random mutation and natural selection acting on populations, then no, my ID hypotheses do not rule out Darwinian evolution. If, on the other hand, you define Darwinian evolution as the theory that all biological features (in a general sense) arose without the input of intelligence, then obviously the ID hypotheses and this definition of Darwinian evolution are not compatible.
It allows for some Darwinian evolution but not others? Where are you drawing the line, how much change can Darwinian evolution account for, and how much is guided? And which came first, the Darwinian evolution or the guided evolution? I think your approach to biological origins is significantly different than mine. You're trying to figure out what Darwinian evolution can and cannot do, while I'm focusing on developing an intelligent design hypothesis that would make testable predictions. Put differently, you're trying to prove a negative: you're endeavoring to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of all biological complexity. On the other hand, I'm seeking to formulate a hypothesis which would provide a better explanation than the current theory. You're trying to prove a negative, and I'm trying to demonstrate a positive. Do you think you see the difference? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
I am still not clear from you-does your hypothesis allow both random mutations and natural selection to be a force of evolution, AS WELL AS guided mutations and a guided system to be a force of evolution? The two work in tandem? I'm not of the school of thought which says that mutations were somehow "guided." It is my position that the first genomes on earth were engineered by some intelligence(s), and that these genomes contained the necessary information to bias the path of future evolution such that complex life forms (e.g., Metazoa) would be quite likely to evolve. And if the first genomes were engineered, then the molecular machines encoded by those genomes were likewise engineered. So, you see, we have engineering of the first genomes and first molecular machines, and the first genomes bias evolution in planned trajectories. But after the engineering of the first genomes, no intelligent intervention takes place. How did this evolution take place? Through random mutation and natural selection. Interestingly, mutations aren't quite random, though, because of phenomena like cytosine deamination - and such features could be exploited by the designers such that the initial states are poised to evolve in specific directions. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
You are suggesting that there is a biased path pro-ordained into the structure of the genome. So a biased path would be a path that isn't random. But its random mutations and natural selection which control evolution. But interestingly (or one can say confusingly) not quite random, because some features can be exploited to not be random. So its pro-programmed randomness? Let me clarify. If you loaded a genome with genes that will later be used by animals, then you've significantly improved the chances of animals evolving. Why? Because you don't have to rely on the blind watchmaker to tinker around and "just happen" to stumble across those genes necessary for the origin of animals. Thus, the "trajectory" of evolution is biased in a specific direction. The "deck is stacked" in favor of the appearance of animals. It's not that some features can be exploited to not be random. Instead, the very chemistry of DNA makes mutations not-so-random (e.g., cytosine bases are more likely to mutate to thymines than to either adenine or guanine). But it is this chemistry of DNA that can be exploited by a designer: engineer an initial DNA sequence such that when it undergoes non-random C --> T mutations (non-random in the sense that these mutations are more likely than C --> A or C --> G), a novel sequence originates.
So at the heart of your intelligent design hypothesis is randomness? In your theory does the genome have an inherent desire to improve itself or an inherent drive to survive? At the heart of the design hypothesis is engineering of the initial genomes such that they are biased to evolve in planned directions and random mutation and natural selection. There's no reason to put intelligent design and evolution at odds. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Belated hide and off-topic banner. The forum was pretty much down last night, or I might have gotten here sooner.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
To be fair, my Message 346 was every bit as off-topic as Bolder-dash's Message 369.
{Note from Adminnemooseus - I was in the process of also hiding and bannering message 370 when the forum quit responding (nothing but time out messages). I did finally complete the message 370 edit just before posting this note. I'll probably now get back to hiding your message 346 (and maybe others) soon.}
{Note from Admin: Board went down around 1:30 AM and stayed down until 9:43 AM.} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note from Adminnemooseus. Edited by Admin, : Note.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024