Does that mean that most everything that a creationist will try to say has already been said? And then what about the evolutionists, have they run out of topics as well? If not the I need to be busy writing rebuttels.
Does that mean that most everything that a creationist will try to say has already been said?
More than likely, many times over. But that does not mean you might not find something new. There's always that possibility.
And then what about the evolutionists, have they run out of topics as well?
Nope, new things come to light near daily. It's an exciting period.
But go ahead and propose a New Thread. If it's been discussed recently and there's an open thread on it we can probably point you there. If there's something unique about your message, then a new thread is always welcome. Either way, we'll work with you to see that it gets the best beginnings.
While I agree that a new thread shouldn't be opened when there is an inactive but fairly recent thread dealing with the same topic.
But I don't think that a topic should be rejected simply because it is something that has been seen before, even a million times before. If it has been long enough in the past since it was discussed, then it is quite possible that some of the new members (and lurkers) have not really discussed it in depth. Considering that we will all see these same arguments again in real life (I know I have), it might be useful for some people to see what the arguments really are. And reading (and perhaps participating in) a current discussion is certainly more interesting than reading an old one.
I certainly agree when the admins ask someone to think a little more about their proposal if they are posting a PRATT, but I think that allowing it to be discussed openly is more effective than simply saying its been discussed to death and moving on.
The rules say not to make a "bare assertion". What does that mean? If I am guessing right, it means to not make blanket statments with no backing. For example, to say that evolution has no evidence for it, and then never back up that claim.
OK some examples of what I consider to be bare assertions:
quote:Evolution is a terrible theory - it has no evidence to support it
quote:Jesus was a homosexual - it's really really obvious to anyone with a brain
quote: There is evidence for the flood but the atheist scientists cover it up
The following is NOT a bare assertion but a statement of faith so I don't think it needs much in the way of support
quote:I think that God made the flood possible, that's why it doesn't match with normal physics, because of the intervention of God
Let me repost something else that you may find helpful:
I think the problem for many Christians who come here is as follows:
quote: Zragger was the mighty plusrazor master of the shattered oyxy box. Before he existed, he was able to perform mighty crackletoes of zograds. But low he had an nemisis - the unholy slapperbotrum. And a day came when they fought with jellyguns.
Now it seems like I'm taking the piss and suggesting that Christianity is nonsense, I'm not. But to a disbeliever, the claims of Christianity can sound like that. May disbelievers don't wish to offend but many Christians find it difficult to understand why people don't "get it". It’s very difficult for people who put great store in something to understand that to many people it is of no significant at all.
This tends to led to two types of problems here:
1) The special pleading:
“it says such and such in the bible therefore it must true”.
“God could have just released all of the heat into space with a wave of his hand”.
Now this is fine in the faith forums but may posters run into trouble because they try to use this line of reasoning in the science forums. Christians who come here have to accept that in the SCIENCE forums the bible is given little to no credence, it is just a book. Others, will for a while, try and practice Pseudoscience, they will offer explanations but when cornered will resort to goddunit or “well you don’t know the answer either so it must be true!!”
This causes friction and problems.
quote: 2) testimonial
"But it was very dangerous to be a christian in those times"
"Won Ryatt was a great man and I knew him. I just know he was telling the truth when he says he found the Ark."
This is the second big problem I see here on a regular basic. The Christian religion is one that is built on testimonial, again something that most people in the science forums will not accept. This lends to all sorts of problems because many Christians then try to argue the scientist NOT the science – “But he was an honest man, it must be true” or more commonly “He’s covering up the evidence because he’s an atheist”. This cuts no ice at all in the science forums.
Zragger was the mighty plusrazor master of the shattered oyxy box. Before he existed, he was able to perform mighty crackletoes of zograds. But low he had an nemisis - the unholy slapperbotrum. And a day came when they fought with jellyguns.
I have a question concerning the following messages ,,.
AdminNosy told me in  that I should stay on topic because keeping a discussion focussed is good and
In addition, this is not on the science side of EvC and this is not a place to be discussing the science of the matter.
Leaving aside the question whether my post was on topic or not, I do not understand his advice, that the “science of the matter” should be discussed elsewhere - probably in the science forum. This would in effect end the discussion, because Faith is not allowed to post there and I’m discouraged to continue the debate in all non science fora. On the other hand this message -  - seems to indicate, that it’s acceptable to discuss science topics for example in a faith forum. Since AdminNosy probably has overlooked my request for clarification in message , I rephrase it here:
Please explain the rules, please advise me how to proceed! Thank you.
The difference between the Faith based forums and the Science based forums is primarily in the area of what can be accepted as evidence and how much weight might be granted that evidence.
One good example is using the Bible as a primary source for science. In the science areas an answer to the age of the universe that said, "The universe is less than six thousand years old because if you add up the ages of folk mentioned in the genealogy sections of the Bible you only reach back 6000 years" would be immediately rejected. In the Faith forums, a statement that "The universe is only 6000 years old because the Bible says so" is acceptable.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.