Faith's Participation in EvC

this sounds to me highly, highly unorthodox; essentially calling out a member of the board and bringing administration matters to the masses.i will continue to make the same point i make everytime this sort of issue comes up. YES the fundamentalists really, honestly debate the basic interpretation of truth and factuality. they see things differently than the rest of us in a very fundamental way... and that is the debate. if we start suspending and banning members for disagreeing with facts and data and evidence, the debate goes with them. because among the scientific community, there simply is no debate at all about the matters creationists bring up.further, faith and i disagree quite regularly, often heatedly in very public (and often childish) ways. but she is still my sister in christ, and i think she has every right to be here. she's grown a lot in her time here -- she's debating much more sharply, civilly, and making better points, even if only in phrasing. and she does very accurately represent a major segment of contemporary creationism. and we have very few creationists to go around here. if anything, we should cut them a little slack, because they have to deal with so very many of us "evolutionists." and she's done nothing wrong, that i can tell, beyond simply being a creationist. when that's a suspendable offense, i promise you debate will go down.and nobody ever said this debate -- evolution v. creation -- was constructive. it's not. it doesn't decide anything in any places that matter, it doesn't affect schools or congree or churches. it rarely changes anybody's mind.

---

oh, ok then. nevermind! thank you.

---

ned, i think this is fairly standard creationism.we can't ban people for being wrong, or perhaps willfully ignorant, can we? is this a debate forum, or "the scientist's burden" of educating the backward religious folk?

---

moderation is not a privilege; it's a punishment. they make people moderators so they are forced to understand the concerns of other moderators: running a well-behaved, civil, and constructuve debate board. the best way to make someone grow up is to make them responsible for something.frankly, i do not envy the mods here.

---

she is good at that, yes. yes, i whole heartedly agree. yes, i think everyone here has probably been suspended at one time or another. i still find it particularly amusing how i managed to get myself suspended once... while this sort of bills itself almost as an attack on a single member, there's a larger picture we have to remember here, one you touched on above. faith is an accurate representation of creationism as a whole. she is considerably more articulate than most, and much better at debate (even if she does slip into the occasional screaming match). the techniques of ignoring facts and their obvious implications, and relying on counter-scientific "miracle" explanations is simple what creationism is. what right do we have to call ourselves "evolution v. creation" is the punishment for continued creationism is being banned? that's highly, highly biased, the likes of which i have only seen on, well, creationist boards.(ironically, i think we've tried to define what would constitute a constructive debate before. and the debate was not, how to put this, constructive in the slightest. creationists and "evolutionists" simply do not see eye to eye. on anything.) yes. and removing frustrating members is not the way to learn how to communicate. can you imagine if we removed, say, brad mcfall because nobody can actively engage in a constructive conversation with him? is it his fault, or our fault for not understanding what he's talking about?Edited by arachnophilia, : mysteriously missing quote

---

why is that an issue, exactly?she has to defend much more of her side of the argument than the average "evolutionist" does, because there's les of her to go around. she's also been here a very, very long time.

---

yes, it does seem highly inappropriate. i guess the public forum is a better place, though, so everyone can voice their opinion. and so far it seems the vast majority of the board has your back, faith.frankly, i can't believe we keep having these discussions. this is probably at least the third time regarding you, and i know there've been a few times regarding randman and other creationist members.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

faith (lowercase f) is not about reasoning. otherwise, it would be called "reasoning" and not "faith." it is a wholely different animal, and has little or nothing to do with facts -- and often runs contrary to available evidence.Faith (uppercase f) represents a large segment of the american population, and really, faith (lowercase f) as a whole. this is evolution (a scientific theory) versus creation (an idea primarily motivated by faith). saying that we cannot except arguments that are just plain irrational and driven only by bias and person belief is, in effect, eliminating one side of the debate. "evolution" wins by definition.hardly fair, or right. for most people, "faith" and "doubt" are antonyms. my particular kind of faith is rather unusual. that is science. not religion. again, defining the rules of the debate in favor of one side. a troll with 10,000 posts? faith does make a number of troll-ish posts, yes. but she also legitimately contributes to the discussion. hell, half my posts are kind of trollish too.

---

yes. i, for one, learn by being challenged. this board, and dealing with creationists, has inspired me to learn a number of things, not the least of which is hebrew. touche.

---

i promise you that by and large most of the participants in the theology threads ain't so erudite either. coincidently, they're still creationists. (well, that's my elitist post for the day)

---

i believe there may be a faulty assumption here.

---

that's not what i mean. really, i should never have used the word "win" because it's not about winning. nobody will win this debate, i assure you.what i mean is that if we define the rules to be exclude creationists, then what's the point of having the board? there would be no discussion. i don't care if it's patronizing, really, i don't. they're wrong -- the facts and evidence and science is against them. and yet the discussion still happens, and their points are still being made. at a certain point, creationism is dishonesty, or at the very least willful ignorance. shall we ban them because they refuse to learn?or should we just go on instructing? and what would the board be without opposition? who would we instruct, or what issues would be raised that required clarification? one learns as much from someone being wrong as they do from someone who is right. you don't question the things that are fundamental to your beliefs. what if they're wrong? maybe it's a character fault, but i think we all suffer from it to a degree. i would be lying if i said there is nothing i won't question. creationism is not about religion. really, it isn't. it uses religion as its foundation, but it's points are not theological. in fact, quite often, theology works AGAINST creationism, a point i continue to make here in the theology fora. creationism is a pseduo-scientific extension of personal faith. it is the bastard child of pop-science and a personal relationship with jesus.it doesn't work by science's standards, because it's not science. and it doesn't really fit with religion, either. to expect to fit one or the other is to have misunderstood the debate. and really, getting frustrated with the gish gallop, or an opponent refusing to accept the obvious fact that they are wrong isn't a good reason to remove the opponent, however obnoxious you may find her.

---

i think, ned, they are contesting the rules.

---

you make a good point, wounded

people volunteer to pick up liter along the road all the time. you don't have to be a convict to do it. yes, brian. making her an admin has not, no. but over the course of her history here there has been a lot of growth, even if the points are still the same tired creationist pratts. i highly suspect ray to be a schizophrenic.

---