What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

i didn't mean to start another "let's all jump on the creationists" fest again. i was trying very, very hard in my original complaint to not be condescending.the question isn't "why are creationists so stupid lol?" it's "what can we do here to make this place a better place?" we are going to find very, very few well-informed creationists, as creationism is largely misinforation. the people with science degrees who call themselves creationists -- the only people somewhat well versed in both sides of the debate -- are few and far between. we will not get a michael behe here. and even he is barely a creationist.we cannot expect our creationists to be scientists, when by definition they are not. and we have to honestly take a look at our statistics. we have to realize that most of the creationist we get will be young, uninformed, inarticulate, and not very familiar with the rules of public debate and internet conduct. members like phat and anastasia are rare, but then they're not very vocal for creationism. some will be like buzsaw -- intelligent, and stubborn (no offense buz, "stubborn" is a word i apply to myself as well). but most will be somewhere in the rob to iamjoseph range. and we'll have a few randmans and rays to balance out the phats.if we cut out the robs and the iaj's, we're out 60-70% of our creationist membership, and probably 90% of the serious arguments on the site. their posts may seem nonsensical, or preachy, or off-topic, or whatever -- by our standards -- but that's the debate. they don't think like we do. if we are to have debate or discussion, we have to include them. otherwise, wtf is the point of the site? are we just evolution-pushers?i don't know what the solution is. we've already made some BIG steps in the right direction. we have creationist admins, who do police their own. i can't really argue for a kind of affirmative action -- we have to keep the threads somewhat on track. though sometimes i feel like the creationists attract more moderator attention simply because they tend, on average, to be a little less articulate. basically, what i think we should do ask our creationist members what they think about the situation. are members like IAJ a problem? how should we deal with it? what rules should there be, and how should standards be applied?also, i'd like to point out again that we have banned our most articulate vocal creationist -- faith. i know there's bad blood with the mods, but i still don't think banning her normal account was in good taste. i still say we let her back.

---

you neither have to read nor post here. nor does anyone.

---

what would you consider a real argument? there is no debate in the scientific community. one side is wrong. well, i don't mean to say rob in specific -- just that most of our creationist members are somewhere between rob (on the good end) and IAJ (on the bad end). even still, rob has come a long way. i remember when he joined. this is another point i need to make. creationists are often rather trollish when they join, but some progress, and learn, and start to fit in more, and follow the rules more. if we discourage trolls too much, they leave, and we won't get any valuable and growing creationist members. creationist mods, what say you?

---

agreed, your actions in response are not a good reason to prevent someone else from doing something.

---

yes, dear, but it's also a very serious point. banning people because we don't like what they have to say or are tired of dealing with them isn't a good thing -- and i think that was the reason she was banned.

---

yet, we are a debate site. not an education site.

---

indeed -- but none of the support is ever actually any good.

---

i'm sure you're familiar with the monty python "argument" sketch.anyways, think really hard about this one -- what's the last new argument you heard come out of creationism? the closest i can think of is behe's new book. but everything before that -- id and whatever -- is all the same basic "paley argument." it looks designed to me, so it must be. followed by "evolution is wrong because [insert hovind-esque claim] so the bible must be right."they haven't really had much in the way of new arguments in the last 150 years. it's all the same rant. always. all the time.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

so what, should we just ban creationists when we get tired of them? or when they get past a certain lifespan here?look, we're all going to have basically the same points, even as we grow. i've been arguing the same points here for years.

---

so why should we get new creationists instead of new evolutionists? why does one of us have to go? faith occasionally learned new things. and they haven't told us everything they will know in the future. i've said the things i need to say here -- you've said the things you need to say here. argument, done, right? why not ban us both.in fact, i've had this very debate at least once before, with the same people. does an articulate, informed creationist exist? i don't say this to be crass or condescending -- but as it is, if they do exist, they certainly don't seem to be interested now. maybe we just have to accept that, in the eyes of creationists, we're the lunatics.Edited by arachnophilia, : damned typos

---

exactly -- we've got enough evolutionists around. not enough creationists. yet, we're banning creationists when we get bored of them? maybe that's a fact we just have to accept. i've noticed that the moderators do spend more time on creationists. for instance, the bit that prompted this. IAJ got suspended, after continuing to write gibberish after we were issued an off-topic warning. but i continued to reply to his gibberish. he got suspended. i didn't.i won't make examples using other people, in the interest of politeness (and keeping friendships) but i can think of a few cases where two people with similar behaviour got the creationist banned and the evolutionist is still here. but i don't think that's the case at all. can you name any prominent creationists (not here, anywhere) that publicly expressed shame over hovind? haggart? they don't care about the wackos in their own camp, for whatever reason.Edited by arachnophilia, : freudian typo

---

okay, apparently i don't have a good grasp on the rules or why we suspend people around here, judging from my own recent suspension, for a conversation style not appealing to the moderators. ok, how about ANY creationists? have you heard one bad word spoken about kent hovind by ANY creationist? someone saying "yeah, uh, he doesn't really represent what we do over here..."i don't think our more eccentric members worry the creationists much. they pretty much stick together, and stick up for one another. i think it is our ration of evolutionists to creationists that indimates them -- a vicious cycle. and i think it is our few harder-playing members (the real scientists among us) versus the utter lack of any quality creationist members that can even try to take them on that scares people away. they know they're gonna have to go it alone, and get jumped on by a pack of ravening wolves. so ban those we can't reform?

---

yes, and perhaps this whole line of thought is off-topic. i think to them the idea of a topic is a little different. the scientifically inclined like to cut things up into little genres and sub-genres, and discuss the little minutae of one particular field of study that they specialize in. creationists seem to be "big picture" kinda guys, and often don't care much about details. they view everything through special "bible goggles." everything is meaningful in relation to everything else, because everything is tied through god. it's all one topic to them, everything is related. jesus, moses, whales, abortion, homosexuality, bush, hedgehogs. it's all the same. yes. i think the mods should hand out a lot of "off topic -- please propose a new topic on this subject" semi-warnings in those cases.

---

is it the admins' job to personally monitor and counsel and guide the creationist members of the board, as if they were children?should it be?seems very labor intensive...

---

i must say, the "i'm rubber, you're glue" tactic is rarely so eloquently and amusingly phrased. actually ray, i really am quite enamoured with your writing and debate style. i highly enjoy reading your posts around here. that's part of the reason that everytime your head comes up on the chopping block, i argue for your sake -- you are quite a valuable member of this forum, and by far the most interesting creationist i have ever had the pleasure of debating with.i say this in all seriousness, ray. i am quite looking forward to reading your book. if you publish, can i get an autographed copy?

---