What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

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?

---

no. but it's so hard to resist replying to her even though i know how it always results.

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

---

i agree and in fact my statements above demonstrated this. but, someone needs to tell me how to block specific input on my monitor lol.it was a joke, get it.

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.

---

yes.but i think the question was whether what she had to say amounted to abuse or not. but i guess it never really did because it was always in conversation and never an unsolicited attack. maybe. i dunno. i think i blocked it out.

Exactly. So what's the point in letting people jabber on and on with the same nonsense?
I'm tempted to say 'ban all the hard cases and concentrate on educating the educable'.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

A real argument should be more than unsupported assertions that are - at best - extremely unclear - and at worst incomprehensible. If IaJ could actually use reason and logic instead of claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is not (generally a 180 degree reversal of reality) then we'd have progress.

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

---

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

---

Having Faith ranting the same rant in every thread and ignoring every rebuttal is not debate.Debate can - and should - be educational.Edited by Ringo, : Retensification.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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

---

That's not the point. I'm talking about us having the same arguments with the same people over and over again. I'm saying that we should concentrate on having new people come in with the same old arguments.Why waste time beating up Ray a hundred times when you have a chance at a fresh mind - one that might actually learn to think? I wouldn't be surprized if a lot of newbies are scared off by the "sophisticated" arguments of the hard cases and don't bother to post their simple questions.I'd rather see the "level of debate" come down a notch or two or three if people are actually going to learn something.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Percy, I am confused. Are you saying that it is ok to look into creationism as a possible scientific reality, as long as it is not Christo-centric {I made that up, yes} or coming from a specified agenda? What you have written seems vaguely contradictory, because I thought you wanted articulate, informed Creationists...but the bulk of the debate wishes to show that there is no argument which can possibly make creationism or ID worthy of mention.I like that everyone be articulate, but the best I can hope for is that Creationists be informed enough to know the difference between a site which teaches history via the Bible, and a site that gives you the archaelogical dope straight up. They need to be aware of what they are up against.I of course do not feel that religion should be elitist, but I will do my own propagandizing song and dance for a sec. Modern fundamentalist, non-denominational, Bible based groups churn out 'experts' faster than McDonald's produces burgers. It is very attractive to have this feeling that you are accepted, that you can go far and be successful by following and memorizing the Word. You don't need college, or testing, or any of the character development or language and grammar skills that one would aquire along the way. I know this is true, because if I did not feel comfortable with the 'expertise' I have in Christianity, I would certainly not have posted or joined EvC. I could not contribute in any other area.Religion is not necessarily stupid or for the ignorant. Unfortunately, it is something which allows otherwise stupid people to suddenly feel like they should be preaching. I would not put any of our regular members into that category, they are more likely over-zealous and eh, a bit off in their own world.

Hm. I had a friend of mine join, and he was scared off by the sophisticated arguments. I don't know if he is creationist or not actually...Guess we should take it as a compliment?