Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 76 of 154 (414335)
08-03-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by arachnophilia
08-03-2007 7:50 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
arachnophilia writes:
which is better, to ask an evolutionist about his opinion of what makes a good creationist, or to ask a creationist?
Perhaps a good idea would be a "creationists only" thread. It would be interesting to hear opinions on the question in this thread's O.P. title.
But what I'd really like to see is a creationists only thread debating the numerous different types/theories of creationism.
To attempt to challenge the Theory of Evolution, a coherent, united theory is required.
Imagine an equivalent of RAZD's "Definition of the Theory of Evolution" thread. At present, it would be chaos. Would any creationists like to start up a "Definition of Creationism Theory" thread? It should be for creationists only, perhaps. Not for evolutionists to chime in and say "that's rubbish", or whatever, because the purpose is to establish a wording to describe a theory, not to debate it the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 7:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 10:50 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 77 of 154 (414338)
08-03-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
08-03-2007 2:50 AM


Buzsaw insulted
Buz, if you're going to accuse others of bias your implicit endorsement of Ray completely undermines your case.
As if Buzsaw is dumb and naive to agree with a Atheist-evolutionist (PaulK) against a fellow Creationist.
"This type of coercion worked on TEists ("Christian" evolutionists) maybe it will work again as needed" = that is what PaulK is attempting to do.
PaulK has lost every debate that I have encountered him. If his intellect was able he would not need another Creationist to give him a victory by reverse psychology.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 2:50 AM PaulK has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 78 of 154 (414344)
08-03-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object
08-03-2007 8:39 PM


Love the Logic
In an earlier post I stated and argued a self-evident axiomatic fact: Whoever the Atheist-evolutionists praise is the most pseudo and wrong and whoever they condemn is the most right and threatening to their dogma.
Since PaulK is the epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist, and since he says I am the very least or worst (or any other synonym) this logically means that I am the exact opposite. Logic says the Atheist-evolutionist WOULD NEVER approve of a real Christian-Creationist. PaulK's condemnation means I am exactly that.
In a way, you've got a good point there. What I'm trying to figure out is whether your description of Paul as the "epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist" is the equivalent of his comment on you, which implied that you were just about the worst Creationist on the board.
It would have helped if you'd simply returned the compliment, and described him as the worst atheist-evolutionist around. Then we could simply have applied your logic, and come to the conclusion that he's a really good atheist evolutionist.
The fact that you describe him as the "epitome of an atheist evolutionist" leads me to believe that he may be a fraud. Perhaps even an undercover creationist.
If so, he's a good one. Or should I have said a bad one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2007 8:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 79 of 154 (414356)
08-03-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by arachnophilia
08-02-2007 2:44 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
I am really puzzled at this forum.Why? The title is Evolution-Creation forum. In reality, it is only a discourse on Evolution.Even most of the Administrators support evolution. There is practically no creationist as a moderator. For example, in our Government, we have a Senate judicial committee and this is made up of equal number of both Democrats and Republicans so that it is fully balanced. Comparing this to our forum, it is totally out of balance. This forum is only for Evolution. Anyone questioning the general consensus( not facts) is shot down. So, in future, the name need to be changed only to accomodate the views of evolutionists. Creationists have no place. We will disappear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 08-02-2007 2:44 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2007 10:25 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 11:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 80 of 154 (414362)
08-03-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
08-03-2007 9:57 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
inkorrekt writes:
Anyone questioning the general consensus( not facts) is shot down. So, in future, the name need to be changed only to accomodate the views of evolutionists. Creationists have no place. We will disappear.
I've noticed this on other forums debating Evolution/Creation, inkorrekt. The evolutionists dominate. Creationists have faith, that's all, and saying "I have faith in my view" is not much of an argument.
For example, you might have faith that the flower fairies pollinate the flowers. But try arguing about it with biologists and botanists who know a lot about about plant reproduction, and it would be difficult to prove your faith, wouldn't it? That's the essence of the problem. There is no evidence for creation, and plenty for evolution, so the evolutionists have an unfair start, don't they?
I personally make it easy for myself, and always make sure I'm on the side where the evidence lies in such debates. Why not try the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 08-03-2007 9:57 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 08-03-2007 11:45 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 81 of 154 (414369)
08-03-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object
08-03-2007 8:28 PM


Re: compliments
It is not a book, it is a large paper that will appear on-line.
oh, that's terribly disappointing. i was hoping for something nice to put on my bookshelf.
My work will wipe the smile off of your face, that is, the one I see underneath the words you write.
do you mean to imply that the words i wrote were anything less than sincere? i'm hurt, ray. you know i enjoy reading your posts.
NosyNed wondered aloud why I do not publish my evidence before I get scooped as this is what persons do who have produced original evidence. I never had a chance to tell him that his admonition is a constant and traumatic concern of mine. But I have no choice since I cannot publish what I have until finished or it will not make sense. I am going as fast as I can.
ok, ok, no rush. i can wait, i'm just quite curious.
For what they are worth, thanks for the compliments.
you're welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2007 8:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 82 of 154 (414371)
08-03-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluegenes
08-03-2007 8:42 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
Perhaps a good idea would be a "creationists only" thread. It would be interesting to hear opinions on the question in this thread's O.P. title.
well, creationists should be able to give their input in this thread. so far, they have seem reluctant, unwilling (innable?) to answer, or just plain insulted. but they are the people we need to hear from here.
But what I'd really like to see is a creationists only thread debating the numerous different types/theories of creationism.
To attempt to challenge the Theory of Evolution, a coherent, united theory is required.
well, you need a little more than that. you need a coherent united theory that explains all the evidence that evolution has correctly predicted, and predict something that is totally distinct from the result evolution would predict. and then test and confirm that prediction.
but the problem with that is that there so very, very many pieces of evidence correctly predicted by evolution in the last 150 years that, for all intents and purposes, any competing theory under the above definition would be evolution with a small modification. this is why the more scientifically-inclined creationists more or less accept about 90-99% of evolution (ie: behe).
on the other end, there's "dinosaurs bones were put there by the devil!" creationism is everything in between.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2007 8:42 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2007 12:54 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 83 of 154 (414373)
08-03-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
08-03-2007 9:57 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
I am really puzzled at this forum.Why? The title is Evolution-Creation forum. In reality, it is only a discourse on Evolution.
due to lack of creationist participation. which is partially due to the fact that they seem to get suspended and banned. thus, this thread.
Even most of the Administrators support evolution. There is practically no creationist as a moderator.
phat, anastasia, buzsaw, nem_jug, christian, and hangdawg are creationists (correct me if i'm wrong). faith, when she was here, was very breifly an admin as well.
granted, there does not seem to be much participation by our creationist admins, and there aren't very many of them. frankly, a creationist is probably more likely to get asked to be an admin than an evolutionist, if they stick around long enough. there are more evolutionists to choose from. however, the choice is often hard -- how can someone in need of constant moderation be a moderator themselves?
For example, in our Government, we have a Senate judicial committee and this is made up of equal number of both Democrats and Republicans so that it is fully balanced. Comparing this to our forum, it is totally out of balance.
america is close to 50/50 between the two parties. this board's population is not 50/50 evo/creo. that's the problem. we don't get many creationists here, and when we do, a lot get banned for bad behaviour. how can we fix this? i don't know. please feel free to suggest something.
Anyone questioning the general consensus( not facts) is shot down. So, in future, the name need to be changed only to accomodate the views of evolutionists. Creationists have no place. We will disappear.
no, creationists are already disappearing. frankly, this forum is pretty damned boring without any controversy, so i think of this as a problem. many people here do. why do creationists avoid this place? why do they not stay long? why do they get banned more often than the evo population?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 08-03-2007 9:57 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 84 of 154 (414374)
08-03-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ICANT
08-03-2007 1:45 PM


Re: Informed Not Always Articulate
And most creationist believe that everyone is entitled to have their opinion, right or wrong does not matter.
I'm speechless, but fortunately no comment is necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 1:45 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 154 (414376)
08-03-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object
08-03-2007 8:39 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
In an earlier post I stated and argued a self-evident axiomatic fact: Whoever the Atheist-evolutionists praise is the most pseudo and wrong and whoever they condemn is the most right and threatening to their dogma.
Since PaulK is the epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist, and since he says I am the very least or worst (or any other synonym) this logically means that I am the exact opposite. Logic says the Atheist-evolutionist WOULD NEVER approve of a real Christian-Creationist. PaulK's condemnation means I am exactly that.
Recently, the Atheist-evolutionists over at TalkOrigins voted me "Chief Loon" almost unanimous. Logically, this means I am the exact opposite.
What's the meaning of the fact that theist evolutionists also think you're a loon?
And what's the meaning of the fact that you can't even get your fellow-creationists to agree with your piffle about the Pyramids?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2007 8:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-04-2007 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 154 (414377)
08-03-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
08-03-2007 2:19 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
ICant writes:
So you are telling me to be an informed person that believes in creation by God I have to believe that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science an not religion.
That is ridiculous.
I have to agree that creationism perse is not science, just as evolution perse is not science. Science is doing things of a scientific nature relative to subjects such as creationism or evolutionism. I can't speak for Percy but perhaps that's what Percy was aluding to.
Creationism perse is neither religion or science. I suppose there are folks who would be regarded by some as articulate and informed creationists who are not religious.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 2:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 4:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 154 (414382)
08-03-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluegenes
08-03-2007 10:25 PM


Re: great, look what i've started.
bluejeans writes:
Creationists have faith, that's all, and saying "I have faith in my view" is not much of an argument.
That's false, demeaning and unfair. There are all kinds of creationists, some informed and articulate, some less articulate but informed, some less informed but articulate and some who are none of these, as is the case with evolutionists. Some of us who have faith apply a whole lot more to debates on the issues than faith alone. Unsubstantiated faith is one thing but when substantiated by things like history, archeology, experience, et al, quite another.
Some very articulate and informed creationists have faith but rely little on it in debate and forming opinions relative to many topics.
Everytime you cross a bridge you exercise faith in the ability of the bridge to do it's job based on observtion and past experience. Failures such as we've recently observed do happen but faith alone is not why the hapless victims were on it when it failed. The same applies to informed creationists.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2007 10:25 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2007 1:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 88 of 154 (414395)
08-04-2007 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
08-03-2007 10:50 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
well, you need a little more than that. you need a coherent united theory that explains all the evidence that evolution has correctly predicted, and predict something that is totally distinct from the result evolution would predict. and then test and confirm that prediction.
Exactly. That's why the attempt should be made. Of course there won't be a coherent result. It's like the recent best evidence for creationism thread. It came up with appearance of design, and that's all. We're back with William Paley. But it helped. Our creationists are all going on about appearance of design right now. No less than three of them have managed to change "appearance of design" into "design" in mid argument in order to then challenge us with the undeniable truth that design needs a designer.
The reason for the dearth of creationists isn't because of a few bannings. That's just a symptom of the impossible situation. You've explained the reason in your way in the post I'm replying to, and I explained it to a creationist a few posts above in mine.
They're bankrupt of ideas. Perhaps without realising it, one of them has just come up with ideas based on the work of a Christian evolutionist. He's turning into Jar!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 10:50 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 89 of 154 (414406)
08-04-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
08-03-2007 11:45 PM


Faith?
Everytime you cross a bridge you exercise faith in the ability of the bridge to do it's job based on observtion and past experience.
If it's based on "observation and past experience", how is it "faith"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 08-03-2007 11:45 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 08-04-2007 4:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 154 (414445)
08-04-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
08-03-2007 2:19 PM


Re: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
ICANT writes:
So you are telling me to be an informed person that believes in creation by God I have to believe that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science an not religion.
That is ridiculous.
I agree.
An informed creationist is aware that creationism's key short-term goal is its acceptance as every bit as much legitimate science as evolution.
I do not believe the Biblical account of creation should be taught in a science class, never have.
But whether you agree with it or not, I assume you're aware that creationism's primary short-term goal is acceptance as legitimate science.
So I am still dumfounded about what an Articulate Informed Creationist is...
"Articulate" probably doesn't need to be explained. For an example of an inarticulate creationist check out some of IamJoseph's posts.
An "informed" creationist is one who understands, for a clear example, that it would be an incredibly dunderheaded move at a school board meeting considering inclusion of creationism in the science curriculum to use Christian religious arguments. I see this board as an opportunity for evolutionists and creationists to engage the question of creationism as legitimate science in the same way that creationists would portray it at school board meetings.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 2:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 2:01 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024