Just a question...

It simply doesn't matter what you believe. The current models adequately explain what is seen. They explain the evidence we see as far as the universe we live in and the evolution of the life around us.If Creationism is to ever be more than just a joke, you will have to present models that explain what is seen better than the existing ones.That is what is needed.That is what the Creationists have never been able to do.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi DiscipleFire....Just so you know bare links are not acceptable here. You are required to think things through, put them into your own words and defend your positions.Anyway i read the first few paragraphs of your referenced article and quickly spotted logical fallacies and bare baldfaced lies.Let's have a look.... The validity of a scientific theory is not predicated upon its supposed impact on the morals of humans. If that were the case then such a belief in a heliocentric solar system should be justly rejected because it displaces the earth - the place of God's special creation - as subservient to other celestial bodies. Obviously in error with scripture and should be soundly rejected.Next paragraphs we have this lie... Absolutely false. Hitler did not use evolution to explain differences. Hitler used religion. Hitler's ideas originated with founder of the protestant movement - Martin Luther. There is a recent thread here if you wish to discuss this furtherAnd then he continues with more lies.... The institution of slavery in the South was often justified straight from your holy scriptures. The President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis summed it up precisely... Now one has to ask why the hell did you point out such as crappy article?

Even if we don't debate websites that one is just sooooo much fun. Get this one: Do the people who wrote this no absolutely n o t h i n g ? They sure don't know that there are living thing alive today that have no mouth, no digestive system, no reproductive organs, and not much locomotion. In fact, the vast majority of life on this planet, and even more, the majority of the cells that are within your body are independent life forms that are doing fine without these systems.This is what you bring to the table DiscipleFire? This level of intellectual discourse is what you actually want us to take as representing your religion?Slow down and be more careful. You know not of what you speak. (should also note that they are talking about abiogenesis not evolution. They haven't a freakin' clue about the science they think they are attacking. It is so amusing to watch the children pretending to dress up and play at the big people's games.)

I have to say DiscipleFire you seems to be doing your best to illustrate all of the reasons why there are so few creationists left on the boards engaging in scientific debate.1) You don't seem to have the first idea about the science you are trying to attack.2) You think that preaching is a substitute for reasoned discussion.3) You automatically resort to insults and ad hominems in response to arguments you don't like or perceived slights.4) You argue by posting bare links from sites as ignorant of evolutionary science as you yourself apparently are.5) You are apparently incapable of obeying the forum guidelines even for one day.TTFN,WK

Because mods are not here to support either position, that's why. They're here to moderate discussion, not take sides in that discussion. Now, as private-citizen members of the forum operating under their own user names, they may engage in any discussion they wish and take any side on any issue. But the moment they put on their admin/moderator hat and don the clock of their moderator name, they may not take any side nor act partially.Contrast that with creationist forums where the moderators side against all "evolutionists", arbitrarily suspending them should they dare to commit the supreme crime of asking a creationist to support a claim, or provide a reference to a claim, or present any evidence at all to support a claim. I have personally experienced such forums. In sharp contrast to such creationist kangaroo forums, this one is set up with rules that promote discussion and fair treatment. And those rules are enforced in order to keep discussion going and to try to keep it constructive. The rules are not arbitrary and I've often seen different moderators explain to newbies the reason for the rule that the newbie had just broken.Yes, creationists don't last very long, but that's in the nature of the beast -- at least the typical creationists that are in abundance.Here's what usually happens:
A Christian of certain theological leanings (mainly involving biblical literalism and/or inerrancy; the term "fundamentalist" is often used to describe them, though that is not always correct) encounters the claims of "creation science" for the first time and is thrilled to find all this "new" evidence supporting his beliefs -- actually, most of that "new" evidence was invented decades ago, probably before he was even born, and was refuted shortly after it was invented and has been refuted a thousand times since then (hence the acronym you'll see here, PRATT, meaning -- I'm not completely sure about the "P" -- "previously refuted a thousand times), but this poor sap is never filled in on the history of those claims and most certainly not that they had been refuted, let alone how, or even if the creationists who had made the claim had themselves disclaimed it (such as the ICR's moondust claim that I had researched: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html).So, all fired up with this "new" evidence "that will just blow those evolutionists away" (as stated by a young creationist just before he used a "new" claim and watched in astonishment as it blew up in his face), he first starts presenting it to his peers and is encouraged by seeing the choir gobble it up. He builds up his knowledge of these "creation science" claims, but sadly never any knowledge of the science being attacked nor even of what the "cited" sources actually said (eg, the gross misrepresentation of a NASA document in the aforementioned moondust claim).Now with his confidence running high, he starts pitching to "evolutionists". If they are themselves not up on their science or on their "creation science" (meaning that these claims are probably new to them as well), then he will often be able to run circles around them.So now he seeks out "evolutionists" on-line, in a forum such as this one. And he encounters for the first time people who have studied the scientific subject matter and also are very familiar with the "creation science" claims and arguments and what they're really based on and why they are wrong. For example, he posts (or even just links to) a list of PRATTs and doesn't understand why everybody just burst out in uncontrollable laughter and starts to go into shock as they all start to go through that list and explain to him in detail what's wrong with each and every one of those claims (I have personally witnessed such events).Now, he has come to a fork in the road. Most of these creationists will run for the hills. Maybe they'll try to tough it out a bit longer, but they're too out-matched.You see, the "evolutionists" have evidence and they know what that evidence is and what it means. Creationists have no evidence. "Evolutionists" have actual scientific models and it was during the construction of those models that much evidence was found and accumulated. Despite the decades-long continuous claims of their morally and intellectually bankrupt "Two Model Approach", creationists have no model and hence they have never accumulated any evidence. The "evolutionists" want to talk about the evidence and the creationists want to talk about anything but the evidence.My formal logic textbook told an old lawyer story: the lawyer who was to argue the client's case was given the brief which simply said: "We have no case. Attack the opposing attorney." And sadly, we all too often see creationists do the same thing: having no case to present, they resort solely to attacking the opposition. And they get suspended and even banned for it, though not on their own forums where the moderators actively support the fight against Truth.But most often it doesn't get that far. You see, faced with all that evidence, the creationist is caught in a dilemma. That evidence shows that the claims of "creation science" are not only false, but also the products of outright lies and deception. "Creation science" and his church has taught him that if those "creation science" claims turn out to be false, then Scripture has no meaning and you may as well throw your bible out with the garbage. So he has to decide what to do about the evidence. I have seen honest creationists face the evidence and check it out; most often they end up abandoning "creation science" and even go to the other side, the Side of Light and Enlightment. But what most do is to leave so that they don't have to deal with the truth and can maintain their delusion, but they also become much shyer about discussing "creation/evolution". Those either retire from the battle altogether, or else become extremely dishonest; eg, a local creation science activist who will tear right into an opponent who is not knowledgeable, but immediately beats a hasty retreat the moment he realizes a new opponent is even the least bit knowledgeable.Or, in a few rare cases, the creationist learns and becomes smarter. He may still hold to his contrary-to-fact beliefs, but he becomes a lot smarter about picking his battles and how he approaches discussions.Which type will you be? -- Since you have apparently already skeedaddled, I guess we know the answer to that one.BTW, just because a particular theology is false does not mean that Scripture has no meaning. Think about that one, will you?Edited by dwise1, : typos

It's not fair because Creationism is biased, and not science.The next time you are sick, and need a doctor, don't go visit your creationism buddies, they won't be able to help you.Either God is going to heal you, BY FAITH, or you are going to go to a doctor, who uses science, the same science that defines evolution, and it is true, as is the gospel, truth from God. Maybe God will tell you to go to a doctor.

For me, it seems that the problem is that creationists seem to spend more time trying to disprove evolution than to prove creation.

Oh you are definitely not a lone moron.

What you are experiencing is known as the atheist pile-on... I myself am a magnet for it. This is EvC's version of being "jumped" in to a gang-- only its a gang that you'll never belong to because of your convictions. So I guess its just a place where you get jumped all the time, while keeping up the good fight.Welcome to our abode. p.s. You're not alone... We are few, but you are not alone. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typosEdited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Really?Get serious NJ.Is it not simply another example of the total inability of the Biblical Creationist posters to even recognize what is needed to support their position?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not everyone who exposes moronic statements is an atheist.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

So what are we supposed to do? Let you make arguments and not refute them? Turn this place into an echo chamber for creationists to tell each other how smart they are?Take turns? Buy tickets? When the things you say are so damn dumb, NJ, how do you propose to limit the amount of response you get, exactly?Nobody's twisting anybody's arm to be here, or to post here. Any time you feel like you're being unfairly picked on you can bounce right on up out of here.

What we are experiencing here is the gross, stupid, halfwitted creationist pretence that everyone who shows up the stupidity of creationists is an atheist.And you know that this is a lie. And we know that you know that this is a lie. And you know that we know that you know that this is a lie. And we know that you know that we know that you know that this is a lie. And you know ...Look, of all the creationists on these forums, you are the one who shows intermittent flashes of sanity and decency. How can you disgrace yourself like this?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Most of us are. It is. Stating a position is not bias. Look harder.In more verbose verbiage:We rarely suspend people here for long periods of time, and almost never without significant warning. My experience is that this is in stark contrast to many other moderated fora (with a bias on either side, but especially creationism). We recognize there may be bias, and have often been criticized for over compensating for this by going too easy on disruptive creationists.Perhaps we can conduct some empirical research: How many threads are neutral in topic and get rejected/promoted? How many are creationist perspective and get rejected/promoted? How many are evolutionist in perspective and get rejected/promoted? I suspect we will find evolutionist posts will be promoted more than creationist posts.There are three possibilities:
1) Evolutionist moderators are biased, and they manage to intimidate the creationist moderators (there are a couple of them) away from promoting creationist's PNTs2) Creationist's PNT are simply of lower quality. Perhaps contain too many disparate points, copy/paste from other sources too much, are not written civilly etc etc.3) A combination of the above.Let's look at the evidence:

---

Why the interior of the earth is cool - on hold. Simple got a similar set of posts promoted a while back and it didn't go well. See Message 58 and beyond. Dinoglyfs in the cave paintings? - clearly not up to scratch. Young Earth Evidence - not focussing on a single topic

---

That is a list of all the rejected creationist perspective threads in the last month that I was able to find. Can you find more? My search algorithm was rather simple and may have missed some. I'm happy to get comprehensive about this if you'd like. Can you give us a good reason to promote these 3? Can you give us an example of a thread that should have been promoted, and that it must have been evolutionist bias that prevented it?

I think you are playing the gang metaphor a bit too much in order to engender an "us versus them" camaraderie...I have noticed a common theme here. Every so often a new user will happen by who is fresh from participating in a youth group or spending way too much time preaching to the choir or reading the latest McDowell book and have a sense that their mythic ideas really do have some substance or basis in reality. When they encounter a skeptical more critical environment they are taken back and feel they are being attacked or piled-on.These folks have not been taught that the best ideas are those that can withstand the withering fire of criticism, examination and comparison to observation. These folks have been taught the opposite, that certain ideas should be protected and adhered to via a strong unquestioning faith and conviction, as you alluded to (ie "because of your convictions") - and don't forget simple has strong convictions in his flying saucer Yahweh theory - but it doesn't make it right.Further some believe that all ideas should be given the same respect. However few respect the demon theory of disease, or geocentric universe, or flat earth ideas anymore. In the same way many do not respect unsupported claims of instantaneous creation, young earth, mythic floods, mythic towers threating god or other superstitions. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.