Just a question...

I didn't anything about being treated unfairly. All I was doing was corroborating the newcomers observation. I then noticed about 10 people responding to his posts, which is a very typical occurrence at EvC for anyone espousing Christian, conservative, or creationist views.

---

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

You missed his attempt at an all-too-common creationist tactic, trying to change the subject with an "unanswerable" question; in Message #3: That certain local creation science activist did this constantly and couldn't stand it when I'd explain to him what he was doing and then I would respond to his question (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html). Even though he would insist emphatically that he really wanted to know the answer, he would never go near it. That is because the only purpose of the "unanswerable" question is to either drive your opponent away or to discredit him in the eyes of spectators as well as to have crowing rights about "those evolutionists can't even answer a simple question."

That's because I'm not swayed by people that refer to themselves as theists. By their fruits, I will recognize them. I'm sure its much to your chagrin, but that it is my observation. I appreciate the 2/3 compliment, however, you must not be very observant, in which case, it brings discredit upon your analysis. I have mentioned, several times, that I'm not a creationist. I am an ID'ist. Oh, Dr. A.... You were in theater, weren't you? So melodramatic.

---

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

As well as atheist views, at which point it's the Christians who pounce to inform us all how we're "fundamentalist atheists" or some such nonsense.Pile-ons happen when people say contentious things to which people already have responses. The low-hanging fruit gets picked clean. It has nothing to do with who's an atheist or who isn't; of course you, in your short-sightedness and bias, only notice it when it happens to Christians. Thus, you think it's all a great conspiracy to refute your arguments.My suggestion to you and the other religionists is that if you don't want the pile-ons, make arguments that we haven't already heard a thousand times. Make arguments that are hard to refute - preferably because they're factually and logically correct - and you'll find that a lot of people will choose other battles, leave the work to a few, rather than pile it on.

Yes, right. If they agree with you about biology, they're theists. If they're not, they must be lying.And yet you were so reasonable about the same question when BuzSaw declared that Barack Obama must be a secret stealth Muslim.Try to be so reasonable now.Look, even if there was a reason why evolution should be antithetical to theism, which there isn't, then could you not suppose that the theists who accept evolution are just wrong? That they've made a mistake? Instead of pretending that they're not really theists? Curiously enough, that's exactly what I was trying to say to you.You seem to have given up honesty, decency, humilty and charity.In exchange for ... ignorance.Ask the Devil for your soul back, because that was not a fair exchange. A distinction without a difference. You reject science and spew out stupid lies about how everyone who disagrees with you is an atheist.On that basis, I'd call you a creationist. You may call yourself what you like. You're wrong a lot, aren't you?I am, by profession, a mathematician. However, I do believe that good is better than evil, and truth truer than falsehood.You may describe this statement as "melodrama" if it pleases you to do so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Is it wrong to respond to people's posts?No?Then what are you trying to say?I hope that if I started a thread, then at least ten people would respond to it. I'd prefer hundreds. Or thousands ...

While anyone can respond to any message (other than is such as the "Great Debate"), there is much to be said for minimizing redundancy.If a minority position posts a message, it is NOT a good thing, that the majority position posts multiple responses that more or less say the same thing. The practical reality is that there is not real room for everyone to respond to everything they're inclined. Not that there isn't pseudo room.Adminnemooseus

According to the OP an "unbiased" site would censor facts that creationists don't like.Do you agree with that ?

I am a Christian who believes that God exists, existed before matter, and created matter. I also believe that God foreknew each one of us regardless of whether we believe in Him or not.That being said, I agree with those who say that life on earth evolved. I have no problem with trustingthe scientific community who has embreced Biological Evolution.The only alternative would be to believe that the planet was embroiled in some spiritual war which provided false information as part of being deceived by Satan.IF that were so, I would expect that the enlightened folks that took the Bible literally would all show signs of love, joy, peace, and imparted knowledge from God.Instead, I have observed that throughout History, Christians were indisinguishable in their behavior than were non-christians.I also questioned why God, creator of a vast Universe of a hundred billion Galaxies, would be so limited as to need the idea of Biblical Literalism as the only true source of information.I consider myself a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe God started everything through an act of Creation. Beyond that, I have no problems with either Cosmology, Biology, or Sociology at explaining much of how humans got to be what we are.

I'd think this a fine idea, under the conditions that:(a) The majority elects an official spokesman through some democratic process.(b) It's me.Otherwise, I'm going to post on these boards and say what I damn well think.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I take a different approach, Dr. A., I used to post all bloody day long. I have decided it is not a productive use of time.Instead I have a look, react with itching fingers, wanting to rip some silly post apart and then decide to wait a few hours because I'm pretty sure someone who knows the material at least as well as I do (yourself, e.g.) will save me the time. If I see that I have something a little bit unique to say (in my own mind anyway ) I post.

Seconded, even if currently less adhered to in my case depending upon degree of onry attitude.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Well, yes, me too ...But sometimes I think that can say what needs to be said better than anyone else can, which is a reason for giving it a go.And sometimes I wish to do something that no-one else wants to do. Right now, I am (in religious terms) trying to save Nemesis Juggernaut's soul. I haven't noticed anyone else trying to do this.

hey, jar, since I'm new to this forum, would you please either give a brief description of your own (nonCreationist?) model or else cite some previous post that might explain it? I'm curious to know what you believe.A few years ago I had an experience (or more accurately a series of experiences) that convinced me nearly 100% that "God" really exists, and, more to the point, that he is truly a personal God. After many years of doubt, faith came to me suddenly and unexpectedly in this way. As a logical extension of my experience (which I believe supports the God model of the Bible), I believe that this same God did indeed create the universe and all that is in it. Sorry, I can't present a model of how life was formed, or much of anything else concerning creation, but I'll be taking it on faith that God must have done it.I'm past doubting, jar, thanks be to God, but I know many others are not (yet) so blessed. I wish God's greatest blessings on these in the quest for more knowledge of the truth.Edited by itrownot, : typo for clarity

It's called "science".And you know that jar is a theist, right?Since you're new to these forums, jar believes in God, but that's not what we're arguing about here. It's not an issue. What we're arguing about is whether God created the real world, the one that we live in, or whether he did something entirely stupid and ficticious involving a magic tree and a talking snake, rather than working out his plan according to his own laws.You don't have to believe in that rubbish about the talking snake in order to believe in God. Indeed, it would seem to be an obstruction. If there is a God, he created the real world. Evolution has taken place, that's a fact, and if you go about pretending that God is not responsible for that, then you are believing in a God who is a myth.If there is a real God, then he created the real world.This one.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.