Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(5)
Message 293 of 415 (669121)
07-27-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by marc9000
07-26-2012 7:36 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
marc9000 writes:
I think something that stands the test of time, particularly with fierce opposition for that entire time, makes it more substantial as evidence. Mormonism isn’t even in the same league with Christ’s resurrection, or the 66 book Bible.
That's roughly the same situation Christianity was in with respect to Judaism in the early years after Christ, and is still in. So I guess Judaism wins out over Christianity?
No, because Christianity has spread throughout the world to a far greater extent than Judaism has, and Judaism doesn’t get the fierce opposition from Judaism that Christianity does. Look through dwise1’s atheist testimony page. Do you see much hatred of Judaism?
Now you're changing your criteria, but let me spell out the problems with your original criteria a bit more clearly this time. With regard to having beliefs that have stood the test of time, is this not the very disadvantage the early Christians had with respect to Judaism? With regard to fierce opposition, don't the Jews have it all over the Christians in this regard?
Now you're saying that the most widespread religion has greater merit, but in its early days Christianity was in the opposite position.
Perhaps not, because I have evidence for it.
No, Marc, you do not have evidence for it. That's the whole reason for this little digression: you're claiming things for which there is no evidence, and you're denying the evidence that does exist. The history of the world has been one of widely held wrong beliefs. Only science is bringing forth a consistent and fact-based understanding of our universe. The Jews are not more right because of their history of persecution. The Christians are not more right because of their success at proselytizing. It is science that is more right because of its ability to develop consistent and verified understandings out of fact and evidence.
Christianity does too! If something is stranger than we can think, why does the scientific community always trying to explain it with (what it calls) physical evidence?
The strangeness to which Eddington refers is not non-physical. He's referring to unexpected discoveries, like quantum behavior or the accelerating universe. Before we uncovered the evidence no one would have guessed that our universe included quantum uncertainty and was expanding faster and faster. This is the kind of strangeness Eddington was talking about.
This is the important point, that science accepts what it has evidence for, whether mundane or utterly fantastic. We accept the possibilities beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions because theories with more dimensions have been proposed that are consistent with the current evidence. As we gather more evidence the standard model might at some point be replaced by one of these theories with more dimensions. No one here thinks one time dimension and three space dimensions is all that is possible. What we believe is that the scientific method is the best approach we have to figuring out what is most likely true about the universe.
marc9000 writes:
Central to Christianity is the mistrust of human wisdom.
Really? So when you become ill you seek a minister rather than a doctor? You pray instead of taking your prescribed medicines?
Uh, yes really. There is a major difference between mistrust and complete disregard.
By what criteria do you accept the science-based findings of medicine to grant it a grudging bit of trust while rejecting other science-based findings? Could I suggest that it's because ignoring the evidence for an ancient Earth cannot threaten your physical well-being, but ignoring your doctor can? That as long as you feel no danger you feel free to accept whatever beliefs of Christianity you like, but as soon as it's a matter of health or even life that suddenly scientific criteria become a lot more convincing?
I was only referring to actual Christianity, not all the various modified versions over the past few centuries that modify and disregard the 66 book Bible according to their personal whims.
You're really going to bring out the, "They're not true Christians" argument? Really, Marc? Has your particular set of Christian beliefs been sanctioned by a global body as the one, right and true Christian religion, or do you, like all other religions, bestow this honor upon yourselves? Why don't all the world's religions get together and decide who's right and who's wrong, and once you've all agreed and have a consistent story you come back here and let us know. Okay?
Science can't, but those imperfect humans in control of it can. They can discriminate. There is evidence for it.
Steve Weinberg, a famous scientist, is against religion. Francis Collins, a famous scientist, is for religion. The people within science are as varied as the human race itself, so why are you focusing your criticism on science instead of people? Plenty of evil people have been Christians, plenty of wonderful people have been Christians, so how much sense would it make to attack Christianity for the evil people in its midst? None, right? So why are you doing the equivalent thing to science?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by marc9000, posted 07-26-2012 7:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 303 of 415 (669328)
07-29-2012 6:32 AM


I agree with Dr Adequate about topic
I don't know that the editorial comments were necessary, but Dr Adequate does have a good point regarding topic. The topic is why there is a paucity of creationists here, not whether science is atheistic or whether science is mired in a constricted worldview. The suggestion to propose new threads for other topics seems a good one.
One of Marc's primary concerns seems be about anti-religious efforts by atheists, but the science side here at EvC has had a consistent level of atheism since the beginning. There's been no demographic change regarding atheism here, so the level of atheism here could not be responsible for the decline in creationist participation.
As I've said before, the decline in creationist participation is due to larger forces outside EvC's control. Part of it is the move to social sites like Facebook and Twitter. Part of it is the move to mobile platforms like phones and tablets where discussion boards are more difficult to use. And part of it is a loss of interest on the part of creationists for direct confrontation with science.
You can see this last factor by looking at the success of creationist books:
  • The Genesis Flood, 1961, big success.
  • Darwin On Trial, 1993, big success.
  • Darwin's Black Box, 1996, big success.
  • The Edge of Evolution, 2007, big flop.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Buzsaw, posted 07-29-2012 6:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 306 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2012 1:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 310 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2012 2:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 311 by dwise1, posted 07-29-2012 2:44 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(5)
Message 324 of 415 (669464)
07-30-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2012 1:39 AM


Re: levels and levels and levels
Bolder-dash writes:
For instance, RAZD and Percy believe in a completely unguided process to evolution, and yet at the same time they believe in a deity that has some interaction with humans at some level-an interaction then is different than a deities interaction with say a rock presumably.
All I've ever said is that I believe in God. I don't think I've ever been more specific than that, unless my statements that I don't have any evidence for God count, so I don't know where you're getting the rest of it. I'll keep my specific beliefs private, but I will say that unsupported as they are by any evidence they are inconsistent and make no sense. They're my beliefs. I'm rather fond of them, I like them and feel comfortable with them, and I don't see any need to reconcile them with the real world or logic or rationality or anything else.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 1:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 9:23 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 332 of 415 (669527)
07-30-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Tangle
07-30-2012 4:29 PM


Re: levels and levels and levels
Tangle writes:
Perhaps you could remember this; most atheists don't object to what you believe - it puzzles us but we know that belief is 'normal' and seemingly had some evolutionary advantage.
To continue on this point, it isn't what believers believe that we object to. It's what they do when they act on those beliefs, like trying to influence public school science curricula.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Tangle, posted 07-30-2012 4:29 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 347 of 415 (669558)
07-30-2012 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2012 7:39 PM


Re: who is the layperson?
Bolder-dash writes:
But it does highlight one point that is relevant. During the topic of Shapiro and Wrights papers, the point of the modern synthesis was brought and how Shapiros and Wrights concepts could be incorporated into the modern synthesis. The comments from me (which were deleted by admin and deemed off topic!) were directly related to what the modern synthesis actually means in terms of evolutionary theory.
Your comments were not deleted, they were hidden. You can still read them at Message 82 by clicking on "peek". I just read them again, they're still not on-topic. If you'd like to discuss the origin of and any subsequent changes to the modern synthesis then just cut-n-paste your message into a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 7:39 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 361 of 415 (669617)
07-31-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by NoNukes
07-31-2012 2:50 PM


Re: Still, there is the problem of dogpiles and jerk evolutionists
NoNukes writes:
Nobody gets suspended for being off topic. Although it is probably possible to get suspended for deliberately refusing admin direction for such, I don't know anyone who gets suspended this way.
Persistence at being off-topic is usually rewarded with loss of posting permissions, usually only for that forum.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 2:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 8:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 371 of 415 (669656)
08-01-2012 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2012 1:03 AM


This is an excellent discussion of a topic, it just doesn't happen to be this topic. If you'd like to discuss Genomicus's views on ID then just propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2012 1:03 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Genomicus, posted 08-01-2012 12:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 380 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2012 12:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 384 of 415 (669692)
08-01-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2012 12:36 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
This is a coffee house forum after-all, there is no moderation.
Coffee House isn't unmoderated, but moderators do tend to put more effort into the science forums and the religious forums. The forum most free from moderation is Free For All. Interestingly enough it's only explicitly stated requirement is "stay on topic."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2012 12:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 396 of 415 (669746)
08-02-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2012 12:43 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
What, under the biological evolution forums? Is that a parable or a very subtle joke?
The proposal would be entered in the Proposed New Topics forum, and it would most likely be promoted to the Intelligent Design forum.
Acting in my Admin role, I have restored your posting permissions in the Biological Evolution forum.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2012 12:43 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 410 of 415 (669833)
08-03-2012 1:02 PM


Closing Comment
Six years ago this site was 5 years old and very active. Today this site is 11 years old and not very active. So what has changed?
Moderation? I don't think so.
We're infamous among creationists now? Would that we were so well known, so again, I don't think so.
The creation/evolution controversy is receiving a lot less public attention these days? Sounds about right.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024