|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The smoldering of EVC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
(Perhaps you or marc9000 could take up the challenge to describe why the Grand Canyon is where it is and nor either north or south.) The non-atheist view is that there is more to reality than only the rearrangement processes of naturalism. That view is met with rudeness and mocking here, it has become a sport to ridicule and drive posters away who have that view.
Yet it seems that topics you (and marc9000) have proposed still get promoted for debate You forgot one, 'Faith'. Non-atheists threads are promoted so the HAMMER game can begin. Examples; EvC Forum: Why the Flood Never Happened In that one, start reading at message 841, then explain to me why you believe any creationist who lives a life would want to come here and take that kind of abuse. and; EvC Forum: On The Limits of Human Talent Again, after reading that, why would any non-atheist come here thinking any points they had to make would be treated with respect? EvC Forum: Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD WHY IN THIS WORLD would any self respecting non-atheist come here for a one on one great debate knowing that a hammer thread will be started in the coffee house for no other reason than to ridicule and mock ONE poster? Some "one on one" that is. Please read messages 9, 50, 69, 147, and others in that thread, and explain that to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
while others have (mostly) patiently presented refutations, and pleaded with her to produce evidence to support her views. Seems to me dissent is well and truly tolerated. Lets look at some of the loving patience that you refer to;
quote: Then, after Faith announces that she's finished with the thread, we have more patience;
quote: quote: quote: All of message 854, with its big flurry of green dots. Then, administration's back;
quote: quote: quote: quote: And it goes on and on, even after Faith clearly left the thread.
Boulder-dash writes: I called you on it Percy, and being vindicated is kind of fun. You were warned repeatedly. Now you have been banished to your own island. You don't own science, it goes on with out you. Atheist love fests have become part of science. These forums, and websites like talkorigins increasingly display it, and hopefully that display will serve to wake more and more people up to that fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I did say "mostly". Sadly the description of Faith as ignorant of geology is accurate, made more sad by her saying she did not come to learn. It's equally true that atheists (and theistic evolutionists) don't come here to learn anything from creationists either. Sure, they come here sometimes to learn things from other atheists, to refine their own talking points, reinforce their own beliefs, but never to challenge their own beliefs.
Her continued refusal to answer criticism of her proposals, which were unsupported by evidence, did lead to testiness on the part of some. Atheists seem to get testy very quickly when one of their most passionate faiths, an old earth, gets challenged in any way, by anybody. It's important to note that without an old earth, evolution (Darwinism) can't work. Not only old material that makes up the earth, but it also had to be in orbit around the sun with temperatures and climate similar to what it has today, for hundreds of millions of years, or all their intellectual fulfillment for their atheism is gone. Today's science has trouble keeping satellites in orbit around the earth for more than a decade. A somewhat different thing I know, considering atmospheric drag and a few other differences, but it's still somewhat similar. Relying on purposeless nature to provide them with all the time and conditions needed for evolution to work could be subject to falsification. But any questioning of a old earth by today's scientific community would never see the light of day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Faith drew responses like this after determinedly demonstrating her "incredible ignorance" at great length and over many posts, and by maintaining it at considerable effort. Again, the passion that naturalists have for an old earth, and the emotion that challenges to it inspire them to erupt with here, aren't the fault of Faith or any creationist. The sarcasm and anger that she was on the receiving end of don't do anything to reverse or reduce the "smoldering" that the o/p references.
She even flat out stated that she didn't know much about geology and wasn't interested in knowing much. And it's been made clear to me that the atheists/naturalists here don't know much about anything other than science, and aren't interested in knowing much, including when they make political decisions.
If you think Faith wasn't incredibly ignorant but was correct and supported by evidence, the thread is still open, knock yourself out: Why the Flood Never Happened My main point is that for forums like this to be welcoming and attractive to posters of all opinions, a lone poster against a gang shouldn't be treated so rudely, making it look like a sport to see who can shout them into submission. If the answer to that is, "that's the way it is at all one sided forums" that's fine, but it doesn't help keep that forum from losing popularity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
We're also affected by the cooling of the public creation/evolution debate. Those who still like to browse in brick-and-mortar bookstores like I do will have noticed the significant decline in books on the creation/evolution debate. ICR has moved from California to Texas and no longer offers college degrees. The Discovery Institute is much less in the news. Legislative efforts promoting creationism in education have diminished in frequency and intensity. Creationist efforts haven't gone away, but they're now less overt and consequently draw far less public attention. I never noticed much creation/evolution debate before the mid-nineties, before most people had internet access, and before "Darwin's Black Box" came out. Those two things almost simultaneous occurrence (that book, and widespread internet access) caused what appears to be a 10 to 15 year surge in the debate that is fading now, probably largely because many feel that most everything that can be said about it has been said. But now that atheism has won in the courts, now that Michael Behe seems to have made himself more scarce than Osama Bin Laden was 10 years ago, I think more could be discussed if those followers of the scientific community could tone down the anger, they really have nothing to be angry about. (or do they?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Well, being a "non-atheist" I come to learn by listening to others who have knowledge in a specific area and then (more importantly) by doing some research on my own to conform the things being said. I learned more about geology by participation in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread than I had ever previously, mostly by doing my own research on particular pieces. Most of what I learned I never even posted anything about. I also come here to improve my rhetoric skills. Being able to form a solid and clear argument is critical to being a scientist and participating in debates is an effective way to develop those skills. There is a wide variety of people on here from diverse backgrounds and I consider the ways they develop their arguments and see if there is anything I can take away from it. A third reason I come here is to be exposed to viewpoints that are often significantly different than my own. For example, before spending time on this forum, I had only been exposed to a couple of professed atheists and my perception was based on those individuals and the misconceptions that I had learned in church. Now I see that the reasons people are atheists are much more complicated and varied and things I have learned about that issue has helped shape my own philosophy and even the way I live my own life. Well said, but it's important to note that equally, the reasons people are creationists are much more complicated and varied than most in the scientific community (and at forums like this) are willing to acknowledge.
A final reason is to put my own beliefs to the challenge. I realized several years ago that any belief worth having must be able to stand up to scrutiny. If I am not willing to challenge what I believe and have that belief survive that scrutiny, that belief is really not worth having. Only scientific scrutiny, or scrutiny from other sources of knowledge? What misconceptions did you learn at church? How did you figure out that they were misconceptions? Hopefully, you didn't let an atheist tell you.
Why would any "non-atheist" who doesn't want to learn, doesn't want to consider other points of view and doesn't want their personal beliefs challenged want to debate here? I have no idea. How about atheists who don't want to learn, don't want to consider ANY point of view that any creationist has to offer, and who doesn't want their personal beliefs challenged? About 95% of the posters at EvC fit that description, and though Boulder-dash seems to have disappeared, I'd say that's largely what inspired this thread. As was pointed out in the o/p, a (however slight) shift has taken place in the titles of threads being proposed, and being participated in here. They’ve gone from having a more scientific content to being more about largely insignificant one-sided bashing of traditional religion. But one (of several) things about these forums that contributes to my satisfaction (and I’m sure Boulder-dash’s as well) is the increasing clarity that the former claims that Christianity and naturalistic science don’t conflict is, and always has been, untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
There are many non-atheists here as you well know. I know that many evolutionists label themselves as non-atheists, but self labeling usually doesn't go too far, especially when they participate in what is basically a two-way conflict. "By their fruits shall ye know them", ever hear that phrase? Another 'satisfaction' that I get as the discussions continue on at these forums, is watching you, more than anyone else, prove just how true it is that when some of Christianity is compromised with atheism, that Christianity falls completely. Whether you're somehow genuine (maybe a Bishop Spong follower) or a complete phony, you prove it either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Ah, so you don't have an actual factual answer to the question, just a mystical god-did-it excuse of an answer. Challenge not taken. It's a factual answer to believe that there could be more to reality than what science can understand, more than one time dimension, more than three space dimensions etc. That there are more sources of knowledge than science. You gatta admit, it's no more ridiculous than claiming that all material throughout the entire universe exploded billions of years ago from an area the size of the head of a pin.
And of course you have never been rude or mocking in your replies. Only in some of my replies, responding in kind.
[qs]marc9000 writes: WHY IN THIS WORLD would any self respecting non-atheist come here for a one on one great debate knowing that a hammer thread will be started in the coffee house for no other reason than to ridicule and mock ONE poster? Some "one on one" that is. Yes it must be disturbing not to have any support from fellow believers, but you are not debating with the Peanut Gallery. You are debating against a single person. A single person who has the side thread to get ideas from, get moral support from etc.
Curiously, I've been in several and expect to participate in more as time passes. Good luck with that, with finding opponents.
I find it much better than dealing with a scatter of posts from different angles. It allows you to focus on the issues raised. It's no different than a scatter of posts from a side thread, if you're in the minority. (which you never are, of course) Trust me, the great debate forum here will be the first thing to die, if the side threads continue to be permitted.
And in case you haven't noticed I find your classification of non-atheist and atheist to be rather rude and insulting for people that don't cater to your world-view. And that's another "satisfaction" that the o/p refers to. With each passing day that these forums exist, the phoniness in most "theistic evolution" gets clearer and clearer for just about any open minded visitor that these forums may get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Is it a requirement, or just a suggestion of "Club Christian" to agree with atheism, to mock Christianity, to refer to God as a "she", to claim that "Christ wasn't much of a Christian"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Where those on the science side differ from those on the creation side is in how much they value evidence from the natural world. Those on the science side believe that evidence tells us the laws and history of the universe. Those on the creation side believe that the testimony of the evidence can be trumped by Bible stories. Science doesn't have exclusive rights to the word "evidence". Not only can evidence come from sources of knowledge other than science, an organization of scientists with a special interest can claim it has evidence for a conclusion it prefers, when it really doesn't, at least to be convincing enough to those who don't automatically prefer the predetermined conclusion.
Everyone's been very patient with Faith and put a lot of time and effort into their messages. Why don't you take a look at some of her recent posts over at Why the Flood Never Happened, Message 910 for example. Or check out her response to the suggestion that she solicit assistance from you and Bolder-dash in Message 897 - she apparently thinks you guys are laughable. I read it to mean she thinks YOU are laughable. Maybe she'll read this thread and let us know - I'm not going to bother with a PM to her.
I think you're overgeneralizing in your comments about "atheists/naturalists". No group that broad has the degree of homogeneity you suggest. They do when they feel strongly enough about it to post on forums such as these, and harmonize with each other as they do, as the majority. Creationists post much more individually here.
The creation/evolution debate has been going on ever since Darwin. Dwise1 and I have been part of the debate for at least 30 years. I realize that, and it will probably never stop. As you said, the number of popular books about it has faded lately, and I doubt if there were many popular books about it 30 years ago. But there did seem to be about a 12 year surge (2000 - 2012, roughly) and this forum got started at the perfect time for it to flourish.
If you're speaking generally about those on the science side and not about specific people, what you're experiencing as anger is probably just frustration at those who work so determinedly at giving Bible stories a false mantle of science. It's equally frustrating when predetermined, atheistic conclusions about the ancient past are given the false mantle of science, especially when they're not testable, and not falsifiable, something science supposedly requires of itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
One slip of the finger and two hours of work down the drain. Not worth it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The phrase "unwitnessed past" seems to have thrown a bunch of you into some kind of mental swamp. I think the best way to clarify why that is happening is because science is actually divided in two, there's actual science, and there's metaphysical science. All those of the scientific community try to blend them, and make them indistinguishable, and they're having a difficult time doing it. I'll go and propose that new thread in the next few hours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Agreed, there's actual science and there is "creation science" ... Actual science and atheist science is more what I had in mind.
But let the process begin -- be careful of what you wish for ... there will be a lot of replies: would you like to propose some "rules of engagement" to minimize your load? I don't care, I'll respond to whom and what I want, and I'll take all the time I need. I'll try not to be absent for more than a couple of days at a time. I can't forsee it going on too long. If there's a lot of anger and rudeness, I'll include my response to that in my closing summary - it will help make my points.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024