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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just a question...
DiscipleFire
Junior Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 1 of 199 (428538)
10-16-2007 5:59 PM


But how many you moderators are evolutionists? This site seems extremely biased. Claiming evolutionary beliefs as scientific is one example. I see very little support from any mods for topics supporting creationism. I wonder why...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 10-16-2007 6:18 PM DiscipleFire has replied
 Message 4 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 6:18 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2007 6:23 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 6:27 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2007 6:28 PM DiscipleFire has replied
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2007 6:54 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 35 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2007 11:45 AM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 44 by AdminModulous, posted 10-18-2007 8:24 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
AdminCoragyps
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 199 (428539)
10-16-2007 6:07 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 199 (428541)
10-16-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 5:59 PM


Hi, DiscipleFire, and welcome to EvC!
This topic should do fine here in the Coffee House - we can move it later if the need arises. We have/have had several mods that are creationists - Buzsaw and Faith come to mind in recent times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 5:59 PM DiscipleFire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:26 PM Coragyps has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 199 (428542)
10-16-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 5:59 PM


easy answer
I see very little support from any mods for topics supporting creationism. I wonder why...
The biggest reason is that so far no one has ever been able to provide a model for creationism that can stand up to examination. It would be great if there was ever someone who could present a model that explained creationism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 5:59 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 199 (428544)
10-16-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 5:59 PM


Hello, DiscipleFire. Welcome to EvC.
Claiming evolutionary beliefs as scientific is one example.
I'm not sure what you mean by "evolutionary beliefs". But the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It leads to testable predictions of phenomena that can be observed.
And these phenomena are observed, so it is an extremely well verified theory.
Pointing this out isn't bias -- these are statements of fact.
Now, seeing that the theory of evolution has, over the last 150 years, predicted many, many phenomena that have been observed, I can say that it is not unreasonable for me to actually believe that all known species have, as a matter of fact, evolved from a single ancestral species.
Now, my belief may be wrong, but it doesn't seem to be a result of bias -- it is the result of noticing that the theory of evolution not only provides a very logical explanatory frame work for biology, but also leads to further predictions that end up being observed.
-
I see very little support from any mods for topics supporting creationism. I wonder why...
I would guess that it's because creationism is counter to reality, so creationists must either use incorrect "facts" or illogical arguments or both to support creationism, and the moderators simply point out that it's not debating in good faith to continue to use incorrect facts and illogical arguments even after the mistakes have been pointed out.
-
Why don't you try to join in the discussions here and see what happens?

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 5:59 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
DiscipleFire
Junior Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 6 of 199 (428545)
10-16-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
10-16-2007 6:18 PM


And your saying that believing the God created the world and gives you the hope and joy of experiencing an eternal existence is any harder to believe than we all evolved from from inorganic (as in not living) soup which exploded from nothing and all we have to look forward is to dying and being reprocessed back into the earth. =
There are just as many problems with the evolution theory as there are with the creation theory. So to state your superiorty in scientific evidence seems to me, ignorant and foolish.
But anyways...whats the ratio of creo's to evo's on your mod boards? hmmm...?
I would also like to know how inorganic compounds became organic? That seems almost as "unrealistic" as my beliefs that God created the heavens and the earth.
Edited by DiscipleFire, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 10-16-2007 6:18 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 6:29 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 12 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 6:36 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2007 7:10 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 10-16-2007 8:01 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 23 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 8:47 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 10-16-2007 9:03 PM DiscipleFire has replied
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 10-16-2007 9:52 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 199 (428546)
10-16-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 5:59 PM


I see very little support from any mods for topics supporting creationism.
Surely you're mistaken. Nearly every topic proposed by even the barely-literate creationists is approved, no matter how counterfactual it is, how unclear, how loaded with ad-hominem, or possess of any one of a dozen more characteristics that are supposedly discouraged at this forum. The creationists can literally get away with nearly any topic that they choose no matter how poorly-framed.
Claiming evolutionary beliefs as scientific is one example.
Evolution is claimed to be scientific because it is scientific. It's a scientific model devised to explain the history and diversity of life on Earth by means of random mutation and natural selection, and its supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence, in precisely all the ways that creationism is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 5:59 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 199 (428547)
10-16-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 5:59 PM


Claiming evolutionary beliefs as scientific is one example.
Considering evolution to be scientific is hardly representative of bias considering the massive amounts of academic research on the subject and established and productive departments in hundreds of universities, unless you have a substantial reason for considering all of them to be unscientific.
To recognise that there is a large body of scientific research supportive of evolution and a virtually non-existent one challenging it is not bias, it is simple realism.
I think it is unfair to say there is no support for creationist topics, the problem is that so many of the proposed topic opening posts are execrable examples of how to initiate any sort of substantive debate on a topic and unfortunately a lot of creationist posters seem quite reluctant to listen to moderator suggestions as to how their posts could be improved. This is by no means unique to creationist posters but I have encountered it more frequently with them.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 5:59 PM DiscipleFire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:31 PM Wounded King has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 199 (428548)
10-16-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:26 PM


And your saying that believing the God created the world and gives you the hope and joy of experiencing an eternal existence is any harder to believe than we all evolved from from inorganic (as in not living) soup which exploded from nothing and all we have to look forward is to dying and being reprocessed back into the earth. =
Yes, it is much harder, because there is no evidence for the former but much for the latter.
Well, let me take that back. If you have no particular desire to believe what is true, but rather what makes you feel better, then yes it's a lot easier to believe in that load of God-bother you just said as opposed to what the physical evidence seems to indicate.
On the other hand if you're more interested in being right than in being comforted, the exact reverse is true, and it's nearly impossible to believe in the existence of God because there's absolutely no evidence that there is one and much evidence that there is not.
There are just as many problems with the evolution theory as there are with the creation theory.
That is completely false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:26 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
DiscipleFire
Junior Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 10 of 199 (428549)
10-16-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Wounded King
10-16-2007 6:28 PM


Stop evading the questions you don't like answering. You can all preach to me about the "scientificness" of evolution. I don't much care. Until you can explain nothingness that the Big Bang started from...preach your own little religion at me.
And I would once again like to point out that this site is hypocritical. It is not at all a fair playground for evo vs creo debates. All the evo's just gang up and pounce, you can say its because creo's stupid and there is no support for it and im just a lone moron. Or maybe this site is just highely tipped towards evo's and their seemingly unsatiable pride and need to be superior in arguement and tenacity.
Edited by DiscipleFire, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2007 6:28 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 6:33 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 6:38 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2007 6:38 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 10-16-2007 6:43 PM DiscipleFire has replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2007 7:02 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 10-18-2007 12:20 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 10-18-2007 5:25 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2007 5:38 PM DiscipleFire has not replied
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 10-19-2007 3:26 AM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 199 (428550)
10-16-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:31 PM


Until you can explain nothingness that the Big Bang started from...
What? How does that even make sense? You want an explanation for how there could be nothingness? Wouldn't nothingness be the default state? Isn't it everything but nothingness that needs an explanation for how it came to be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:31 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 199 (428551)
10-16-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:26 PM


Starting down the irrelevant trail.
First off, disproving one theory adds no support to another theory.
If you want to provide any support for Creationism then you need to present the model that explains what is seen better than the existing ones.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:26 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 199 (428553)
10-16-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:31 PM


Still off in wonderland.
Stop evading the questions you don't like answering. You can all preach to me about the "scientificness" of evolution. I don't much care. Until you can explain nothingness that the Big Bang started from...preach your own little religion at me.
Sorry but all that is irrelevant to showing any support for Creationism.
This really is the problem.
No one has ever been able to present any support for Creationism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:31 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 199 (428554)
10-16-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:31 PM


You can all preach to me about the "scientificness" of evolution. I don't much care.
Huh? You were the one who brought up the question of whether or not evolution is scientific.
The theory of evolution is scientific because it makes definite predictions about what we should see in the world around us. We can then check to see whether or not we actually do see those things. That is what a scientific theory is; that is what makes a theory scientific. And, as a matter of fact, we actually do see these things that are predicted, meaning that the theory of evolution is a successful scientific theory.
Now unless you can explain why the theory of evolution is not scientific, you are the one who is doing the preaching.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:31 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 10-16-2007 6:46 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 199 (428555)
10-16-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:31 PM


Stop evading the questions you don't like answering.
Well I don't particularly like answering cosmological questions because I'm not a cosmologist. But since this was supposed to be about evolution I'm not quite sure what the 'Big Bang' has to do with anything.
If you really think there are scientific problems with evolution or
scientific evidence for creation why not see if you can pull enough coherence together to make a post more than a couple of lines long and start a proper debate thread to address that evidence?
All the evo's just gang up and pounce
This is a problem, but its sadly mostly due to the high attrition of creationist posters and not through banning either, although there may be more permanently banned creationist members. One way of getting around this is to arrange a 'Great Debate' topic where a one on one discussion can be conducted.
you already seem to have derailed your first little thread into a series of insults, personal attacks and preaching. This is exactly why the banning rate is higher for creationists.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:31 PM DiscipleFire has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 9:33 PM Wounded King 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