|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Just a question... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DiscipleFire Junior Member (Idle past 6007 days) Posts: 7 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminCoragyps Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DiscipleFire Junior Member (Idle past 6007 days) Posts: 7 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DiscipleFire Junior Member (Idle past 6007 days) Posts: 7 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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 orscientific 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024