The 6 stages of an EvC argument

Welcome to evcforum. As a former Aussie, it's nice to see a Kiwi joining.I haven't thought much about your list, although it seems to be roughly right. What happens mostly, is that creationists join the site fully determined to refute evolution. Then they come face to face with the problem that evolution really is well supported by the evidence, and those obvious refutations they had been taught simply miss by a mile.The debating is a lot easier for the pro-evolution people, because the evidence is on their side. The effect is that the creationists become increasingly frustrated and emotional, while the evolutionists are usually able to keep their cool.I think, if a creationist were to join the site with the aim of simply joining the discussion (rather than refuting evolution), they could actually have a reasonably pleasant time. But that is not the way most creationists approach the site.

I'm pretty sure that was an implicit reference to the debate with member archaeologist.

That is not what I was suggesting.I certainly expect creationists to come here, present their positions, and read the evolutionist responses. And I don't expect them to suddenly agree with the evolutionists. But they should be able to recognize when they have reached the point that they have already presented their best argument. They can then allow the record of the debate to stand at that point, and not become emotional about it.To some extent, that is what happened in Underlying Philosophy. I doubt that sac51495 was persuaded by any of the opposing arguments, and I doubt that he changed the minds of any atheists. I hope that he at least has a better idea now about how atheists and agnostics view the issues. And I think his opponents do now have a better idea as to what was the position that he was presenting.