Im New here. Evolutionist or Creationist site?

I just seen this message from a poster "I dont think bias is the problem i think PRATTS are a problem so many creo ideas have been refuted a gazzilion times that it is better for their belief if they dont visit such sites. "So, my question is are the Creationists intruding here or is it an equal place to come to as far as Creationists and Evo's? IS there really a bias? Or is it simply a site for both parties to discuss topics? It seems already to me that Evo's feel they run the place and Creationists are morons who shouldn't be here. Am I wrong?

The only bias is a bias towards people with reasoned argument and solid evidence.

Hi Chuck77,EvC Forum is neither a creationist nor an evolutionist site. It is a science site. It exists to examine creationist claims that creationism (or ID if you wish) is science. It's a two way street, of course, and creationists are free to examine the validity of any scientific claim.EvC Forum participates in the ongoing creation/evolution debate by providing a venue for moderated discussion. Those who follow the Forum Guidelines have little difficulty here. The guidelines most frequently violated concern going off topic and incivility.Many on both sides of the debate feel that at least some on the other side are morons and imbeciles, but the site is definitely dominated by evolutionists. In my own personal view I think this is because too many devout Christians come here after a life spent studying how best to follow Christ, while most evolutionists come here after a life spent studying science. Naturally those most familiar with science are going to feel most comfortable here.The other big problem for creationists is their lack of unity. Evolutionists are united behind a body of research produced over the past couple centuries that tells us a great deal how the real world works, while creationists are all over the map, with the result that in many threads it is one creationist with his own view of things against a group of evolutionists all making the same points.There also seem to be a significant number of creationists who come here filled with the holy spirit but with no ability to articulate arguments. You can feel their passion but can understand little of what they say, and that they're usually unaware that they're not making any sense can be a source of frustration for evolutionists. I'm puzzled why other creationists don't step in and say, "Dude, I'm a brother in Christ and even I have no idea what you're saying," but that almost never happens. I think that for many Christians it is most important that a fellow creationist is against evolution, and how much sense they're making pales in comparison.In the interests of full disclosure, I'm also a moderator here, operating under the name Admin.--Percy

If anything, this forum is a perfect demonstration of The Universal Law of Accumulation.Over the years, I have found that one of the things creationists have trouble understanding about evolution is the accumulative effect of it. Let's do some comparisons.God poofed everything into existence versus the universe came into existence via an expansion of space-time and regions more dense than others accumulated matter into what we now know as stars and eventually planets over billions of years.God poofed all life into existence versus random mutation filtered by natural selection accumulated into the variation in life we see today.God poofed your house and bank account into existence versus you worked to build up your wealth and possession.God poofed you into existence as is versus you started out as a fertilized egg and accumulated your cells to where you are today.The point is The Universal Law of Accumulation is observed every minute of every day of your life. It should be common sense. Nothing in existence just poofed into existence.This forum is a ferfect demonstratino of this Law because this forum and all its members (heavily on the science side) didn't just poof into existence. Percy started out with a few lines of code and then everything accumulated. Over time, natural selection weeded out all the creationist crackpots (which make up the overwhelming majority of creationists) and we now have a forum dominated by the scientifically minded.

As Percy states, this site is biased towards science when discussing creationism and evolution. If creationism is scientific then this shouldn't be a problem.Without provoking a debate on specifics here, I will simply state that on average those who promote the theory of evolution are much more educated in the biological sciences than those who promote creationism. It is this difference in knowledge that leads to problems in many threads. For example, a creationist may come on this site claiming that evolution is just random chance. This is a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Evolution, in real science, is described as being guided by natural selection which is the opposite of random chance (if you wish to discuss this further there are many threads already dealing with this topic). The difference in background knowledge becomes worse and worse as the specifics are discussed. We only label people morons if they revel in their ignorance and see no need to fix it. We are all ignorant of something, don't get me wrong. It is those that refuse to cure their ignorance that receive the full brunt of our sarcasm.As to the ratio of creationists to evolutionists, I bet it is pretty even. The difference is that the creationists tend to only post for a short time. Once it becomes apparent that the arguments they are pulling from creationist websites do not stand up to scrutiny they tend to leave. Us evo's tend to stick around. Of course, these are only generalities.

Note, Chuck, that there are a number of forums on this site.Bible Study, Comparative Religions, Faith and Belief, etc.There are plenty of opportunities for religious people, creationist or otherwise, to participate and show their spiritual stuff.As noted by the others in this thread, however, if one should venture into one of the science forums he had better know his science stuff or he will get his teeth kicked in. Note I did not say one needs to believe in the science, but one does need to know the language, definitions and concepts, in addition to having something more than just faith to discuss.Welcome aboard, Chuck.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This website is the most objective, the least biased in its moderation and rules of any web forum I have ever participated in.Posts are not deleted or edited by the moderation staff, except in the case of spam.Posters with just about any viewpoint are welcome to post their views and their reasons for them.The only real rule is that you do need to be able to support your claims with evidence. Depending on which section of the site you're posting in, sometimes that includes the Bible, and other times it does not. This is where most posters run into trouble - Creationist and otherwise alike. There are Creationists who post to science threads where the only evidence accepted is actual scientifically acceptable study, and they post Biblical quotes and interpretations. This tends to get them in trouble.The EvC debate seems to have quieted down in general since the Dover decision - it's just not as popular a topic of discussion, except in a few specific circles. At least that's my impression.The closest thing we have to a bias at this site is, as mentioned, we simply have a numerical disparity among posters that strongly favors the evolution0-supporting points of view. That's not to say this is just an echo chamber - even among the evolution supporters, we have a wide variety of beliefs represented, from Christians to Deists to Agnostics to Atheists and so on, with posters occupying just about every location on the political spectrum from a variety of nations.EvCforum.net is an excellent place to be exposed to different points of view in a carefully moderated environment, where your experience will be decided more by your ability to support your views than by what those views specifically are. It's a [i]great[/]i place to learn, about various different theologies, debating in general, how to react to opposing viewpoints, and just about any field of science (right here on the forum we have actual physicists, mathematicians, biologists, archeologists, paleontologists, geologists, and more),Hope you decide to stick around!

Hi Chuck,If you would like an example of a near perfect discussion between a 'Creationist' and an 'Evo' then read this:
Creationist response to cetacean femur, leg atavism, and limb bud.
There is no bias. Both sides are expected to argue their point intelligently.Now, as this is a public forum, not every discussion is as constructive as that one - but it is not because of bias.

Hi Chuck. Welcome.Astute creationists who are studied on the Bible and history see evidence supportive to the existence of a higher intelligence in the Universe than is experienced on our level of existence. These evidences include phenomenally fulfilled prophecy prophesying unusual events which have come to pass and are emerging into existence.We look for archeological evidence of phenomenal events recorded in the Biblical record, such as the Exodus crossing. This has been extensively debated in several threads. If you click on my username you will see my profile which has a number of pages in it, having been aboard over eight years. You may want to visit the last one which is still open and ongoing. Perhaps you may want to weigh in on it.We also look for evidence supportive to the Noaic Flood event that may be a better explanation for physical things observed, etc.Some of us see Robert Ballard's Black Sea discovery of evidence of civilization 300' lower than the land surface as evidence of the Genesis flood.Creationists tend to debate logic whereas evolutionists tend towards more abstract methodology such as relativity, quantum theory and such. An example of logical argument, the creationist may argue that by and large, both order and disorder trends towards disorder naturally and not vise versa. Evolutionists see disorder emerging naturally and randomly into more complex order whereas creationists logically cite the need for intelligent work in order for disorder and chaos to become more orderly, complex and less chaoticIt has been noted that evolutionists tend to be more scientifically educated and astute, therefore in unity. However consider that having had their young impressive minds run through the assembly line of scientific methodology and interpretation of things observed, they have become unified. Creationist's, who's views are not generally allowed in the schools, sometimes cite this as the reason for unity of thought among evolutionists.So Chuck, don't think that just because gazillions seem to refute creationist arguments, they have a corner, so to speak on reality and truth. Remember; for any of them to admit to even a smidget of evidence supportive to the existence of the supernatural higher intelligence, would falsify their secularistic version of science and render them accountable to a higher authority. We would welcome you to join in on the ongoing debates, both regarding science and the many other interesting topics promoted here at EvC.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Thanks all, for the responces. I appreciate it. Lot's of good info and do plan on sticking around,seems fun, for now.

Over the years I've found one great fault of posters overconfidence in known science. Nothing that exists could exist: unless something first existed; to become what is now. The first of all: must be; existence. Evolution and mutation could be part of a design . LOL ok... Back to the first point:Nothing that does have being ‘can’ have being: without first being a part of a greater body-- until you get to that something That was first--for everything that is now; to ‘exist’ at all.Was the first energy conscious? No one knows. And that is the argument here with creation and evolution. Evolutionist prefer to say NO and a creationists prefer to say YES My personal position is that it is more potential to be YES :because; order denotes intelligence as a necessity for today’s evolving universe to change from an indeterminable but apparently singular start. (The first of all to exist, Which had to ‘always be’, before anything else could be; namely: Existence.)The scientific opinions are that there was no creator because there is no scientific proof or evidence to show he cares about ‘man’; therefore he does not exist.But from your post, and others, the Initial poster can only conclude that the majority here are evolutionists, and creationists have an uphill battle to even communicate for real answers.However, from my post they can conclude that both arguments are simply subjective beliefs being argued, and it is a chance for the poster to come to a decision concerning their own beliefs by debating here.Edited by tesla, : sentence edit

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

It is predominantly an evolutionist site, yes.But I guess that depends... I realize that evolution occurs but I believe that god created the world. So am I a creationist and also an evolutionist? Or are they mutually exclusive some how? I suppose, but we do know that there are some things that are wrong... like Young Earth Creationism, or a global flood, or a non-evolutionary emergence of species. Uhm, energy lacks the cellular structure needed for the neurons that are required for consciousness to exist You also hafta have a brain to have intelligence... Wait does the creator really have a penis!?

I don't know. Depends who you ask. I'd agree with you on most of that. Emergence of species I'm undecided. It's still guessing. Energy as we know it lacks the cellular structure needed for the neurons that are required for consciousness to exist We do not understand consciousness well enough to determine that. Trees communicate via chemical signatures to tell others of its species how to ward off sickness.There could be other life besides carbon based. LOL Who knows? You got me on wording

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Over confidence? Is this a joke? You can't tell the difference between confidence after years of study and research and over confidence after a couple creationist sermons? And therefore, I must conclude that your god was created by a cosmic turtle, which in turn was created by the spaghetti monster, which in turn was created by the tooth fairy, which in turn was created by santa clause, etc. I'm curious. What branch of scientific research are you involved in to allow you such insight into the nature of science?I'm asking because in my branch of research we have absolutely no opinion whatsoever to the existence or non-existence of a creator.

Those creation sermons have been taught and heavily studied first before all things--in any depth--and is a common belief of most.People want to know the truth, and on some level they trust science. unless science is selling another tooth fairy bullshit religion like any other religion being practiced, I want more cooperation in discovering that truth.Call it science call it church; call it a figment of your imagination. 75% or more of the planet think it’s the most important thing to life. So either sell us honesty or admit you’re just another bullshit religion with no real answers.Edited by tesla, : word structure.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides