Old topics and other things PRATT

Adminnemooseus, I did take your comment at first as a brush off because of the " it's even still open" MUAHahahahahah sort of feel it had. Now that i've been here for a few weeks I see it WASN'T a brush off and had no idea that once you comment on an old thread it brings it back "up top"-so to speak, for everyone to see. So my comment was out of line to begin with and unmerited. Thanks for going "easy" on me as a newcomer. In contrast it's probably nice to start a new thread and feel "involved" with the conversation more and possibly bring things to light the other one didn't. Even if something was discussed already it's fun to "freshen" it up some.It all depends on how you look at the "debate" I suppose. Is it fun and educational for people or life and death? If it's fun well, new fresh threads can be well, fun and educational. If it's life and death, then why touch a perfectly good refuted argument like Meyers paper? "We completley refuted his findings and there is no need to revisit the same thing as long as that one thread is open for everyone to see and for the rest of eternity. End of story, thanks for playing, go home now, we win". )So anyway,my temper tantrum was unnecessary. My bad. Thanks the open discussion about it.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : off topicEdited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Sorry everyone for highjacking this thread. Im still getting used to staying on topic. It's a little harder than it seems(apperantly).I deleted the content in my post to Pressie which had nothing to do with Adminnemooseus' OP. My apologies.At first I was eager to start new threads, being "new" here but know I think it actually puts a lot of pressure on the Author. Trying to respond to everyone and at the same time make your points clear and concise for everyone to understand. When they don't understand you have try to explain one thing 10 different ways (from a few posts i've seen). I think i'll sit back for a bit and comment on already existing threads until I get more accustomed to the site. I agree with that 100%. That IS what drives the debate. As debates are essentialy on-going. It's inevitable that things are going to be covered multiple times when newcomers join(either side). The question to start new threads or not to to me personally should be left up to the admins (which it is). Their discretion after years of doing this is far more intune with the "feeling" of the forum and are a better judge of character than most newcomers are of themselves.People think they have a good grasp on a subject until they are in the middle of the debate. People who may be smarter than you or more knowledgeable about a certain subject can question your stance and things can get ugly(from what i've seen)So, my solution to PRATT or not to PRATT is sure, if a subject hasn't been discussed in a while and some new light can be shed on it or started from a "clean" slate let the newcomer start a thread, if the thread is a successful one then it's a win. If he gets ripped for a good week or so or fails to reply as he should and can't handle the pressure he probably won't be proposing anything new for a while.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Does anyone know if there is a specific topic on the difference between ID and Creationism? A lot of people seem to think the two are the same thing or ID is Creationism in disguise. They are not, and it's not an opinion. They are vastly different if people would care enough to see. This is just a general question for the forum.To me, when I hear that the TOE and Abiogenesis are different im pretty much forced to accept it even tho I disagree that they are two entirely seperate areas. What matters tho, is that they ARE seperated. It would be nice if ID and Creationism were to.Has this been hashed out already on other threads? Im thinking yes. If so can someone post the link here to it?Is the general consensus on the forum that ID and Creationism are the same? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.