Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,275 Year: 5,532/9,624 Month: 557/323 Week: 54/143 Day: 16/11 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 19 of 415 (661389)
05-04-2012 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
05-04-2012 9:16 PM


Re: Where Are The Creationists
He's banned one of your most effective creationists from all science forums which include some Biblical ones.
The reason, Buz, is that you are not posting science. Science has a specific set of rules and procedures that it must follow--generally lumped under the term the "scientific method." It relies on verifiable evidence, hypotheses, testing of those hypotheses, rejecting or reformulating the ones that don't measure up, all of which leads to scientific theories. Theories must also meet another criterion: they must successfully predict things that in turn are verified. Note, these terms are used in a different manner within science than they are used by the general population. The general population equates "theory" with anything from "guess" to "idea." In science a theory is the single best current explanation for a given set of observations, and it is an explanation that covers all of those observations without being contradicted by any. And, as noted, it makes successful predictions.
What you rely on is about the opposite of this. Your "chariot wheels" for example: they are based on a fuzzy underwater photograph and a lot of wishful thinking. To make these "chariot wheels" into verifiable evidence you need more than a fuzzy photograph--otherwise we would already have positive evidence that bigfoot and UFOs exist. If a potential chariot wheel is recovered and subjected to scientific investigation there are many tests which could be performed to determine whether or not it dates to the time period you say it does. Comparison to existing wheels from Egyptian tombs would be the first thing to do--if they are even chariot wheels at all! That has not been determined.
When nearly all of you, his evolutionst members voted that Buzsaw be reinstated into Science forums, Percy's one bully pulpit vote trumped all of yours.
That's up to him as the one who runs the board.
He dogged me, demanding what to post next etc in the last Exodus thread and now member Percy is demanding that I cease and desist posting on topic messages relating to how commodity goods made investors of it wealthy while $$ assets infate, becoming ever more worthless making these people less wealthy. He cited Dr Adequate's response as well, demanding no more responses relating to my message. He's made similar demands, even at FreeForAll. Go figure why you've won.
On the exodus thread he wanted verifiable evidence. You failed to provide any.
If Percy/Admin would leave the moderating up to Minnemooseus and the rest of his team of moderators, I assure you that you would not be winning and some other creationists might find this site a place where they would desire to stay and engage in debates.
Creationists come and soon they're gone after Percy mothers/dogges them as to what they must and must not post. . They need some fair and balance from Percy/Admin before you can expect others to feel welcome.
Creationists are not immune to the rules of science and evidence. Their claims, when refuted by scientific evidence, must be supported by scientific evidence, not by dogma, scripture, myth, and belief.
At 76, my business, church, garden and other activities limit my online time, especially during the summer, so if you all want more creationists you need to persuade Percy to stop running them off. He's nice to them at first, but sooner or later he drives them off.
Perhaps most creationists leave voluntarily when they make claims based on their beliefs, and when challenged are unable to support those claims with any verifiable evidence.
Here is the difference between religious belief and science: Science, when disputes arise, goes back to evidence or seeks new evidence, and from that determines which of the conflicting claims, if any, are the most accurate.
Religions, when disputes arise, tend to split. There are currently an estimated 30,000-40,000 different denominations or sects of Christianity alone. The reason for this is that they do not rely on evidence to address differences among them, but instead rely on belief. And as Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning." If you don't agree with the others in your group you split into two groups and each go your own way as you have no empirical means to settle those disagreements.
I don't see much from astute physicists like Son Goku and Cavediver, etc anymore. They and other astute scientists share the same frustration as Dr Adequate. Activity livens up and threads get hot when bonafide creationst vs evolutionist debates happen. Otherwise, about all this site amounts to is a round table discussion among evolutionits and Big Bangers.
IMO, AdminPD needs to lighten up a bit on moderating as well. Imo, she needs to allow some more leeway in the treads relative to adherance to topic. IMO, moderating makes or breaks debate boards. Imo, the less, the better. It's the trolls and dumb-headed that they need to focus on. .
Buz, I think your problem, shared with many or most creationists who have passed through here, is that you are unable to come up with evidence for your beliefs which will convince most outsiders. You accept your evidence because it supports your beliefs, so "it has to be right!" But that's not enough to convince those who rely on verifiable evidence.
And because you are not relying on verifiable evidence you have a major problem in the Science Forum.
Perhaps a solution is to initiate a new Forum on this site--perhaps call it "Creationists' Corner" or some such. I would suggest it be moderated for abusive language, trolling, and the like without moderating content as is necessary in the Science Forum. Perhaps this would be a place where you could post more of your beliefs and the evidence you feel supports them without getting banned.
And we could soundly refute them as always. ; - )

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 05-04-2012 9:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 05-05-2012 7:45 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(6)
(1)
Message 37 of 415 (661645)
05-08-2012 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bolder-dash
05-08-2012 9:41 PM


Re: Its a debate site??
Oh and by the way, do you know that Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, as well as the entire body of the National Academy of Science all believe as a policy that evolutionists never fair [sic] well debating creationists, so they should avoid it when possible?
What they avoid is public debates before stacked audiences and against creationists who practice the "Gish gallop." It is smart to avoid those venues.
What creationists avoid like the plague is written debates were evidence is necessary and there is time to research your replies. Scientific journals are a prime example.
Need evidence, eh? Guess that's why they do so poorly here also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-08-2012 9:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 158 of 415 (662571)
05-17-2012 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dawn Bertot
05-17-2012 12:55 AM


Buz and Dawn
Dawn, you lack the charm Buz has. I kind of like him as well. You, not so much.
I don't agree with either of you in our debates, but if you notice Buz is one of the few creationists anywhere who can string a bunch of words together into a sentence. And he has quite a lot of patience.
I think I'd rather have a beer with Buz than you, although he might prefer tea instead.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-17-2012 12:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-17-2012 8:29 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 178 of 415 (667410)
07-06-2012 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by marc9000
07-06-2012 9:36 PM


Re: Did we win?
The "real world" is not defined by dogma, divine revelation, ancient tribal myths, or the voices in one's head.
Nor is it defined by magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo or any of that other weird stuff.
The real world is defined by empirical evidence.
Science has a lock on that.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by marc9000, posted 07-06-2012 9:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 188 of 415 (667465)
07-07-2012 8:20 PM


Self deception
Regarding creationism and other related isms, the following quote from another context might apply:
quote:
The human capacity for individual and group self-deception is endless, which is why a scientific attitude toward ideas is so important.
Senoi Dream Theory: Myth, Scientific Method, and the Dreamwork Movement, by G. William Domhoff
Source

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
(1)
Message 268 of 415 (668421)
07-21-2012 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by marc9000
07-20-2012 11:10 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
An ancient earth cannot be observed. Much of what science claims cannot be observed.
Going back to the OP, "Creationist Shortage" theme:
I think the reason for the "shortage" is that creationists come here and make inane statements such as the one of your's that I quoted above.
Then, when other posters point out the errors in their claims, they leave in a huff. (I know a lady once who had a license plate, HUFF, so she could... Well, you know.)
What you are really saying is that much of what science claims is contradicted by your religious belief, so you won't accept it. Evidence doesn't matter--if your belief says otherwise, that's enough for you.
The vast majority of creationists are unwilling to listen to evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and so avoid this place as vampires are reputed to avoid garlic. Hence our "Creationist Shortage."
Those who do stick around are an interesting study in sullen and willful denial -- really a self-imposed ignorance -- of many facts that are clearly documented and accepted by those who are in a position to know (i.e., scientists).
This shows the accuracy of Heinlein's observation, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by marc9000, posted 07-20-2012 11:10 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by marc9000, posted 07-24-2012 7:49 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 296 of 415 (669139)
07-27-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Eye Witness Evidence
No secularistic minded archeologist has to falsified the photographically evidenced eye witnesses at Aqaba's Nuweiba Beach. The photographic evidence was photographed by a marine scientist with a ship equiped with all needed for marine archeological research.
Photographs of underwater shapes are not archaeological evidence.
Archaeological evidence would be, as one example, detailed analyses of the metals involved, with comparisons to other metals from known time periods from throughout the region.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 7:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 322 of 415 (669436)
07-30-2012 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2012 1:39 AM


Here's your big chance...
Here's your big chance.
Start a new thread, in the Science Forum, with your single best evidentiary point against the theory of evolution. Make sure your opening post states your position clearly -- in regards to both your evidence and the scientific method. In doing so, show us why the evidence currently used, and the scientific method -- both of which lead to the current theory of evolution -- are wrong.
Please leave belief, dogma, divine revelation, scripture and other subjects for some other thread.
Your goal is to show us where the theory of evolution is wrong, using evidence and the scientific method.
Also, let's keep personalities out of this, as well as complaints about moderation.
Just post your single best piece of evidence and we can debate that evidence.
What could be more fair than that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 1:39 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 405 of 415 (669802)
08-03-2012 2:47 AM


Summary
Creationists come here to, presumably, expose others to their beliefs and hopefully to convince some to accept those beliefs.
Those who hold other beliefs, or who prefer to follow the scientific method, are likely to ask for some evidence that a creationist's beliefs are worth following.
Many religions, and hence their followers, place a great value on belief and faith, while those who follow the scientific method place a great value on evidence and the testing of that evidence.
That leads to an automatic dichotomy here. This has been discussed at length in this thread and in the summations above.
Many creationists appear unable to accept any challenges to their beliefs, and so post once and never return.
Others post and then try to defend their beliefs against evidence brought up that contradicts those beliefs. (Young earth and the lack of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago are two prime examples.) Often they don't last long in the face of overwhelming evidence; they either leave or start questioning their beliefs--by debating the evidence as well as they can.
Another category of creationist, of which we have a couple of prime examples, ignores all evidence that contradicts their beliefs and posts anything that may seem to support those beliefs, whether it actually does or not. When challenged, they claim to have posted definitive evidence, but when we look back we can't find it. Threads then spiral down into oblivion.
The problem can be said to be one of worldview. One side emphasizes evidence while the other emphasizes belief.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024