Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


(1)
Message 168 of 415 (667348)
07-06-2012 9:18 AM


Did we win?
Though I mostly just lurk here I get around to a lot of these types of forums. My general perception is that creationists have pretty much conceded the field. The forums which discuss issues of faith and science seem to be either:
1. Dominated by members who pile on to demolish creationist claims. (FreeRatio; EvC Forum; ChristianForums)
2. Dead - with no new posts for years.
3. Closed. (Christian-forum.net)
4. Hiding behind intentionally all-inclusive ToS that allow moderators to quickly ban anyone who disagrees (EvolutionFairyTale; Biblocality; Worthy Christian Forums)
That's my impression anyway. Thoughts?

Observation without application is worthless.

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nwr, posted 07-06-2012 9:34 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 170 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2012 9:35 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 185 of 415 (667439)
07-07-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by dwise1
07-07-2012 1:46 AM


Did we win?
quote:
That is how Christian forums work all the time. If they decide that they don't like you (and it takes extremely little for them to arrive at that conclusion), then you are gone.
True story:
Lurker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by dwise1, posted 07-07-2012 1:46 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 07-07-2012 5:02 PM Itinerant Lurker has replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 187 of 415 (667456)
07-07-2012 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by ringo
07-07-2012 5:02 PM


Re: Did we win?
Nice. I lasted about a month there a long while back. Might have to re-visit that one to see how long your run goes.
Lurker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 07-07-2012 5:02 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


(10)
Message 393 of 415 (669729)
08-02-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by RAZD
07-31-2012 8:48 AM


Re: Still, there is the problem of dogpiles and jerk evolutionists
It seems to me that they - and other creationists - want a discourse environment similar to what they are used to in their culture, where there is less\little emphasis on empirical evidence and more emphasis on making what seem to be reasonable arguments, the "let us reason together" approach to reaching a decision.
I think that's exactly what's happening. I spend the majority of my time posting on pro-creationist boards and the amount of tightrope-walking I have to do just to keep from being banned is ridiculous. They are used to ToS ("Terms of Service") so vague they can be used to quickly get rid of those who disagree with them, as well as moderators (often who actively participate in discussions) only too happy to apply them. Because of this many creationists are simply unused to extended, and well-evidenced arguments against their claims and/or consistent demands for evidence. It's just not a standard they are held to in their home forums. Even the extensive archive of past topics available here is probably quite novel as on creationist boards particularly coherent arguments get revised and deleted fairly regularly by admins. There are also usually lengthy prohibitions against disrespecting anyone's views, much less overtly calling them out on bullshit, which are often also unevenly enforced.
On the upside, this is exactly why this kind of thinking will only suffer in an environment of free inquiry and debate. Which is, of course, why creationist boards very rarely allow free inquiry and debate to happen, and why creationists shy away from boards that do.
quote:
". . .truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, and is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and can have nothing to fear from the conflict, unless (by human interposition) disarmed of her natural weapons — free argument and debate: errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. --Thomas Jefferson, An Act for the Establishment of Religious Freedom, passed in the Assembly of Virginia (U.S.) in the year 1786.

Lurker
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : I don't check my messages. . .that's why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2012 8:48 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


(6)
Message 415 of 415 (670169)
08-09-2012 7:25 PM


Flipside
Of course, there's also the possibility (however remote) that creationists are in short supply because you are converting them. While I'm sure this doesn't happen often, it does happen. Case in point, this was me parroting ID bullshit just a short five years ago:
quote:
The evidence we have today about the Cambrian Explosion, about Irreducebly Complex systems, about the high improbablitliy of mutations to account for speciation, and the complete lack of observable examples of macroevolution, all point out significant holes in evolutionary theory.
Again I return to my original post referring to the statement "evolution did it" in referring to the IC system of the motile cilia. The processes and molechular makeup of the cilia is intimately known in the smallest minutae, yet macroevolutionary theory cannot account for it. In such a case it is not enough to say, "evolution just did it" as many have, because the evolutionary mechanism is not known. Neither is it scientific to say that "god just did it" because the mechanism of creation is unknown. What is scientific to say is that we don't know but there are differing untestable theories out there. The difference between the creation mechanism and the evolution mechanism is that the evolutionary mechanism should be testable, because according to the theory it is a never ending process that continues to this day, while the ID mechanism makes no such claim beyond that life is designed.
The consistent and prolonged destruction of my arguments (often in quite harsh, Dr. A-esque style) drove me to learn more and more about these issues. Until I finally learned enough to realize I was wrong. Much of this took place on other forums, but I spent a huge amount of time just reading through past debates here which addressed the points I was trying to make.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but it does happen.
Lurker

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024