Foreveryoung Discussions

In this situation this seems to be the tone that is necessary. I think the tone is spot on. It is not incumbent upon us to be polite to someone that is incapable and refuses to be polite himself.Tough love, baby.

But it sure makes it easier to tell the good guys from the bad guys. --Percy

"Tough love" largely does not work. If you want to encourage a certain type of behavior, you react positively when that behavior is demonstrated.If FEY gets a "fuck off, you rude asshole" even when he makes a POTM-worthy post, what's his incentive to be polite?

One half way decent post after hundreds of crap and he gets a POTM? Have our standards sunk so low? Or are expectations so low of fundies that when they post one rational post they get a POTM?People have been trying to be nice to him for months. He has been given lots of rope and hung himself numerous times. At times tough love is appropriate and does work. It is an integral part(not the telling to fuck off of course) of Love and Logic, which is a well respected parenting program. How does anyone learn if you just coddle?

I think I have been very restrained in my responses to this guy. Anytime he is pressed on his crap he lashes out. He is the one that persists in being a dick. Any benefit of the doubt was lost a long time ago. I applaud Oni in saying it as it is.If Forever wants to have respectful debate there are a lot of us here that would be more than willing to join in. Hell that is why we come here.If he doesnt want respectful debate he should find someplace else. One decent post does not excuse all the crap before.

I am reminded of the old story of a man who raised his hat to a passing woman (back in the day, it was polite for a gentleman to raise his hat for a lady).

• "Why did you raise your hat? She is no lady."
• "I raised my hat because I am a gentleman."

The tone that we set in our messages is about us. It is not about them (whoever the "them" happens to be).

This is very true. But we have looked for them.

Have you REALLY tried to find them in sources outside of this forum?

Yes. All of us have I expect. I know I have. Not found a single one.It seems a common creationist assumption that we evo's are simply not familiar with Christianity/the Bible/creationism, but it is rarely the case.On the other hand, I don't think I have ever encountered a single creationist on these boards who accurately understood evolution.Make of that what you will.Mutate and Survive

Of course. You don't suppose that my interest in creationism came about only after I'd joined a forum devoted to debating it? That would be odd. I read a great deal of creationist apologetics, and came to know it for what it was. As a result, I joined these forums.Consequently I know a lot more creationist arguments than the average creationist, and a lot better, and am always ready to help them out when they recite their little lessons wrong.

I think this is true of most of us "evolutionists". I had been hearing and arguing against creationists arguments long before I found this site. This site helped me make my arguments stronger and pointed me toward both creo/fundie and scientific arguments The creo/fundie arguments are always ultimately laughable.

I was actually referring to much more than creationism. There have been many more topics discussed here than that. If I remember correctly, I said that you all are dogmatic and cannot think of any other possibilities to certain issues than what you are familiar with because you only read things by people you generally agree with. I was referring to a wide range of topics on which all of you disagree with me on. I am saying cannot fathom of any other way to think about these things because you have not come across and coherent and cogent argument for them. It is my position that you have not looked hard enough.

Then educate us, present that coherent and cogent argument.

Yes! Really.You really underestimate us. I've looked into all kinds of crazy shit. I sit at a computer all day, man. You don't know the things I've seen Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Are you kidding us? Do you really believe that we keep ourselves as isolated and ignorant as creationists do?I first encountered "creation science" in 1970 with two claims: living molluscs radiodated to be thousands of years old and a NASA computer discovered Joshua's Lost Day. The first claim was bogus (reservoir effect -- the fresh-water clams' stream was filled with dissolved limestone, AKA "old carbon") while the second one was blatantly bogus because even when almost nobody had access to them I knew that computers are not magic (even many Christian sites also refute that claim now). During that time, I also spent a lot of time with fundamentalist friends and families of friends during which time I learned a lot about their theology.In 1981, an ICR creationist came to speak near where I was stationed and I figured that, since they were still around, there must actually be something to it. So I started studying "creation science" to learn just what they evidence was. I quickly learned that that evidence simply does not exist. Watching a fundamentalist Christian TV show on Pat Robertson's CBN which featured a debate between a leading creationist and an "evolutionist" was an eye-opener when the creationist adamantly blinded himself to the evidence (for details, read about that debate in my Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There) where three pelvises -- ape, human, and hominid -- were compared). Half a decade later, a creationist co-worker and I attended a major debate (ICR's Gish & H. Morris vs SDSU's Thwaites and Awbrey -- Gish and Morris literally wrote the "creation science" book); as we were leaving, my friend (for whom I had written the first iteration of that essay above) was in shock and kept muttering "We have mountains of evidence that would have blown those evolutionists away. Why didn't they present any of it?" The reason: they have no evidence; they just lie to their followers that they have evidence.Since then, I have continued to study, to collect creationist claims and to verify them, and to discuss "creation science" with creationists. That included an extended email correspondence with a local creationist activist. What kept happening over and over and over again was that no creationist would even begin to attempt to support any of their own claims and would even vehemently oppose all my attempts to get them to even discuss those claims. Invariably, they would try to change the subject.So, does three decades count as trying to find any cogent creationist arguments? Com'on, try to get real here!