Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic"

OK, I'll concede that the quoted of message 1 is a valid view, AS FAR AS IT GOES.But note what I said elseswhere in that message: Now, please, the questions of message 12.Moose

Obivously you feel that you are entitled to engage in misrepresentation and slander since you offer no apology. Which simply confirms my assessment of your nature.I would add that if you hold that YEC s a respectable view you should also hold that it is not slander to be called a YEC - even if it is not true. Simply point out that your view is being misrepresented and have done with it.i

Moose, I have made my position abundantly clear that I am not YECer, nor a theistic evolutionist. If I thought the evidence supported either view, I would be a YECer or an evolutionist. Since I don't think the data fully supports either of these 2 models, I don't ascribe to them.Is that not clear to you?Reasonableness is a poorly defined and subjective term. So you have my position stated more concretely above. As far as "asinine", well, quit acting asinine and I will quit mentioning asinine posts.

Whatever PaulK, I've been totally up-front posting pages upon pages of my views. I think it's pretty clear what I beleive. Some evos like percy have chosen to misrepresent me and the tone of their misrepresentation is derogatory. The fact I think YECism has as much to offer as evolutionism does not change the fact some have chosen to misrepresent me for some reason despite my posting specifics of what I believe.

Percy, try looking at this from the other side for a bit. You guys misrepresent and say the most outlandish and childish things about your critics, and then if you barely begin to act decently and engage the discussion honestly, you expect to be rewarded as if you bend over backwards.Be honest. Understand what someone else is saying before you bash their claims.Is that so hard to do? Should not the evo posters here do that?

It also doesn't change the fact that you chose to misrepresent me, make false accusations and label my post "idiocy" for no good reason. And that you apparently see nothing wrong with those actions.

Hi Randman,Before I address your post, let me ask again if you would be so kind as to give Carico a hand in the explaining common ancestry thread. This is from Message 113: Though no one has done so, Carico seems to believe that it is being repeatedly claimed that apes and humans can breed with each other. Naturally this makes no sense, since apes are a superfamily, not a species, and humans (along with gorillas and chimpanzees) are a type of ape. It would be appreciated if a fellow creationist could help him out with understanding the biological classification system.Now, responding to your post: The nature of the debate is that both sides perceive the other as making misrepresentations, making outlandish claims and becoming personal. After years of observing creation/evolution discussions devolve into name calling and recriminations, I started EvC Forum with the goal of creating a moderated venue where personal animosities had to be set aside at risk of suspension. The Forum Guidelines here at EvC Forum, which I wrote, were specifically designed to make possible civil debate.The other means by which I hoped to achieve this goal was the appointment of moderators from both sides of the debate. Recruiting creationist moderators has proved difficult, and finding ones who actually moderate instead of imitating wall flowers is even more difficult. It was hoped that you would bring the same energy and activism that you bring to discussion to your moderating.What you have instead brought is a tepid level of moderating and a new high in the abuse of the Forum Guidelines. Look at the title of this message. Who placed "idiocy" in the title? Who placed "buffoon" in another message title? Who keeps calling people liars? You're even the reason that the word "liar" is now represented by asterisks, along with Haeckel. You can't seem to stop from calling people liars, and you can't seem to refrain from turning threads into discussions of Haeckel. You're a walking poster board for the stereotypical abusive bulletin board denizen.EvC Forum is intended for civil discussion. Its goal is to bring light to the debate, not heat. Please do your part to make this possible. That means moderating threads so as to call attention to evolutionist misbehavior with regard to the Forum Guidelines. And it means setting a good example for others when engaged in discussion by following the Forum Guidelines instead of violating as many as you can.Remember, you appear as bad to evolutionists as they do to you. The only way to have productive discussion is if everyone focuses on the topics of discussion and not on what they perceive as the foibles of their opponents. In particular, I'm asking you to follow rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

--Percy

At times it has been difficult as I have been the only anti-evo on many threads though it has improved a little of late. Not wanting to appear biased and moderate my own thread, it made it a little more difficult to moderate. I also told you I would be gone for stretches, and coincidentally I have been gone for days at a time when others like Faith have posted a lot on the forum.The thing about civility is it works both ways, and or after awhile does not work. PaulK started off very inflammatory, putting intent and words into what I said that any intelligent person could see was not my intent at all. Any intelligent person would have known from my lengthy statements, reposted here in quotes, exactly what my position was, unless they were predisposed to refuse to accept that someone rejects evolution based on their understanding of the facts instead of on their reading of the Bible.

Looking at your registration date and message totals indicates that you've averaged 10+ messages per day. I'm not condeming this in itself (this forum puts a heavy load on the creo members), but it does mean that your presented information is pretty dispersed.In an earlier reply to me, you stated that you are neither a YEC nor some variety of evolutionist. To me, what has stood out is that you are indeed an "anti-evolutionist", without having staked out any clear creationist position. This includes my impression that you are "not a YEC, but still support YECism". What does that make you? A "semi-Yec"?Bottom line - I'm trying to get a clear, concise creationist position out out you.Moose

I've stated my position frequently. What don't you get?

If so, it's lost in the clutter.How about the short version right here?Moose

what do you want to know? I think the scientific evidence does not support evolutionary models. So my best guess is ID. I think YECers do some interestign research, but I am not convinced that the earth is young. Of course, I am not convinced the age of the earth stays the same, nor that there is one static past. In fact, I strongly suspect this is not the case, and we need to view the universe as space-time which can lengthen and contract. I don't believe in only linear causation with respect to time, and think evolutionary models are outdated by modern physics.

quote:

---

what do you want to know? I think the scientific evidence does not support evolutionary models. So my best guess is ID. I think YECers do some interestign research, but I am not convinced that the earth is young. Of course, I am not convinced the age of the earth stays the same, nor that there is one static past. In fact, I strongly suspect this is not the case, and we need to view the universe as space-time which can lengthen and contract. I don't believe in only linear causation with respect to time, and think evolutionary models are outdated by modern physics.

---

.....the Bible tells you it is not.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

---

'In the beginning' - but does not say who's beginning.'The earth was without form and void' - means he had not yet given it purpose.'And darkness was upon the face of the deep' - he changed his mind about the way it looked originally and then 'the Spirit of God moved upon the waters' - looks like something is happening. Makes sense to me.ID is a strange guess, but if it makes you happy, I think you should run with it.I'm absolutely convinced that the age of the earth does not stay the same. ????? Getting older by the minute and I'm holding at 39.I don't see why evolution is ever an issue. It makes perfect sense looking at an ever-changing scene. Origin, on the other hand, makes no sense without someone initiating and mobilizing.

Randman, I thank you for message 27.What I ask now, before I file that message 27 away for future reference, is that what you wish to be the final version of your position statement?Moose

You don't mean final FINAL do you? Someone should be allowed/expected to change their position as they learn something.