What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

I told Percy up front that my reading time was very limited due to my busy life at home and business, being a sole proprieter. You have to read to moderate. I came back on to do what I can but I do like to debate the issues for ID creationism, the Biblical and the social issues et al. That's why I joined in the first placeI believe Administasia said something in PAF about IAJ that she would keep an eye out on his input. I have admittedly been somewhat remiss on my role in that, however.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

I usually do not respond to insult or invective. The comment above, at face value, appears insulting - but it really is not.Of course the comment presupposes that I (a Creationist) have been bested in debate due to my inability to think. Since the comment was written by an Evolutionist, logically, it means the exact opposite. It is a compliment to be "insulted" this way by an Evolutionist. Anytime that I (or any Creationist) is complimented by the Evolutionist it is the best evidence that we are like them (= morons). Evolutionists believe apes morphed into men and that the appearance of design that is overwhelmingly seen in nature does not reflect invisible Designer but a stupid blind process (natural selection) that only exists in their head. They also believe that all living things evolved from one common ancestor that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Intelligent persons, after remembering this, can see why it is a compliment to be rejected (and insulted) by persons who believe these atheistic and nonsensical things.I am very glad evolutionists reject and insult me; their approval would prove my wrongness - glad I didn't get it.As for the topic title: "What is an Articulate Informed Creationist" it is ridiculous! As if any evolutionist is going to say that a Creationist is as such! If any evolutionist says that a Creationist is as such then that person is not a real Creationist.This whole topic is silly and should be shut down.Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

I believe it's possible to be a good creationist debater on some of the science issues, fairly well informed on the basics of science without being all that articulate in things like string theory, QM, et al. I cited ICant as an example way back in message 6. Moose, does that fit within your criteria as on topic and if Moose has no objections, does anyone care to comment on that?On the other hand we have had a few fairly articulate folks come on briefly to find the site not so friendly to their science inform-ation and bug off. Lyndonshire is one example of that for some of the long timers who remember that tired light debate. I thought that debate was quite interesting to follow.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

I have to pretty much agree with you, CFO. I never ever in over 4 years remember of any ID creationist participant at EvC that would be considered both articulate and informed by either Admin or the membership at large. To be informed you must be evo and to be articulate doesn't make you informed as an ID creo.That's why I entitled the thread I was going to have promoted on this topic, "EvC Expectations For Biblical Creationist Pariticipitation In Science."

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

A rare species, if by "creationist" you mean Biblical literalist types.If we consider the broader meaning of "creationist", there are plenty who fit the description "articulate informed creationist" on this site, but they're always arguing on the science/evolution side.If someone is both a believer in a creator God and scientifically well informed, then it's likely that they'll argue for evolution in a debate on biology, and unlikely that they'll attempt to present scientific evidence for their God.Intelligent thiests know that belief in God is a matter of faith. Many see science as the study of their God's creation. If their God exists and created the universe, then they're correct!

The crux comes when you consider that the God of their faith is likely the Biblical god. So if the God of their faith is a Biblical God, they are confronted with the fact that if their God is a Biblical god then according to the record of the book of their God he intelligently designed everything that was made and all things came from him. All of this stuff is relative to the God of their faith. So to be intelligently informed and articulate on scripture, it makes sense to be able to interpret what is observed in science as being intelligently designed by a higher power than NS and RM. This is the basis of our contention that there is such a thing as ID creationist science and articulately informed scientists like those associated with ICR may interpret science on that basis.

You're not familiar with Ray's output then. For instance you've forgotten the long thread on Pyramidology and the spinoff thread dealing with the Pyramid meridian.Ray has been bested because he either cannot or does not think. The post you approve of is just another example of his abusive attitude.ICANT does not seem to be too hot on science either. I only dipped into the singularity discussion but his obvious misreading of Hawking was clear. But he's miles better than Ray. But then practically every creationist currently on the board is miles better than Ray.Buz, if you're going to accuse others of bias your implicit endorsement of Ray completely undermines your case.

okay, apparently i don't have a good grasp on the rules or why we suspend people around here, judging from my own recent suspension, for a conversation style not appealing to the moderators. ok, how about ANY creationists? have you heard one bad word spoken about kent hovind by ANY creationist? someone saying "yeah, uh, he doesn't really represent what we do over here..."i don't think our more eccentric members worry the creationists much. they pretty much stick together, and stick up for one another. i think it is our ration of evolutionists to creationists that indimates them -- a vicious cycle. and i think it is our few harder-playing members (the real scientists among us) versus the utter lack of any quality creationist members that can even try to take them on that scares people away. they know they're gonna have to go it alone, and get jumped on by a pack of ravening wolves. so ban those we can't reform?

---

yes, and perhaps this whole line of thought is off-topic. i think to them the idea of a topic is a little different. the scientifically inclined like to cut things up into little genres and sub-genres, and discuss the little minutae of one particular field of study that they specialize in. creationists seem to be "big picture" kinda guys, and often don't care much about details. they view everything through special "bible goggles." everything is meaningful in relation to everything else, because everything is tied through god. it's all one topic to them, everything is related. jesus, moses, whales, abortion, homosexuality, bush, hedgehogs. it's all the same. yes. i think the mods should hand out a lot of "off topic -- please propose a new topic on this subject" semi-warnings in those cases.

---

is it the admins' job to personally monitor and counsel and guide the creationist members of the board, as if they were children?should it be?seems very labor intensive...

---

To be fair to AiG - or rather CMG - they did publish an article on bad arguments that creationists should not use and did name Kent Hovind as somone who used them. They did miss other bad arguments and their criticism was far too mild, but it was there.On the other hand Iano reacted very badly when Jar expressed the hope that Hovind would get jail for his crimes. Apparently hoping that a creationist crook gets the sentence he deserves is far worse than gross tax evasion - or taking drugs and hiring a male prostitute for gay sex.

i must say, the "i'm rubber, you're glue" tactic is rarely so eloquently and amusingly phrased. actually ray, i really am quite enamoured with your writing and debate style. i highly enjoy reading your posts around here. that's part of the reason that everytime your head comes up on the chopping block, i argue for your sake -- you are quite a valuable member of this forum, and by far the most interesting creationist i have ever had the pleasure of debating with.i say this in all seriousness, ray. i am quite looking forward to reading your book. if you publish, can i get an autographed copy?

---

oh yes, that's quite true. that had slipped my mind.is that the best example? they were, as you say, quite mild.

---

on topic, and in my opinion, faith is the closest thing to an articulate and well informed creationist we have ever had. she tried -- she thought: you could see the gears turning. i thought she was fun to debate with. tiresome occasionally, but aren't we all? and she would come with new (albiet ad-hoc) arguments. exactly. this debate has been fundamentally the same for the last 150 years, since darwin. the arguments aren't exactly new. i've heard them all before, except for the really, really crazy ones. that's why i take a personal interest in the truly crackpot insane theories.

---

If you want to be very broad you could count the attacks made on Hugh Ross. But they are due to his endorsement of an Old Earth and his critique of Humphrey's "Starlight and Time". So far as I can tell doctrinal agreement seems to be more important to them than anything else.I don't see much crticism of creationists from creationists at all. None of the Creatinists on this group seem to even protest Ray's abuse of the Bible to assert that all evolutionists are liars. Apparently slandering anyone who disagrees with you is much more important than the Word of God.