The Evolution of evcforum.net

It is rude. I think it is a smallish percentaage of people that engage in such behavior. Knowing a bit about what some Christians have put some people through I can understand some of the nastiness however. I hope that the individuals doing it will grow up a bit over time.Meanwhile, I've been condemmed to eternal torment and am grouped in with all kinds of truely evil folk because I don't happen to go along with some of the beliefs of some of our visitors. For some reason I don't find that to be a particular problem nor does it make me want to leave. I don't know why a bit or rudeness is so hard to take.

The Biblical and belief arguements are, I think, sidelines for a few here. They like to argue so they indulge in those threads when the science forums are quiet.Most of us (me for sure) don't worry much about what individuals personal beliefs are. What we are all against the the idea that there is any such thing as "scientific creationism" that should have any place whatsoever in schools. This is what this site is primarily about.I would suspect that the majority of the literalists think that there is some scientific support for their beliefs. They charge in with material from AIG and ICR and when that material is laughed at start to degenerate into rudeness much faster than most of the opposition.The believers here, as Jar, points out are much more concerned about the non-science aspects of the literalists position. It is also bad theology and bad for the view that the world holds of Christianity. The sooner everyone treats the literalists with the derision they deserve and gets the separation between them and more thoughtfull, sophisticated Christians clear the happy most Christians will be.

That may be true but you'd better figure out just what those "beliefs" are. They might be surprisingly few in number. I've tried for myself to figure out what my list of beliefs are -those things which I take as true without any evidence - and the list isn't very long.Heck, I even have one that is probably against the evidence available: most people are basically nice. You'll have to explain why you think that and what the difference is.
We are, after all, talking about people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, was covered in a total flood only 4500 years ago and other ideas just as much 'nonsense'.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-04-2005 09:28 AM

We have had some short discussions on this kind of thing. This is not the forum for it but if you want to PNT something it might be interesting.The problem is I haven't heard anyone propose any other way of arriving safely at what might be "knowledge".We know that individuals are both easily foold and can be very deluded. We know that supposed "evidence" of something other than a scienticfic kind has lead people very badly astray many times. (NB. this is not to say that we can't mess up with a scientific process as well, it is just that it is both more unlikely and seems to get corrected eventually).In your PNT you can describe a form of "evidence" that is explicitly not scientific and we can figure out how it would be dealt with and be useful.

Exactly! Without what we call scientific evidence it doesn't seem to be possible to settle any debate and they go on for decades and centuries.