99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

quote:

---

Geologists rarely agree on anything... especially if it comes out of someone else's mind.

---

This implies that sometimes a geologist will disagree with what is in his or her own mind. Interesting....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I don't visit talk.origins very often. I think I found the debate you mention, but I'm not sure as it appears to end in mid-discussion with Nowhere Man waiting for a reply to his appeal to the judges. This is the thread I found: http://groups.google.com...--Percy{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal (Strange, Percy - Why did you not do this yourself?). - Cheers, AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-07-2003]

Well, yes and no. Evolutionists who fail to support assertions with evidence are far less often called on the carpet, mostly because it is so hard for me to notice since I fill in the missing information in my own mind automatically. On the other hand, Creationists Peter Borger and salty were treated for months with broad leniency, primarily at the request of evolutionists who wanted to debate them whether they adhered to the guidelines or not. Also, we have two Creationist moderators, but neither are active of late. I'm only biased in the sense that I have already formed a firm opinion. That doesn't mean my mind isn't open to considering new evidence.You would be unlikely to find someone informed who doesn't fall into one camp or the other. Pathetic.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

The initial concept was a site where any view was permitted and the only requirements were to follow forum guidelines, which were to be neutral with regard to viewpoint. The reality has been that Creationists have found one of the guidelines to be especially daunting:

​

'Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided.'

​

For the most part, Creationists have been unable to muster evidence to support their positions, with the unfortunate result that most give up and move on, or never join in the first place.

---

1. But nothing supernatural is considered as supporting evidence for our argument. So when we use the supernatural as part of our argument, we are breaking the rules. Bottom line is that one cannot debate as a literalist creationist without breaking the rules. Yes, we creationists have varied views on how things happened, but if you want creationists here, that's what you're going to get. We do not believe all of the physics and science of mainstream majority. We believe supernatural factors overide some scientific natural explanations in different areas.2. Since evolutionists are the overwhelming majority here, you all should consider what it is like for one or two creationists in a multiple page thread to keep up with responding to seven or eight opponents, the majority of whom are often insolent, demanding and arrogant when the creationist debates on the basis of the supernatural. If you all were a little more tolerant and would make a little effort to help the minority view feel welcome, you all might have someone to talk to besides yourselves.3. You who administrate are, imo, the ones who discourage creationists the most and make us feel unwelcome. You demand we follow the rules which are keyed to the secularist ideology of how things came to be and how things function in the universe. Nobody but nobody can be sure of all the unknowns affecting modern dating theories as to what was going on in the universe scores of millions to billions of years ago. You all can no more prove your theories than we can. We could all debate them, but unless the creationist backs up with evidence suitable with you, we are out of line.

quote:

---

This implies that sometimes a geologist will disagree with what is in his or her own mind. Interesting....

---

Yeah Percy, common mistake "sight" lol yeah that is pathetic Anyway, yes there are " creation scientists", called this because they have vast degrees in science (which would make you a scientist) but as many consider a fault, they believe in creation. I notice you have 2 screen names, you often try to rouse evidence against creation. I think your intent at making this site was not to show a balanced argument but to make a site swayed in favor of evolution. I'm sure I will get criticized for this post because there was only one other creationist defending against you guys..... I also noticed the picture of the week depicting the biggest "stumbling" block in creation. You may not be informed of a creation scientist named Humphreys who provides a very viable theory to prove it is no stumbling block, his book is called "Starlight and Time". I highly recommend you read it. As for creationists I would invite: Kent Hovind ( Dinosaur Adventure Land ). I recommend that site to you also, to look through it and read the articles and look at the pictures of evidence supporting creation. I also noticed you criticize my one spelling error.... Hmmm I'm starting to think you are trying to down me as ignorant. Maybe I'm wrong. Also Hugh Ross is not a creationist.

There is no perfect way to run this site but my only suggestion on how to make it fair... is to resign your position as owner and runner of this sight and give your position to a neutral person who possibly doesnt care how the world came about. This suggestion may sound extreme but I feel it may be the only way. I realize this wont happen but hey, a kid can dream "I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis

Ummm... MessenjaH, everyone here is QUITE familiar with Humphreys and the infamous Dr. Dino. I would even go so far as to say that most of the evos here may even know more about Creation and the creationists than you. So if you are up for debating the merits of each, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be happy to join in. Simply start a new thread.

Just pointing it out because I had no idea, I just joined remember..... AND
bump....Percy I'm waiting for what you think of what I wrote......
thanks------------------
Truth is a powerful thing. It can either be accepted or denied.

quote:

---

originally posted by messenjaH
I would invite: Kent Hovind ( Dinosaur Adventure Land )

---

As a member in good standing of the Global Evilutionist Conspiracy TM I hereby second the motion.....We need a good laugh.....

I also wanted to say that I actually agree with Buzz's second point. The lack of creationists here has all the evos chomping at the bit for a good debate, so when one does make an appearance, they get jumped all at once. It makes it extremely difficult for even the readers to follow. Just check out some of TC's threads.I don't have any suggestions, though a first come first serve approach might work. heh

Thats sort of why I went into lurk mode....Greater love have no evo than he should forsake his share of the fun....Or something like that....

Oh, no, not another supporter of crazy Dr. Dino.You do know that he has a bogus degree from the so-called "Patriot University" which operates out of a split level, don't you?

No I didnt know that. Since you are not him I will not take your advice, I'll email him myself along with that proposal that was seconded by the other creationist on the site.... ------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis

"Crazy Dr. Dino" seems logical to me. I'll get back to you with that reply you made.------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis