|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
The following are a chain of four messages quoted from the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 topic. The theme of the topic really comes in at Admin's first message, but I included Arachnophilia's for context. You may wish to refer back to that topic for the greater context.
Arachnophilia, message 230:
quote: Admin, message 232:
quote: Tazmanian Devil, message 233 (Got POTM nomination and seconding by Buzsaw and Minnemooseus):
quote: Admin, message 237:
quote: Please note the topic title - " What is an Articulate Informed Creationist". It is, as I see it, what really defines the theme of this topic Submitted to the "Is It Science?" forum. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
While they fell short of the ideal, I'd suggest that Tranquility Base and TrueCreation came far closer than any of the current crop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Moose writes: Tazmanian Devil, message 233 (Got POTM nomination and seconding by Buzsaw and Minnemooseus): Correction here: Taz's statement got nominated by Buzsaw and 2nded by Moose who in also in his message promoted another of Taz's gems coming from the same message of Taz. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
"What is an Articulate Informed Creationist[?]"
In all honesty, I'd say an evolutionist. Primarily, I say this, because any Creationist, once informed enough to make him/her articulate, and once willing to accept that information in an effort to make him/her articulate, can, at the same time, not be able to reject the overwhelming truth of evolution, especially in regards to how it compares to his/her previously held theory. I say this, of course, as one speaking from personal experience. Let the "you ain't articulated or informed" nator-ian replies begin. Jon In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taz writes: You and I both know that with enough command of the English language, one could write academically coherent literature while making the over message a one big riddle to support just about anything, and this is the tactic that these so-called "articulate informed creationists" use to support their position. Taz, methinks you have lumped us all into this riddle barrel. Much of what some of us do is a mix of logic and basic science laws and principles which minimizes to a significant degree the riddle/mystery factor. ICant is a good example of this in the Before the Big Bang Tread where he quite efficiently goes on the offense pretty well holding his counterparts at bay and even on the defence via the implementation of his logic and some basic knowledge of science. I have had some success in similar manner myself, way back when in my great debate with Jar before your time here, applying the thermodynamic laws of science with logic since the creationist perspective is that the very observable laws of science such as those thermodynamic laws were installed by intelligent design, i.e. God, so why shouldn't the Genesis account be interpreted in compliance with those laws, including 1LoT which logically implies eternal energy and an eternal universe to accomodate the existence of an eternal thermodynamically and eternal omnipotent designer who has been creating and destroying things in the universe forever? Where the creationist gets into trouble is when we try to go beyond our limit of knowledge in applyin science. There are some basic laws of science which we can comprehend and apply to the logic we use so long as we work within our capacity to do so without violation of empirically (I say empirically) substantiated scientific fact. One of the problems is that evolutionists here sometimes mimimize the riddle/mystery in theories such as QM and string theory, et al which the best scientists like Dr Richard Feynman have admitted to while maximizing the mystery/riddle aspect of ID creationism. Perhaps what I'm suggesting is that one need not be totally articulate in science in order to apply some basic science which layfolks can understand and apply to debating the less complicated science issues. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Jon writes: "What is an Articulate Informed Creationist[?]" In all honesty, I'd say an evolutionist... I'm just looking for creationists who are familiar with creationism. At present all they seem to know is "evolution is wrong" and "God did it." They seem unaware of all past efforts to frame creationism in scientific terms and of the reasons why so much effort was expended to do this. There's nothing to fear from those who advocate teaching that God did it because the Bible says so. Even the most ignorant of school boards recognize that this violates the establishment clause of the constitution. If someone wants to believe that their religious beliefs trump science, or even that they are science, then I'm inclined to just let them go their own way. They're no direct threat to science education. The real threat comes from those who would cloak creation in scientific terms, a Trojan Horse designed to sneak religion into the classroom. There's much to fear from this segment of creationism because claiming, for example, that the Grand Canyon is evidence of a global flood, or that the complexity of life is evidence of a designer, makes a lot of sense to most members of most schools boards. These are the kinds of issues I think are important to discuss here so that accurate information can come to light. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I'm just looking for creationists who are familiar with creationism. At present all they seem to know is "evolution is wrong" and "God did it." They seem unaware of all past efforts to frame creationism in scientific terms and of the reasons why so much effort was expended to do this. You're out of luck. Beyond rote memorization and talking points the religious right is literally incapable of function. "Evolution is wrong" is literally the entirety of their arguement. Anyone more articulate than that doesn't believe it, they are just making money off those who don't know better. Want a great example of what I'm talking about? Check out youtube for libertyville abortion demonstration. I don't want this topic to slide off into abortion, but that's a terrific example of just how far people have thought through their positions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Libertyville antiabortion demonstration has nothig to do with creation. Ofcourse there are antiabortion activists who act like neurotics.These are not the people representing creationists who are intelligent. Dr.Behe is a very well established biologist who has published several articles in Prestigious journals like Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences.He provides rational explanations. His rational views and challenges have been shot down only because he believes in God. Similar arguments can be made regarding those who believe in Evolution just because, they do not believe in God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
As noted (and as inkorrekt was good to avoid) abortion is not a topic here.
Neither, however, is Dr. Behe's science. I'd like to see inkorrekt open a new thread on that since he seems to think that "...challenges have been shot down only because he believes in God." Of course, others might be able to shot them down without any reference to God whatsoever. We'd have to see what science inkorrekt put in a OP to know if that is the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i didn't mean to start another "let's all jump on the creationists" fest again. i was trying very, very hard in my original complaint to not be condescending.
the question isn't "why are creationists so stupid lol?" it's "what can we do here to make this place a better place?" we are going to find very, very few well-informed creationists, as creationism is largely misinforation. the people with science degrees who call themselves creationists -- the only people somewhat well versed in both sides of the debate -- are few and far between. we will not get a michael behe here. and even he is barely a creationist. we cannot expect our creationists to be scientists, when by definition they are not. and we have to honestly take a look at our statistics. we have to realize that most of the creationist we get will be young, uninformed, inarticulate, and not very familiar with the rules of public debate and internet conduct. members like phat and anastasia are rare, but then they're not very vocal for creationism. some will be like buzsaw -- intelligent, and stubborn (no offense buz, "stubborn" is a word i apply to myself as well). but most will be somewhere in the rob to iamjoseph range. and we'll have a few randmans and rays to balance out the phats. if we cut out the robs and the iaj's, we're out 60-70% of our creationist membership, and probably 90% of the serious arguments on the site. their posts may seem nonsensical, or preachy, or off-topic, or whatever -- by our standards -- but that's the debate. they don't think like we do. if we are to have debate or discussion, we have to include them. otherwise, wtf is the point of the site? are we just evolution-pushers? i don't know what the solution is. we've already made some BIG steps in the right direction. we have creationist admins, who do police their own. i can't really argue for a kind of affirmative action -- we have to keep the threads somewhat on track. though sometimes i feel like the creationists attract more moderator attention simply because they tend, on average, to be a little less articulate. basically, what i think we should do ask our creationist members what they think about the situation. are members like IAJ a problem? how should we deal with it? what rules should there be, and how should standards be applied? also, i'd like to point out again that we have banned our most articulate vocal creationist -- faith. i know there's bad blood with the mods, but i still don't think banning her normal account was in good taste. i still say we let her back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It should be pointed out that Behe is not now a creationist, and very, very few of his published papers have anything to do with evolution which is not his real field of expertise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
also, i'd like to point out again that we have banned our most articulate vocal creationist -- faith. i know there's bad blood with the mods, but i still don't think banning her normal account was in good taste. i still say we let her back. considering popular opinion, probably. but jesus someone needs to block her posts from my screen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So far as I can tell IaJ and to a lesser extent Rob offer little in the way of real argument. When IaJ manages to post something that might be relevant (rarely) it is phrased in his own personal jargon. So far as I can puzzle it out he's just stuck on the old creationist idea of "kinds" and has nothing new to offer. Losing him would be no loss because he literally has nothing of value to say. We wouldn't lose ANY serious arguments - or even a significant possibility of seeing serious arguments - if he was banned right this minute.
Rob might be more of a loss. If he can only get over his obsession with his own pet errors and concentrate on producing relevant posts we might see him contribute something. The creationist admins aren't doing a great job either. Buz was supposed to be helping IaJ but he hasn't done much. Ray needs policing and none of the Creationist mods are doing it. NJ could do with more mod oversight himself. Buz probably would, too if he had a signficant thread going.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
considering popular opinion, probably. but jesus someone needs to block her posts from my screen. you neither have to read nor post here. nor does anyone.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024