|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist Admins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminDawg Inactive Member |
But I can read posts from years ago, if I wish...... Of course, and if you want to cite specific complaints, go ahead, but making broad generalizations that the admins are unfair to 'non-evos' is itself unfair without evidence. This message has been edited by AdminDawg, 11-15-2004 03:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminDawg Inactive Member |
Ned brought up some really good questions that you could answer. Please do so. If you want to debate what should be in the educational curriculum, there is a forum for that. Hey, Ned brought up the topic........ He also brought up many good questions pertaining to the original topic, which you could answer if you desire this discussion to be at all productive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Dawg,
I'd like your opinion on this persecution of Creos. You and JT both have math science backgrounds and education and interest in that approach. I'm wondering if the less science background a Creo has coming into this community the tougher it seems for them and they may experiences the demands for evidence, rational proofs, falsification etc. as persecution. It does seem to me that some Creos just never really get what is involved in doing science and see it as being another kind of religion with different authorities offering a diffeent dogma. I don't mean this as a blanket explanation. JAD has the science background, so his claims of persecution arise for different reasons, but does the above strike you as a possible explanation for perceptions of being persecuted? Thanks,lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
Of course, and if you want to cite specific complaints, go ahead, but making broad generalizations that the admins are unfair to 'non-evos' is itself unfair without evidence. Ok, how about, to start with, the Admins usually suspend and band theists? Correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
How is it the fault of the admins that the worst behaviour comes from creationists ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RisenLord  Inactive Member |
Excuse. Take a peek over at the more current posts in the Abiogenesis by the Numbers thread to get a look at some of that bad behavior........if those were theists, they'd have been in boot camp by now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
What exactly are you referring to ? I can't see anything especially bad, although your behaviour strays close to the edge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Erm - no Paul - his behaviour has been okay.
His suggestion might be wrong, but he IS posting according to guidelines. Please do not try and suggest bootcamp for someone if they disagree with you. I for one, recall many assertions by you, that went without complaint - about me being a liar and hypocrit etc..and you purposefully twist things around a lot. You're not a good example of evo-harmony. Nor is Hambre - he's an admin, and he's a right militant. If I mention "God" in a thread - despite someone else bringing up the issue - he complains about me rather than the person who brought it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I didn't recommend Boot Camp for anyone.
However it is clear that "RisenLord" has been evasive, that his argument is fundamentally biased (insisting that an argument that is not presented or even adequately referenced should be accepted unless it is shown to be wrong) and that he falsely accused Ned of abusing admin status - and there's more objectionable behaviour in the thread, too. He's certainly straining the guidelines at the very least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Thank you Mike, it seems you may supply a different viewpoint.
It seems to me that RisenLord's worst problem is his lack of support for what he asserts. Could you point out where he has backed up what he claims. As well as I can tell he is actually using a source that he hasn't read. This hardly seems to be supporting his assertions. He is also suggesting what the source says but isn't using his own arguments or the sources in a paraphrase form. What am I missing here? Could you point out where I'm not seeing what he is doing? (ABE)While your at it would you comment on his accusation of my misuse of admin status? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-15-2004 10:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
EvC Forum is always seeking Creationist moderators who will be productive and active. So far, no Creationist moderator has done a single thing.
Tranquility Base was the first Creationist moderator. Other than replies to the congratulations for being appointed moderator, he never used his moderator account once, 3 posts total. TrueCreation posted occasionally as a moderator, but for the most part was not a presence, 17 posts total. That's all I can remember, but that doesn't mean there weren't others. Adminnemooseus is in charge of the moderator core and can probably provide more details. To be an effective moderator of a debate you have to have a good idea of what a debate is. A debate at EvC Forum as structured by the Forum Guidelines is *not* what Kendemyer, WillowTree, Whatever, Robert Byers and John Davison are doing. That's why they're in [forum=-28]. EvC Forum's original goal, and still its goal, was to provide a forum where Creationists and evolutionists could productively explore their differences. To that end, evasive tactics are not permitted. Period. Kendemyer and John Davison are in [forum=-28] because they'd rather rail at the people who work so hard to make EvC Forum the success it is today. They'd rather make broad unsupported assertions and avoid actually discussing them. Dissent or disagreement is met with evasion and ridicule rather than dispassionate discussion. They'll stay in [forum=-28] until they break the habit or go away. Robert Byers, polite and earnest, is in [forum=-28] because through hundreds of posts he couldn't be brought to an understanding of the difference between assertion and evidence. For example, in Message 223 he says, "You say Toe has great evidence. We say they do not. Next step I insist is yours." This after many posts containing evidence that instead of considering and then explaining why he was rejecting it, he would just post another message saying evolution has no evidence. He could never move beyond his initial assertion, and though sincere could somehow never bring himself to respond to the substance of other people's rebuttals. WillowTree is here because, for whatever reason, he can't support any of his assertions, refuses to do so, and reasons that we're against him because of an atheist conspiracy. I've probably posted about 10 messages to WillowTree at different times explaining that I an definitely *not* an atheist, but I finally gave up. Davidjay may follow WillowTree to [forum=-28] soon - he is as reluctant to provide support of his pyramidology claims as WillowTree. The science forums are rough sledding for Creationists because EvC Forum wants the science forums to consist of well-reasoned discussions, not nonsense. To take a recent example, in So what about SILT and dating????, Techristian's opening post asserts that there are no silt deposits at river deltas older than 4500 years. He was rebutted with references to Dalrymple's book (with an offer to post images of the relevant pages listing all the studies of silt layers much older than 4500 years if he expressed an interest) and with a few facts. At least he was honest in stating he heard it on the radio, but rather than replying to the rebuttals he attempted to change the subject to other things he'd heard on the same radio station. He hasn't responded to the replies expressing a desire to stay on topic. And so another science thread goes dead. I suspect Techristian knew continuing was pointless, since changing the subject didn't work, and ignoring rebuttals is getting people sent to [forum=-28], so what alternative did he have but to go silent? If Creationists had anything to offer other than nonsense then the science forums would be more active. But when your position is without evidential support, and when the Forum Guidelines require you to support your positions with evidence, then Creationists have no choice but to sit out. I don't think the evangelical community is ever going to wake up to the fact that Creationism, in whatever form it takes at any particular time, whether it's flood geology or intelligent design or whatever, is just a collection of concocted assertions with no evidence. There is something very rotten in the Denmark of Creationism, and why evangelicals can't smell the stink is beyond me. I understand and as a fellow believer in God am extremely sympathetic to the concerns of this community about issues of faith, but it was only men who wrote the Bible. God created this universe and we have to take it as we find it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I think his biggest problem is being JasonChin again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Jason aka RisenLord aka Rusty Shackleford aka Sirpimpsalot aka who knows who else,
As we disable yet another of your accounts, have you considered the bad example of Christianity that you set for others by continually violating the Forum Guidelines that you agree to follow each time you rejoin? I am yet again absolutely incredulous at the behavior of Creationists. Christianity is not communism. The ends do not justify the means. If you succeed in removing evolution from public schools through subterfuge and underhanded shennanigans then you betray the very traditions you're striving to uphold. If evolution is bad science then demonstrate it scientifically. And if you think evolution is bad theology, then I can only say it it was never intended theologically, anyway. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
We have several Admins that as Christians, believe that the universe and all that is in it, are the direct consequence of an act of GOD. As such, we are by definition, creationists. What we currently don't have is an admin that believes in the literal Genesis story.
IMHO, this is not an issue of atheist vs theist but rather a difference between theistic interpretations. Not one literal creationist has ever been told they could not express their opinions. Even those who have been quarantined in bootcamp have been allowed to say anything they wish. They have been told many times that if they will begin debating in good faith, follow the same guidelines as all other posters, stop accusing everyone else of lying or being dishonest, that full posting privilages can be returned. The situation is totally in their control. Ken, whatever, WILLOWTREE, JAD can certainly determine their own fate. How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Ned, I don't think you mis-use your admin status. I just thought his overall postage content wasn't that bad, is all.
(I was unaware he was abusing his satus - by assuming another identity. Obviously I will no longer defend him)....I seem to have a nack of picking the wrong chickens to pluck. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-15-2004 10:49 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024