The Evolution of evcforum.net

I like The Eye, but the blink rate is way too fast.

I have my browser configured to only loop once through animated graphics. As a result, I rarely even see the blink.

Outstanding idea! Thanks.

Mr. Messiah's eye blinks 3 times per second. It looks like somebody ogling somebody or something with lust. Gives me the woolies.

---

"Turning out pigs for creationists makes me blue and blurry."--Brad McFall

The biggest trouble the site seems to have is how quickly YECs get burned out and leave. This doesn't happen so much with evos so you get a rapid enrichment.Let's face it:* They're outnumbered by a large margin.* On average, they aren't so well informed.* The rules of engagment here are very stringent. In fact, some topics the newcoming YECs (and almost all the YECs we have are going to be newcomers) have already been beaten to death so they're retired or otherwise *done*. If you're seeking final philosophical truth or in a debate club exercise, this is definately the way to go, but I don't think that's the usual YEC mindset. I think they argue for entertainment (as do I, and I'm sure others). I also think they have an unrealistic expectation that they can copy-and-paste in stuff from Hovind and win. They don't stick around once that balloon bursts because nobody likes to lose---constantly.* The ones we tend to keep are the best of pack. They actually are interested in science for science's sake, keep a cool head, and listen to what people have to say...even outnumbered five to one. People of this caliber are hard to find in any group, I wish I could manage all of those things at once. The part about liking science is rare enough in YECs, and by itself is a formidable filter.This isn't all bad. There are so many people here who know so much about science-related topics this site is the one I would come to ask about technical topics that maybe I'm not clear one. Further, despite the YEC desertification it's still interesting enough that I continue to return after long leaves of absence. Of course, part of that is because I've been around here a while.Does TO have these problems?This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2005 05:36 PM

TO (the usenet group talk.origins) has been a little dull of late. There is a creationist who calls himself "Richard Dawkins", who starts 5 or 6 absurd creationist rants per day. There is another "Logos" who starts 2 or 3. Ray Martinez is not posting very much, and what he does post is toned down from what it once was.I'm not sure whether creationism is in the doldrums. Maybe they have received too much attention with their ID nonsense, and they can't stand the heat.At least that's my impression.

Regardless of how many creationists we turn away, regardless of how many (or few) converts we make, the fact remains that we have a low success rate with our arguments. If we can`t impress low numbers, how then can we find a formula for mass conversions in the real world?

quote:

---

I'm not sure whether creationism is in the doldrums. Maybe they have received too much attention with their ID nonsense, and they can't stand the heat.

---

Heh. Maybe. I know you can still find them on the 'net without too much trouble.TO has been around forever, though, and I expect they have some high-caliber users like this site does, and suspect that they should have a turnover rate like ours. If they can stay afloat, this site can too.

Please define "success." Conversion from creationism to belief in evolution? Just wondering what you think the goal of the board should be.Thanks!
Ben

quote:

---

Regardless of how many creationists we turn away, regardless of how many (or few) converts we make, the fact remains that we have a low success rate with our arguments. If we can`t impress low numbers, how then can we find a formula for mass conversions in the real world?

---

I tend to not think of "conversion" as a realistic goal. "Mutual respect" is usually the best feasible result. It comes when science based beliefs and faith-based beliefs are in the classroom and church, respectively.This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2005 06:07 PM

Creationists come here with a statement. We go to great lengths explaining an alternative explanation. Creationists leave unconvinced. Not conversion to evolution or atheism. I`d be satisfied with a development of critical thinking.

Hi,Gene (no pun). .I doubt you can get mutual respect with a mindset that regards non-believers as infidels at best and evil at worst. Now if we can only 'convert' the mindset to a more rational basis for dialogue.

True, but there are those who accept evolution but know very little about it. This is a good place to learn. I speak from personal experience. Isn't that useful?

quote:

---

I doubt you can get mutual respect with a mindset that regards non-believers as infidels at best and evil at worst. Now if we can only 'convert' the mindset to a more rational basis for dialogue.

---

I have to agree with you here. Your prior comment about rational thinking is sensible.

Score : Robin - won. Faith (the poster, not the belief)-lost