99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

I bet when designing this sight it must have looked really good on paper. An equal chance for evolutionists and creationists to express their views. Well in my opinion its not working. Maybe I'm wrong but the creators of this site also seem biased. I look at certain forums and it makes me sick, there are no challengers against evolutionists. If they post something no creationists usually respond, just evolutionists coming in quiet agreement with eachother. If there was a limited number of evolutionists and an equal limited number of creationist this sight might work. I mean there are actual evolution scientists that go on this site but I havent seen any creation scientists. This also poses problems when a new person enters the site and is looking for the right belief, creation or evolution and only finds evolutionists opinions, then is quickly convinced that evolution is right without a second thought of creation....
I guess all I can say is oh well.------------------
Truth is a powerful thing. It can either be accepted or denied.

Me too. Not ever. Anywhere.

Herein lies the fundamental problem. Evolutionists generally are in agreement because they're drawing from the same body of evidence to establish their position. Creationists on the other hand draw from a wide variety of disparate and mutually exclusive religious traditions, so they almost never can present a unified front.We don't agree because we're colluding to defeat creationists; we agree because there's only one body of evidence, and it points to evolution. Could it be because there aren't any? Who comes to a website looking for what to believe? Anyway, the reason there aren't too many creationists here is because they tend to abscond when they can't defend their positions with evidence.It's not opinion that drives them away. It's the evidence they don't have. If anybody learns anything from this website (sorry Percy, that came out the wrong way) they learn that creationism is not a position supported by evidence (or even logic) but rather dogmatic belief in a very old book.

messenJah,Truth is not arrived at by democracy, nor are arguments won by numbers. It doesn't matter how many people there are on one side, or how few on the other. The side with the best supported argument wins. Creationists lose, a lot. That creationists aren't great in number is hardly the fault of the admin.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-06-2003]

'We don't agree because we're colluding to defeat creationists;''Creationists lose, a lot.'I think evolutionists can contradict themselves. I also feel they uphold one definate rule, 'agree with each other at all times, even when we contradict ourselves in our much speaking.''too many creationists here is because they tend to abscond when they can't defend their positions with evidence.'I dont think the evidence is that impressive, even when I ask questions. Besides it doesn't mean creationists have all dissapeared, just 'cause they don't respond to every little question.

quote:

---

I think evolutionists can contradict themselves.

---

Sure. A scientist will admit an error far faster than a creationist. Bet on it.

quote:

---

I also feel they uphold one definate rule, 'agree with each other at all times, even when we contradict ourselves in our much speaking.'

---

Utter crap. There is no such agreement.

quote:

---

I dont think the evidence is that impressive, even when I ask questions.

---

I don't think you have ever understood the evidence.

quote:

---

Besides it doesn't mean creationists have all dissapeared, just 'cause they don't respond to every little question.

---

It does suggest that those present can't respond.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I also feel they uphold one definate rule, 'agree with each other at all times, even when we contradict ourselves in our much speaking.'

---

HAH!! You've obviously never been to a geologic talk or meeting. Geologists rarely agree on anything... especially if it comes out of someone else's mind.Oh and what does "in our much speaking" mean? [This message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-06-2003]

'It does suggest that those present can't respond.'Not necessarily, I read sometimes and let others have their say, even when I know I can respond, I have the wisdom to know when not to. For instance I always see, 'please, creationist response' to a lot of 'evo' topics, and choose not to answer.

I think you're mistaking contradiction for honest and health scientific debate. After all, scientists agree that evolution has and does occur. What they don't always agree on is exactly how and in what way it has and does occur. That's why there's always something to talk about. I mean, wouldn't it be a boring theory if we knew everything there was to know about it?When we appear to contradict, it may very well be that we're saying the same thing in different ways. It's not a matter of not responding to every little question. It's a matter of not responding to any questions.I mean, have you seen Booboocruise lately? PhosphoLipidGen? FFGFollower? Inquisitor? Wordswordsman? And those are just the ones since I've been here. They ran off because they couldn't substantiate their points with evidence (or even logic) and it was really starting to show.

'Oh and what does "in our much speaking" mean? 'It means you guys seem to talk a lot, and so .........(light hearted stuff!)I mean no offense!

Well, why not? Syamsu's been clamoring for creationist response. If you're both creationists shouldn't you agree with each other as much as we evolutionists do?

'It's not a matter of not responding to every little question. It's a matter of not responding to any questions.'Be reasonable Crash, some of us do respond. But take the response I have got already, into consideration. I try to respond to everyone but when I say something (being creationist) I become as popular as Harry Potter. lol.
I have had grammar complaints lately, but this I feel is due to the creo droubt.lol.'I mean, have you seen Booboocruise lately? 'I don't know about these guys. The problem is, as you say, there are a lot that just dissapear. But some do try their best. I agree with you about the names though (from your topic).

Sight? As in, "This site is quite a sight?" 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:

4. 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. This is true, I'm an evolutionist, but my moderation of the site is not biased for or against either side. All I do is enforce the guidelines. Coincidentally, I just replied to a similar point in another thread. Of course evolutionists agree with one other. There is, after all, only one theory of evolution. Certainly at the frontiers of knowledge where new theory is developed there is much argument and disagreement in scientific circles, but discussion at sites like this is generally much more mundane, such as whether evolution really happened or not. There's simply nothing for evolutionists to disagree about at this level of detail, so naturally we "quietly agree." It would make as much sense for me to complain about the "quiet agreement" of Christians about the saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Why don't you invite some genuine creation scientists to participate here? Now, let's see, who should you invite? Hugh Ross, who believes the earth is billions of years old? Ken Ham, who believes the earth is 6,000 years old? Michael Behe, who accepts evolution but believes that many microbiological structures were intelligently designed by some unnamed outside agent? Duane Gish, who believes there was a vapor canopy providing the water for the flood? Russ Humphreys, who thinks general relativity makes it possible for the earth to be 6,000 years old while the universe is billions of years old? Werner Gitt, who believes that information theory proves evolution is impossible?Do you see the problem? You bemoan the fact that Creationists here seem isolated and non-supportive of each other when beset by roving gangs of evolutionists, but even if you succeeded in getting the leading creation scientists to participate here you'd still have the same problem, because none of them agree with each other. And the reason for that is that their views are not based upon evidence, and evidence is one of the key requirements for formulating valid scientific theories. Interesting signature. Have you ever asked yourself who decides what is truth and what is not?------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Actually I think it was predictable. Creationists don't do well when there is a level playing field - often because they tend to assume that they know more than they do and often only look at sources that share their beliefs and biases when they do any research at all.The recent debate on the talk.origins newsgroup between "Lilith" and "Nowhere Man" is a case in point.

'because none of them agree with each other. And the reason for that is that their views are not based upon evidence, and evidence is one of the key requirements for formulating valid scientific theories.'But I agree with the experts. John Mackay (geologist) on many things, fossils, the flood, intelligent design, flaws with evolution evidence.If there is alternative evidence to evolution, which there is. And if it suggests creation? No evolutionist admitts this. Indeed, creationists at this sight are treated harsher, would you agree?How about becoming a bit more neutral if you admitt your biased. Isn't it a good thing to be open minded?How's my grammar? lol