|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker | |||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
For a long spell, our debates with Peter Borger were 2 to 1...with an occassional pause to let SLPx and PB call each other names ...In the end PB got banned and I got suspended....why do I always get a headache when I think about the Wollemia debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the links. Interesting the similarity between Buzsaw and Nowhere Man - they both complain about lack of time. I guess the search for non-existent evidence is a time-intensive activity. There's another similarity - the tendency to turn from discussing the topic to complaining about the way their ideas are being treated. Nowhere Man seemed to feel that challenging his theories by requesting evidence indicated a lack of respect. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
buzsaw writes: 1. But nothing supernatural is considered as supporting evidence for our argument. By what means did you arrive at your knowledge of the supernatural, and how are others to assess its relative validity vis-à-vis other opposing supernatural views?
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. The Creationist goal is to counter the inroads of secular thinking on their religious culture by seeking representation of Creationism within public school science classrooms. To that end they have made great efforts to achieve status as science. Given this history, does it really make any sense to demean science as a mere "secularist ideology" when Creationism wants so much to be a part of it?
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. The role of evidence is to support theory, not to prove theory. And theories are developed to explain and make sense of evidence. What you're actually describing is the dilemma you face when the offer of opinion as answer to evidence is deemed unacceptable. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
messenjaH writes: 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. Sounds good to me! I'd be glad to replace the current set of moderators, myself included, with a qualified neutral party or parties. Naturally I would retain ownership and control, since I pay the bills, write the software and maintain the site. Send me a list of neutral candidates and I'll begin the interview process. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
In reply to: Hugh Ross isn't a creationist ? Are you sure ? Would you like to explain
Although this post wasn't directed at me I find myself thinking that he cannot be classified a Creationist because he believes the world came to be by EVOLUTION. His theory/belief is one to be analyzed with something known first. To believe that the Bible is true you have to believe everything in it is true. It says that the UNIVERSE with Earth's creatures and features was created in 6 days, he rested on the 7th and our week is like this today... (Wonder why?) Anyway Hugh Ross believes that these 6 days don't exist and that through billions of years he created man. It's not in the Bible, Creationists believe in all of what the Bible says. So Hugh Ross cannot be classified as a Creationist, if he's classified as anything classify him as an Evolutionist because Evolution is what his beliefs are based on, NOT THE BIBLICAL CREATION. ------------------The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
"Part of the problem for you, messenjaH, is that the predominance of evolutionists vis a vis creationists on this board is a reflection of the overwhelming support which evolution has in the better educated English-speaking world compared with religious dogma such as creationism."
Oh really. The first part of your reply is another stereotypical comment of how creationists are ignorant and that evolutionists are "better educated". I look at the other creationists on this site and they seem equally intelligent with the evolutionists such as: TC, Conspirator, and the wiz kid guy (despite his spelling errors) and others. You also refer to creation as religious dogma. And what do you think evolution is? Surely you realize it as religion. "You are your own God" type thing. A popular saying fits this sight well: "Quantity not quality." The only thing not educated about this site was your reply. ------------------"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
To believe that the Bible is true you have to believe everything in it is true. How does that make sense? I can believe the New York Times is laregly true, but that doesn't mean I believe the claims of the advertisements. The bible could simply be as true as it's authors knew how to make it. That would mean that they were likely wrong about those elements unaccessable to the knowledge of the time. But it wouldn't alter the validity of the real claims of the bible - how individuals should function in society. About that they were quite astute.
Creationists believe in all of what the Bible says. Oh? So you've sold all your possessions and given all your money to the poor? Whose computer are you typing this on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Prophecyexclaimed explanation of Hugh Ross I also believe so I wont reply about that, as for Percy's request of me finding new moderators, this is my suggestion: Find some people who need a job that are neutral in this debate to do this task..... Now I realize those requirements for a moderator are nearly impossible to fill so maybe you should do it: half creationists, half evolutionists?
Thanks for asking my opinion lol, though I know you were trying to get me to come to the conclusion that barely anyone is neutral in this topic. ------------------"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
He may believe something he finds hard to do... A life without a computer in this day and age is hard to live without, if no christian
had a computer this site would be useless, and so would your absurd remarks.... Oh wait, they already are. ------------------"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The first part of your reply is another stereotypical comment of how creationists are ignorant and that evolutionists are "better educated". See, it depends. Some of us evolutionists are armchair scientists, with only an informal knowledge of the theory. In that respect we're no better educated than most creationists. On the other hand the other evolutionists are actually biologists. And you would be hard-pressed indeed to find a creationist with the credentials of Stephen Jay Gould or Douglas Futayama. Not only do they hold advanced degrees in biology but they have decades of research experience as well. So-called "creation scientists" generally have degrees in law or theology, or engineering - almost anything but biology.
And what do you think evolution is? A scientific theory, derived by generalization from repeated observation and supported by a vast weight of evidence.
Surely you realize it as religion. "You are your own God" type thing. Nope. That's not what the theory of evolution says. I challenge you to find a statement of the theory - from a scientific source - that makes that claim. Certainly Darwin never did. Religion is relevatory. Science is not. Religion deals with the supernatural. Science does not. Religion is dogmatic. Science is tentative. I could go on, but it should be obvious to the most casual observer that science is only "religion" if you use a definition of religion that's so broad as to be meaningless. Once again we find a creationist who has never really bothered to find out about the theory he so vehemently opposes. Rather ignorant, don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Now I realize those requirements for a moderator are nearly impossible to fill so maybe you should do it: half creationists, half evolutionists? It is half and half, like you say. The problem is again that the creationists get so embarrased by their inability to present evidence that they simply can't stick around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He may believe something he finds hard to do... A life without a computer in this day and age is hard to live without, if no christian had a computer this site would be useless, and so would your absurd remarks.... Oh wait, they already are. Oh, I see. So, he doesn't really believe in everything the bible says, or at least, he doesn't follow it. That makes much more sense, now. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You seem to be very confused. Hugh Ross is what is called an Old Earth Creationist. He accepts the scientific evidence that the universe and the Earth are old, and interprets the Bible on that basis. He still rejects evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So what you are saying is that even though Hugh Ross rejects evolution and believes in creation - based on the Bible - he should still be called an evolutionist because he doesn't interpet the Bible in the same way you do ?
Well I can only conclude that you have very little understanding of either Hugh Rosss' beliefs or of evolution. Which means that you are in no position to be sticking labels to him
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
While some of us (myself included) have no more or perhaps less formal education in biology than creationists I suspect that we still know a good deal more of the relevant facts than the majority of creationists.
Who is going to understand science better - an armchair scientist or an armchair religious apologist ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024