Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Don't you think you're being a little hypocritical creating this thread after creating a comic book that has the sole purpose of ridiculing creationists?
Not really; I’ve explained before that I have a very specific set of criteria for when I consider making fun of people like this to be acceptable. There’s a certain type of creationist that sometimes posts here, who’s so arrogant that they care more about belittling and insulting the other members than they do about actually debating. The original inspiration for the Prattmaster was Cal, who was definitely an example of this, and a few other similar people I’ve made fun of were Orange, Durang0, and Colossians. Both the Prattmaster and Zedekiah are based on this type of creationist specifically, and “Dr. Hovind” is based on just one person.
My main requirement in order to make fun of creationists is that they have this attitude, and I also consider it necessary for them to have been active here for long enough to demonstrate that they never react to being refuted in any way other than this. In Richard’s case, by contrast, I think he’s made it pretty clear during the two years he’s been posting here that he’s willing to listen when someone proves him wrong about something, although it’ll take a lot of that before he’s ready to change his worldview.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
As far as I’m concerned, the only thing being accomplished here nowadays is making the theory of evolution look bad in front of people such as RichardT, who probably would have accepted it months ago if this forum were still the way it was when I joined it four years ago. I joined this forum in order to try and get creationists to accept evolution, and I’m not sure it’s worthwhile for me to continue participating here now that we’re accomplishing the opposite. I don’t really expect these problems to be fixed, but I think it’s still worth pointing them out so that if I do end up disappearing from this forum permanently, people here will understand the reason for it.
I rather think that should count as an important reason to stay. If you don't agree with many fellow evolutionists here, counter their claims and behaviour, instead of just leaving. Dissent is important to keep human nature in check.
I can imagine the change in tone has to do with the percentage of evolutionists on these boards. When people become the large majority on a forum they tend to feel more secure, arrogant, and less self-critical of what they say. That's what humans do no matter what belief system they hold
I think it's important to remember that some of the people here with the craziest ideas are still rather young. Young bright kids often come up with odd explainations for the somewhat more limited experience they have. Just as children may believe Santa is bringing presents yet will often figure it out on their own as they notice discrepencies. As such, the focus should be equiping them with the background in science to recognize the multitude of inconsistancies in creationist arguments.
If you look at the way these claims have actually been addressed at this forum, though, it’s not in the way you’re describing. The response to someone bringing up Newton having been a creationist is almost always something along the lines of “Before Darwin most people were creationists, because there wasn’t anything better to believe.” I can look for an example of this, if you need one.
My view is that Newton didn't believe in the Christian god as is commonly understood by both Protestant and Catholic churches today. Therefore, no matter what he believed about creation of the universe by his concept god, it has nothing to do with modern Christian creationism.
And there have been other good responses, such as pointing out the fact that the quote-mine is referring to a particular physics problem (that has subsequently been solved) instead of being a general theological statement.
Not really; I’ve explained before that I have a very specific set of criteria for when I consider making fun of people like this to be acceptable. There’s a certain type of creationist that sometimes posts here, who’s so arrogant that they care more about belittling and insulting the other members than they do about actually debating. The original inspiration for the Prattmaster was Cal, who was definitely an example of this, and a few other similar people I’ve made fun of were Orange, Durang0, and Colossians. Both the Prattmaster and Zedekiah are based on this type of creationist specifically, and “Dr. Hovind” is based on just one person.
My main requirement in order to make fun of creationists is that they have this attitude, and I also consider it necessary for them to have been active here for long enough to demonstrate that they never react to being refuted in any way other than this. In Richard’s case, by contrast, I think he’s made it pretty clear during the two years he’s been posting here that he’s willing to listen when someone proves him wrong about something, although it’ll take a lot of that before he’s ready to change his worldview.
Why should people care what your requirements for making fun of creationists are? Personally from reading the "prattmaster" you are as guilty as anyone else but that's my opinion the same as your requirements are your opinions.
As for RichardT, I do like the guy but as far as I know he's position hasn't changed one jot in all the time he's been here even when people were far more constructive. Empirical data will not sway him.
__________________ When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground.
And in all the million ages to come, I will never breathe or laugh or twitch again.
So won't you run and play with me here among the
teeming mass of humanity?
The universe has spared us this moment.
Why should people care what your requirements for making fun of creationists are? Personally from reading the "prattmaster" you are as guilty as anyone else but that's my opinion the same as your requirements are your opinions.
I’m not the one who came up with these requirements. It was sort of an unwritten rule at this forum in 2004 and early 2005 to only make fun of creationists after they’ve shown themselves to be impervious to logic, and by “impervious” I mean that they either completely ignore refutations of their posts, or respond with insults. The main person who I remember trying to make sure this rule was followed is Jet Black, but people gradually seemed to forget about it after he stopped posting here.
I think this rule was and is very reasonable, and most of the people who were active here in 2004 would probably agree with me. The idea is that educating people is better than making fun of them, so if the first option is possible we should choose that. Going with the second option will diminish our ability to accomplish the first, so we should only use it against people who have demonstrated themselves to be impervious to the first choice.
Originally Posted by TemperateSeaIsland
As for RichardT, I do like the guy but as far as I know he's position hasn't changed one jot in all the time he's been here even when people were far more constructive. Empirical data will not sway him.
If that’s what you think, you weren’t paying attention to what was going on with him early this year. I know that I was paying more attention to his situation than most people were, but I don’t see why everyone is convinced that what he was telling me about this can’t have been right.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You’re assuming here that if someone accepts allele change as a result of mutations and natural selection, then they will always accept common ancestry also. If this were true, then it would make sense to assume that if someone rejects the second they must reject the first also, but there are a lot of people who accept the first while rejecting the second. I know it doesn’t make a lot of sense to accept one without the other, but creationist arguments aren’t always consistent, and it’s still a strawman if you misrepresent them.
This is the strongest argument in your O.P. I have seen evolution supporters do this over and over again here. When creationists use the term "evolution," they are usually referring to common ancestry, rather than "change in alleles over time." Responding by saying we have seen alleles change over time therefore does little good, unless a connection with common ancestry is made.
Originally Posted by Aggie
The way people treat Richard has been discussed before at this forum, and I have a thread about it here. (The discussion about how Richard is treated starts around the end of the first page.) Specifically, this thread deals with an attempt that Richard made early this year to determine whether what he’d been taught as a creationist was false, which ended with him getting treated the way he currently is and losing interest in what he was trying to learn about as a result. I’ve been discussing this with him in private for several months, so I’m able to see fairly directly how it affects him.
Interesting. My perspective on Richard is that he originally came here asking good questions, was willing to learn, and was willing to face Professional Creationists with some healthy skepticism. Nowadays, however, I see little of this original attitude. Instead, he has dug his heels into Creationist dogma and shows much more respect for the lies told by Professional Creationists. I find it very hard to believe, however, that this change were due to the fact that evolution supporters here are not nice to him. I continue to hope that this change is due to a last-ditch backlash against the evidence falsifying the dogma he has come to depend on, and that it will not last. On the other hand, it may indicate instead that he is a lost cause.
Originally Posted by Aggie
The point is that if you’re going to say that the reason why people such as Newton were creationists is because the theory of evolution didn’t exist yet, you’re implicitly invoking the same false dichotomy that most people here agree is a faulty argument. If attacking evolution does nothing to support creationism, because there are so many possible alternatives to evolution apart from creationism, then it should also be significant that Newton chose creationism among all the other possible ideas that he could have believed before the theory of evolution existed. But no, whenever a famous scientist from the past is being discussed, the argument used here is that them having been a creationist doesn’t mean anything because there was nothing other than creationism for them to believe before Darwin’s time.
As far as the conclusion being right, if you just mean that creationism is unsupported, I’m not arguing with that. What I’m saying is that we intend to convince anyone else of this, we should not be using arguments that have such obvious flaws in them.
OK. Now I see the point you were trying to make in the O.P. However, you are not taking context into account. Usually when Creationists bring up the fact that Newton or Pasteur were Creationists, they are using this information as an argument from authority. Because these great scientists were Creationists, Creationism should be taken more seriously by scientists today. The flaw in this argument is indeed that none of these "creationist" scientists knew about Darwin's theory, so they accepted the predominate Western idea concerning origins of their time. I would be surprised if any of these scientists would be Creationists if they were around today.
Originally Posted by Aggie
Not really; I’ve explained before that I have a very specific set of criteria for when I consider making fun of people like this to be acceptable. There’s a certain type of creationist that sometimes posts here, who’s so arrogant that they care more about belittling and insulting the other members than they do about actually debating. The original inspiration for the Prattmaster was Cal, who was definitely an example of this, and a few other similar people I’ve made fun of were Orange, Durang0, and Colossians. Both the Prattmaster and Zedekiah are based on this type of creationist specifically, and “Dr. Hovind” is based on just one person.
One problem I see with this is that these so-called Creationists (Orange, Durang0, and Colossians)are all probably Trolls. If you want to make fun of Trolls, that is fine, but you are claiming they are creationists instead. Hovind, on the other hand, is a Professional Creationist liar and convicted felon.
Originally Posted by Aggie
My main requirement in order to make fun of creationists is that they have this attitude, and I also consider it necessary for them to have been active here for long enough to demonstrate that they never react to being refuted in any way other than this. In Richard’s case, by contrast, I think he’s made it pretty clear during the two years he’s been posting here that he’s willing to listen when someone proves him wrong about something, although it’ll take a lot of that before he’s ready to change his worldview.
I like your cartoons, but this is a very fine line you are trying to walk. On the one hand you claim we shouldn't make fun of Creationists, on the other you claim it is OK to do so, as long as they are intransigent. If one of the later is really a Troll, however, then you are just attacking a strawman. In addition, it is easy for a Creationist to view one of your cartoons and draw the conclusion that you are making fun of Creationists in general.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
If that’s what you think, you weren’t paying attention to what was going on with him early this year. I know that I was paying more attention to his situation than most people were, but I don’t see why everyone is convinced that what he was telling me about this can’t have been right.
Now you've got me curious, how has his position changed?
__________________ When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground.
And in all the million ages to come, I will never breathe or laugh or twitch again.
So won't you run and play with me here among the
teeming mass of humanity?
The universe has spared us this moment.
I happen to be a Catholic scientist. (And graduating with a bachelor's in Chem Eng in the spring if all goes well, YES!!!)) and I am most definitely not two people, or have parts my mind walled off all the time.
How can I do it? Easy. I remember that God doesn't do everything all the time. Not EVERYTHING is a supernatural occurrence. The natural happens. Sometimes the supernatural happens, but when it does it can be found out if you know how to look.
I hate to point this out but... isn't that a wall? There's no evidence for a supernatural anything yet you make room for such a thing in your world view. You place it there and keep it safe by creating rules for it to exist without which it simply wouldn't stand up to the light of reason. One must "know how to look" before one finds it. In other words, the supernatural is only found when one suspends reason and climbs over the "wall".
God made the natural world for a reason,
Unevidenced assumption.
and gave us the ability to figure it out as a reason. It doesn't mean He never intervenes, nor does it mean He can't intervene, nor does it mean He always intervenes.
More unevidenced assumptions.
How did the Jews get from place to place? They walked. Or rode. God didn't teleport them. How did Jesus preach? By words, not telepathy. Et cetera.
Yup. Reality sets in. But you still insist on looking at it with your safe place intact.
I don't need to attribute everything to "Goddidit" to get anything done.
If you did you wouldn't get anything done.
As a matter of fact, it tends to work quite well without it. But that's because science is figuring out the natural, how stuff works when God isn't poking it with a finger, or the FSM isn't using His Noodly Appendage, or the Great Spirit Who Messes With Protons isn't manipulating it, or whatever. But just because I know how to reason and work without assuming God doesn't mean I can't accept Him.
You live in the real world which is on one side of the wall and keep the miracles safe on the other. Exactly my point.
How can I do it? Easily. I remember that there isn't any contradiction.
As long as you keep God on the other side of the wall.
Then I go do it. There isn't any reason to attribute natural everyday occurrences, or even weird, cool, rare, and exciting lab occurrences to God acting supernaturally all the time. Just because ethanol and water won't be separated past ~95% by normal boiling doesn't mean God is holding them together.
And when someone assumes that a deity is holding them together? What happens to him? Why, he's crossed the wall and is booted out, that's what.
Not everyone's mind works likes Dawkin's mind does, and from what I can gather from you guys he doesn't seem to get that.
Maybe not but yours does. You conveniently separate reality from belief all the time and pretend there's no separation... but really... who's fooling who?
.
__________________ "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. ..." - Barry Goldwater
I like your cartoons, but this is a very fine line you are trying to walk. On the one hand you claim we shouldn't make fun of Creationists, on the other you claim it is OK to do so, as long as they are intransigent. If one of the later is really a Troll, however, then you are just attacking a strawman. In addition, it is easy for a Creationist to view one of your cartoons and draw the conclusion that you are making fun of Creationists in general.
There’s a distinction that members of this forum use fairly often, which divides creationists into two groups. One group contains people such as Hovind, who attempt to deliberately deceive others, and this forum has definitely had at least a few members like that. Even if some of its more arrogant YECs such as Orange might have been trolls, Cal was definitely an example of this. I could tell from how angry and frustrated he started getting when every one of the PRATT lists he posted was debunked.
And the other group is people such as Richard, who members of the first group have succeeded at deceiving. I mostly just feel pity for people like him, and try to get them to recognize the way in which people like Hovind are tricking them. It’s only members of the first group who I think deserve to be made fun of, and who I make fun of in my comics. The purpose of Jet Black’s rule is so that we can determine for certain that a creationist is a member of the first group before beginning to treat them this way.
Originally Posted by TemperateSeaIsland
Now you've got me curious, how has his position changed?
Split Rock described it a little in his reply, and it’s described more in the thread about this that I linked to. I’ve also talked to him about the reason why he feels the way he does now, though, and he’s said that something professional creationists often tell him is that Christians should expect to be persecuted as a result of believing the truth. Here’s one thing he shown me that a professional creationist told him about this:
We are to thank and praise the Lord for our persecutions in this world because of the Lord Jesus. So keep a stiff upper lip and remember that names are for calling when there's nothing left to say.
I’ve mentioned before that calling Richard names makes him pay less attention to our logical arguments, but this is another effect it has. The more we call him names rather than just show what’s wrong with what these people are teaching him, the more it appears to support their claims that they’re in the right, and that the members here are treating him this way because we’re afraid to admit it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
![[serious]'s Avatar](http://img.christianforums.com/cache/customavatars/avatar160873_6.gif){kind=avatar}
Linear Mode
