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.
Some of you have probably noticed this already, but I thought I should point out that I’ve pretty much stopped posting in this section of CF, for the reasons I described in this thread. However, I might continue to post in the Origins Theology section, since the problems I mentioned here don’t seem to be as bad there.
I hope that by mentioning this, I won’t cause a huge influx in people posting in that section who’ll cause these same problems to start happening there. I’m mostly just mentioning this as a suggestion for people like USincognito, who have stopped posting in the creation/evolution section for the same reasons that I have.
I might still lurk here occasionally, to see whether things here are improving yet. But until they do, if you want to contact me you should either do so privately or post in OT.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I've known Christians on here that were always kind and would not have been rude or mocking to others become so when they walked away from religion. They seemed to join the herd, so to speak.
I have seen that a lot in other places to. The mentality appears to be very seductive for those who are seeking approval from others. Its pretty sad imho.
1: Supporters of evolution are quick to point out that evidence against evolution should not be considered evidence for biblical creationism, because biblical creationism is not the only alternative to evolution. However, when creationists mention the fact that famous scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton were biblical creationists, supporters of evolution say that this is not significant because these people lived before Darwin’s time, and biblical creationism was the only thing anyone would believe in the absence of the theory of evolution. I don’t think I need to point out the inconsistency between these two claims.
I guess you are forgetting about Hindu creationists that also existed during Newton's time? Not to mention the deists and atheists? Not to mention Spontaneous Generation which would seem to fly in the face of special creation. The reason that no one considered evolution as a source for biodiversity is because no one had proposed a viable mechanism.
2
: Whenever supporters of evolution challenge creationists about not accepting the theory, they define evolution in the most basic terms that exist—change in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selection—and ask creationists how they can reject something that can be observed happening in the present. This argument is used even against creationists who do accept evolution by this definition, but do not accept common ancestry. The fact that supporters of evolution also expect creationists to accept common ancestry is only mentioned as long as specific instances of it are being discussed (such as the relationship between humans and other primates), and then as soon as the discussion returns to more general terms, supporters of evolution continue to accuse creationists of rejecting evolution by its much more basic definition. I’ve seen this strawman used against almost every creationist who currently posts here.
You may be confusing your creationists. Guzman (aka Supersport) would even deny microevolution. Many creationists even deny the production of new information which is also tied into the general definition. They also deny the the many observations of speciation and the subsequent "allel frequency change over generations" which lead to subsequent divergence (aka macroevolution). Creationists are not equipped to deal with the hard facts in genetics and so they try to gain points by speaking in generalities.
3
: Most atheists at this forum claim that there is no conflict between evolution and religion, because evolution is no reason not to believe in god. However, whenever the actual existence or non-existence of a god is discussed with any of these posters, the same people claim that since the theories of evolution and abiogenesis can explain life’s origin and development without involving a god, god becomes an unnecessary entity that is ruled out by Occam’s Razor. Richard Dawkins has explained this in the greatest detail—for a person who calls themselves a scientist to believe in god is similar to a “scientist” believing in homeopathy: you cannot trust someone to be capable of performing science in an unbiased manner when they simultaneously believe something so completely unsupported. The same people who claim this should not also be trying to win support for evolution with the argument that it does not conflict with religion.
If part of your religion is God acting in an undetectable way in the process of evolution then evolution would not falsify the religious claim. It is only those who decide, for whatever reason, that they are going to make religious claims that directly contradict what we see in the world around us. I would contend that this is not science's fault. We can't pretend to see something different.
4
: I’ve seen supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times that the theory of evolution has never been used as support for racism. This claim is simply false, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread. Blayz’s first reply shows the typical response that supporters of evolution here have to this idea.
I could use the theory of gravity to justify the crashing of airliners. Afterall, the theory states that if something goes up it must come down, right?
The theory of evolution can not support racism any more than the theory of gravity can support the shooting down of airliners. Theories do not tell us what we ought to do, they only tell us the history that has led to this point. It is Hume's Is/Ought problem. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it tell us that we ought to kill jews or enslave africans.
It used to be that people would occasionally come to this forum as creationists, and as a result of their participation here, would eventually end up accepting evolution. I remember this happening in the case of Dracil and MySavior.
You can probably add gamespotter10 to that tally. Doesn't matter. Some people (e.g. dad, AV, Richard) are dead set in their beliefs. They aren't looking for evidence.
If I had joined this forum in its current state when I was still a creationist, however, seeing the theory of evolution supported by arguments such as these would have convinced me that it relies on these sorts of fallacies for support.
What are those fallacies?
Participating in this forum now when I was a creationist would have convinced me to remain a creationist for as long as I was posting here; I am completely certain of this.
Your loss.
Everyone acts as if science is a happy, fun loving, get along, tree hugging, buch of hippies. It's not. People here at CF are being treated with felt-lined kid gloves compared to the way that scientists treat each other. If creationists here went to a scientific conference and presented their ideas I would almost guaratee they would be crying in a matter of minutes. I've personally seen grad students brought to tears during the Q&A of their first presentations (post-thesis). Science is a tought, tough place for those who are highly emotionally attached to their theories.
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 think it is time to start getting tough. There is no reason that ignorance should get special treatment.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
[B]4[/b]: I’ve seen supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times that the theory of evolution has never been used as support for racism. This claim is simply false, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread. Blayz’s first reply shows the typical response that supporters of evolution here have to this idea.
quote]
Point number four becomes irrelvant if we look at our faith's own past, the Klan uses a wrong intrepreation of the word of God to justify there own hate. Or one could look at the problems the Latter Day Saints have had based on Joseph Smith's writtings and people's skin colour.
Some of you have probably noticed this already, but I thought I should point out that I’ve pretty much stopped posting in this section of CF, for the reasons I described in this thread. However, I might continue to post in the Origins Theology section, since the problems I mentioned here don’t seem to be as bad there.
I hope that by mentioning this, I won’t cause a huge influx in people posting in that section who’ll cause these same problems to start happening there. I’m mostly just mentioning this as a suggestion for people like USincognito, who have stopped posting in the creation/evolution section for the same reasons that I have.
I might still lurk here occasionally, to see whether things here are improving yet. But until they do, if you want to contact me you should either do so privately or post in OT.
What is the point of this?
__________________
"Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!" ~ Winston Zeddemore
Hey --- you think that's bad --- check out Posts 327, 328, and 329 here. And if that's not good enough, I've just recently had my life threatened. I've even had to have admin clean up my guestbook.
Try walking in my shoes for awhile and put up with what I have to put up with.
This is off topic here since pointing out the absurdity of some of your claims does not actually support evolution but those posts were completely legit. It is your extreme Biblical literalism that paints God as a bungler who was according to your previous statement "forced" to repent of his creation even though you said it was perfect and it is your claim that the great evil came from the mating of the "sons of God" with the daughters of men. I know you are still bent out of shape because you failed so miserably to answer the questions you asked for that you ended up asking the mods to close the thread but that doesn't mean that our characterization of your view of the Genesis myth was not valid.
__________________ A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
4[/b]: I’ve seen supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times that the theory of evolution has never been used as support for racism. This claim is simply false, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread. Blayz’s first reply shows the typical response that supporters of evolution here have to this idea.
quote]
Point number four becomes irrelvant if we look at our faith's own past, the Klan uses a wrong intrepreation of the word of God to justify there own hate. Or one could look at the problems the Latter Day Saints have had based on Joseph Smith's writtings and people's skin colour.
It is true that the theory of evolution has been used to support racism but I have personally seen the Bible used for this purpose much more often especially during the civil rights debate of the 60's. The most racist people I have ever met were Southern Baptist creationists who were good at quoting the Bible to support their racist beliefs. The point that should be made is that the use that misquided people make of a scientific theory or a religion have no relationship to the validity of the theory or the religion. BTW you should look into the role that Southern Baptist churches played in the rise of the Klan sometime.
__________________ A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Aggie, as much as I like you, you need to grow a thicker skin.
The point is so that people such as USincognito will know where to find me. According to what he said in this thread, he’s already left this section of CF for the same reason, but I’m hoping that at least for the moment he wouldn’t have a problem with the way things are in the OT section.
I don’t want anyone here to assume that the reason I’m leaving is because I feel personally hurt by the way things here have been lately. When I think it’s productive, I’m willing to put up with things online that are orders of magnitude worse than this, including one period of almost a year in 2004 and 2005 when someone was periodically breaking into my online accounts and deleting their contents. The question here is not whether I find the contents of this board offensive; it’s whether I think it’s productive enough for it to be worth my continued participation here.
I’ve been continuing to lurk here on and off since I stopped posting in January, and what I’ve seen has been more of the same stuff that caused me to post this thread. The main problem is not that people are being rude in their explanations to creationists; it’s that they aren’t providing explanations at all. When a creationist posts a thread, I often have to look several pages into it before I can find a reply that contains more than just mockery.
Why should I have any interest in being part of something so useless? You might as well ask why I would want to participate in a forum about Pokemon or Britney Spears. And I’m obviously not the only person who feels this way—I suspect the reason why people haven’t argued with USincognito or OnceDeceived about their decisions to leave for the same reason is because neither of them talked about this problem or made any effort to change it. I find this particularly ironic in USincognito’s case, because ever since Jet Black and Lucaspa stopped posting, he’s been arguably the most consistently informative contributor to this forum. The fact that I’m the one who people have a problem with for bringing this up shows a true “shoot the messenger” mentality.
Nitron, you haven’t been as bad as most of the people who contribute to this problem, but you employ a very strange tactic when someone refutes one of your posts. Even if someone specifically asks you a question in their rebuttal, or if you’ve promised to make an additional point after they’ve answered your first post, you never acknowledge their reply at all. I’ve seen you do the same thing at Gondolend, when other people argue with something you say there. I had been hoping that when you disappear from a thread after having one of your points refuted, you were at least listening to what had been pointed out there, but when you disappeared from my thread about AiG’s Gould quote (even though you’d told me in this post that you had more questions to ask me after I replied), you posted second thread less than a week later repeating the same points that Naraoia and I had already refuted. I asked you in post #9 of this thread why you were refusing to acknowledge our rebuttals, but you never replied to my question about that, either.
This is a form of intellectual dishonesty, and it’s not all that different from the kind that you mock creationists for using. We’ve both made fun of them for repeating the same PRATTs that have been refuted time and time again, and posting “drive-by” threads in which they ignore all the subsequent refutations. I’ve been disappointed to see you employing the same fallacy.
By the way, please don’t react to this just by going back and answering the questions I asked you in those threads, after it’s been more than a month since I asked them. There have been enough other examples of this by now that correcting the few that I pointed out isn’t going to make much of a difference, especially since that doesn’t give me any assurance this won’t keep happening. I’d find it a lot more productive if you could address what I’ve said here specifically, and tell me why you keep doing this.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I thought non-Christians weren't supposed to post in the Origins section. I lurk there once in a while, and that's the impression I got - I haven't seen any atheists post there. Am I wrong?
Linear Mode
