Conduct in Creationist Forums

[shernren]

I think the mods need to take a look at this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2988155-what-convinced-me.html

and set some clear guidelines about what TEs are allowed to do and not to do in the Creationist forum. In particular:

If a creationist says something which is known to be false, and acknowledged by other creationists to be false, is it a breach of the Creationist forum's function for a TE to link to information refuting it? Here the specific issue is Kent Hovind's challenge against evolutionists. TEs are not alone in condemning Kent Hovind's methods, some Christian creationist organizations are also against him, in particular CMI: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/

 

[LoG]

Let me see if I got the the gist of your point here.

You're wondering whether it would be ok for a TE to post a link from a biased and questionable source of evolutionary propaganda to refute what TE's regard as outright lies from Creationists Propaganda machine A, that Creationists Propaganda machine B (which TE's have also accused of being liars in past)has determined in their great wisdom as being arguments that should not be used in Evo/Crevo debates. That what you are wondering about?

Why do we even have seperate forums if the TE's are simply going to come in and start debating in them like it is an open forum? Seems like a waste of electrons.
If a Creationist wanted TE input, they would have put it in the open forum.

 

[Dannager]

You're wondering whether it would be ok for a TE to post a link from a biased and questionable source of evolutionary propaganda

Well sure, if they disagree with you they've got to be biased, and we all know that "questionable" is a good way of saying "I haven't got any actual evidence, but the word 'questionable' makes it sound like I might".

to refute what TE's regard as outright lies from Creationists Propaganda machine A

Because they are outright lies. The links, along with their peer-reviewed, fully-cited references irrefutably show that.

that Creationists Propaganda machine B (which TE's have also accused of being liars in past)has determined in their great wisdom as being arguments that should not be used in Evo/Crevo debates.

Believe it or not, some creationist arguments are so ridiculous that even those supporting their position consider them detrimental to their argument.

That what you are wondering about?

Yes.

Why do we even have seperate forums if the TE's are simply going to come in and start debating in them like it is an open forum? Seems like a waste of electrons.

Fellowship is allowed in the creationist forums. I don't claim to speak for you, but as a Christian I consider it part of the goal of my fellowship to correct obvious falsehoods spread by others in the interest of establishing truth.

If a Creationist wanted TE input, they would have put it in the open forum.

Sure, if they knew that they'd need TE input. The problem with unknowingly spreading false information is that you don't know that you're spreading false information until someone shows that information to be false.

 

[shernren]

Let me see if I got the the gist of your point here.

You're wondering whether it would be ok for a TE to post a link from a biased and questionable source of evolutionary propaganda to refute what TE's regard as outright lies from Creationists Propaganda machine A, that Creationists Propaganda machine B (which TE's have also accused of being liars in past)has determined in their great wisdom as being arguments that should not be used in Evo/Crevo debates. That what you are wondering about?

Why do we even have seperate forums if the TE's are simply going to come in and start debating in them like it is an open forum? Seems like a waste of electrons.
If a Creationist wanted TE input, they would have put it in the open forum.

I would argue that it is admissible, especially as CMI (and AiG before it split) represents the majority view of the neo-creationist movement, and therefore can be considered broadly representative. If I wanted to prove that most neo-creationists believe a certain statement, which is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, I would cite CMI/AiG to do it.

Firstly, what I posted is just a link. It's entirely up to the user to click on that link and see what evidence there is. If the user thinks "No, I don't want to see any evolutionist propaganda" (and I was explicit that these links were going to promote evolutionist thought) all s/he has to do is to leave those links alone. If the user doesn't take any extraordinary action s/he won't see anything supporting evolution by default. (OTOH in a cut-and-paste a user will by default read the evolution-supporting material and has to take action to avoid it.)

Secondly, I think an unbiased observer would come to the conclusion that it is misleading to say that Kent Hovind's challenge disproves evolution, or casts any doubt on the veracity of evolution. Therefore the content of the links themselves (that Kent Hovind's challenge casts doubt on the veracity of evolution) do not specifically support evolution. If the content of the link does not specifically support evolution, or specifically challenge creationism in general (though it challenges Kent Hovind's interpretation of it), then it would be admissible in the Creationist forum if it was posted by a creationist or a neutral observer. If it would be admissible when posted by those, why not by a TE? Especially when nothing has been said on the matter by any other creationist.

Thirdly, it is my understanding that the purpose of the creationist forum is to promote creationist arguments and for creationists to build up each other's beliefs. Now, if both major evolutionary organizations and major creationist organizations agree that Kent Hovind's challenge does not really disprove evolution, then it is a weak argument against evolution to invoke. Doesn't the creationist benefit when being told that the argument s/he was using is already invalid?

 

[stumpjumper]

The sub-forums here act under the same guidelines as the congregational sub-forums. Someone who does not adhere to a specific belief or point of view can post in the sub-forum for fellowship or for asking questions.

They can not debate or rebut the answers to their questions or enter with the specific goal of debating or rebutting what is written by others.

 

[Dannager]

The sub-forums here act under the same guidelines as the congregational sub-forums. Someone who does not adhere to a specific belief or point of view can post in the sub-forum for fellowship or for asking questions.

They can not debate or rebut the answers to their questions or enter with the specific goal of debating or rebutting what is written by others.

Is creating a thread in the primary (Origins Theology, in this case) forum that references posts made in a sub-forum allowed? May we quote content from threads in sub-forums in primary forum threads?

 

[stumpjumper]

I don't see any problem with a thread with a link to another thread. However, quoting what was written by others in another sub-forum and putting it in a different thread could be viewed as harrassment and therefore would be discouraged...

 

[Pats]

I can see where it would be best to let Creationists and TEs debate amongst themselves in their own subforums.

I know, in the past, I've posted to a sub forum because I wanted to hear input on the POV held by those in the subforum.

Since I've openly posted that I'm unsure about YECism and TEism, personally, I'm trying not to debate or rebute in either one right now.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is creating a thread in the primary (Origins Theology, in this case) forum that references posts made in a sub-forum allowed? May we quote content from threads in sub-forums in primary forum threads?

we've consistently done this when things got too difficult to take with the falsehoods in the YECist subforum, and no one has complained loudly about it.

most of the time, just chuckling and moving on to the next unread is the right way to handle it. there have been and are flat earthers, geocentrics, as well as YECist here that really don't have a clue about what evolutionary theory really is, nor do i suspect they will listen if it was nicely laid out.

but then again there are credobaptists, arminians, dispensationalists, charismatics, pentecostals, etc that haven't a clue either....*grin*

 

[shernren]

They can not debate or rebut the answers to their questions or enter with the specific goal of debating or rebutting what is written by others.

So that means that posting a link to a "hostile" site is not allowed? What if it is a link to a creationist site which also refutes the erroneous argument?

In theory I'm all for opening a new thread in the OT forum whenever I see something in Creationist I don't like. But I find that in practice it is a really inefficient way of pointing out where someone has went wrong, normally the person is only monitoring his/her own thread without looking out for new threads in OT. Most of the time I find that "response-to-Creationist-forum" OT threads don't get the attention from the creationists which we want. Or am I getting too hung up on the whole debate process?

 

[stumpjumper]

You can always voice your opinion by suggesting new features or changes to forum set-up in "suggest new-features" section. As of now, though, the sub-forums are set up so that debate is extremely limited...

If the rules regarding debate were the same for the sub-forum as for the main forum then the sub-forum would be rendered superfluous...

 

[vossler]

Well sure, if they disagree with you they've got to be biased, and we all know that "questionable" is a good way of saying "I haven't got any actual evidence, but the word 'questionable' makes it sound like I might".

Because they are outright lies. The links, along with their peer-reviewed, fully-cited references irrefutably show that.

Believe it or not, some creationist arguments are so ridiculous that even those supporting their position consider them detrimental to their argument.

Yes.

Fellowship is allowed in the creationist forums. I don't claim to speak for you, but as a Christian I consider it part of the goal of my fellowship to correct obvious falsehoods spread by others in the interest of establishing truth.

Sure, if they knew that they'd need TE input. The problem with unknowingly spreading false information is that you don't know that you're spreading false information until someone shows that information to be false.

It's attitudes like this that have caused me to taper back on my postings, I didn't come here looking for this type of "fellowship." Call me strange but fellowship to me doesn't look like that!

I never post in the TE subforum and I hardly look at what even goes on there. The people there don't want me to discuss my point of view and I'm very comfortable with that. If I've ever posted there - I don't recall doing so - but if I did I know it certainly wouldn't have been to challenge anyone's beliefs. The only reason I could possibly see myself posting there would be for information.

As a matter of fact I'm rather tired of arguing points where people come from two seemingly diametrically opposed worldviews. There are those in the middle, like Pats and PaladinDoodler who don't know what to believe, but they're few and far between, most are pretty clear and firm in what they believe. I no longer care to get into a 'heavy' discussion trying to convince the vast majority of people here, who are already firmly entrenched in their views, about what the Bible does and doesn't say. The Bible really doesn't play a major role on what goes on here anyways. OT, in my eyes, is primarily a place for people to repeatedly have the same scientific arguments. Science isn't why I came here, Jesus my Lord and Savior is, and without Him and God's Word being the center of what goes on here, I don't believe there to be a sufficient reason for me to stay. God calls me to present His Word to those who will receive it, otherwise I'm called to shake the dust off of my feet. Unfortunately most here would rather discuss science.

There are some TEs who I consider my friends and even brothers in Christ, but there are many others who I don't have in nearly as high regard for. Let's face it, this place has become nothing more than a TE forum anyway and the one place that YECs had to truly fellowship gets invaded by a different form of "fellowship" quite regularly. That has also contributed to me lately becoming very comfortable staying on the sidelines and using my time more effectively elsewhere. I still come back, but now it's more out of curiosity than anything else. Right now this suits me very well.

The one thing I have learned more than anything else in the time I've been here is that things which I once saw as simple, many, many people don't see nearly as simply. I still see them as simple, but my eyes have been opened to see that where I thought the battle was outside the church, I now know it is within the church that the fight actually exists. The Christian faith isn't nearly as united as I once thought it was. It is actually very fractured and lacks any sort of cohesion. What this has done is given me a greater resolve to fight for the truth here at home in my local church and community, which I hope then can carry forward to the nation as a whole. I thank God for opening my eyes to that truth.

 

[Pats]

There are those in the middle, like Pats and PaladinDoodler who don't know what to believe

I'd like to respond to this. There have been times in my life, very few and fleeting, when I felt that I "did not know what to believe."

My spiritual views, world views are dynamic. There is room for growth and change in my concept of how I percieve God, the Bible, science, life, etc... I hope I never come to the point where I have all the answers.

However, I know what I believe and I've stated quite plainly before:

I believe God is an awesome, indefinable God that exists outside of time and science as we know them here on Earth.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwells therein.

I do not think the Bible was ever meant to be a science book nor do I think biology class is a place for religion.

If I were going to do something like for example, build a computer and then tell my 5 year old child about how I did it, I certainly wouldn't go into minute and intracate detail.

I think there are some mysteries that science has not resolved and will not resolve regarding our origins because it's not in the nature of science to do so. Likewise, it's not in the nature of the Bible to explain everything God has done and will do. The Bible just tells us about some of those acts.

I think, somehow, in ways we can hardly fathom, God made everything. Beyond that, the details of how He executed that task are not relavant to my faith.

That is what I believe. I am reading up on things and not planting my post in the "creationist" or "evolutionist" camp at this time. That doesn't mean I don't know what to believe.

 

[vossler]

I'd like to respond to this. There have been times in my life, very few and fleeting, when I felt that I "did not know what to believe."

Pats, I wasn't in any way trying imply you didn't have beliefs, obviously you do. My sole point was in reference to origins.

I'm sorry if I offended you!

 

[chaoschristian]

Folks, the Kafeteria is right around the corner in the TE sub-forum (where I felt comfortable posting it, perhaps its time to ask a MOD to sticky it in the main forum?)

Come on in, have a tea or coffee, the rice pudding is always yummy, and mostly importantly, talk about anything but theology!

The other day I discovered RenHoek and I share some common ground on another topic. Imagine that, we agreed with one another.

The problem with these forums is that if we only encounter one another on one topic, then we begin to become increasingly one dimensional. In RL we certainly are not like that, where friends and family and coworkers get to experience the full range of the joy of who we are.

The fellowship threads give us an opportunity to share with one another and not get tangled up in knots over -isms and -ologies and whatnot.

Unlike our CF Characters we can be more than one dimensional.

The Kafeteria awaits you. I promise, the danishes are fresh.

 

[stumpjumper]

You could very easily get a Kafeteria stickied in the main forum

 

[LoG]

So that means that posting a link to a "hostile" site is not allowed? What if it is a link to a creationist site which also refutes the erroneous argument?

I have not seen too many if any points raised by a Creationist that TE's didn't disagree with. From your line of reasoning, the Creationist forums would be full of "hostile" links.

Is it a case that you wish us to do to TE's what you do to Creationists?

 

[shernren]

Is it a case that you wish us to do to TE's what you do to Creationists?

By all means, if you can show me where an evolutionist disagrees with me (and isn't being quote-mined or isn't talking about atheist worldviews) then go ahead. I value being corrected and I would value it whether a TE or a creationist did the correcting.

But I understand the rules and how they are being interpreted, so I will desist from making those posts now.

 

[Pats]

Vossler, I am sure you didn't mean that I didn't have beliefs, brother. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that some one can be in their own camp, rather than the predesignated ones. And we can be traveling from one camp to another, and this doesn't mean we've lost our way.

Shernren,
Your posts in OT have helped me out plenty without responses in the creat forum. Your challenges as to why YECs are taking some parts literally but not others, and contrary wise, how YECs can ascribe to some sciences but not others.

It was really food for thought.

Also what Chaos is saying about fellowshiping outside of debating is sooooo true!

I was a mod for years at a forum with extreamely good fellowship threads that most everyone participated in. It was one was of the smoothest running forums I've ever seen on the web.