Note from Staff

[Gwenyfur]

The majority are not however. We had Busterdog the other day stating beryllium was a Big Bang problem - when in fact he had misread something unrelated to the Big Bang.

This was not a subjective point in any way.

But Kerr *That* is the purpose of OT...start a thread there, link to the topic in Creationism and state your points...Origins is the open debate area and thus not a rule violation

 

[Gwenyfur]

Alright. Thanks for the clear instructions.

You're most welcome

 

[mark kennedy]

The majority are not however. We had Busterdog the other day stating beryllium was a Big Bang problem - when in fact he had misread something unrelated to the Big Bang.

This was not a subjective point in any way.

Dude! Have you ever written a fellowship post? I don't mean just in Creationism, I mean have you ever written one anywhere because I would love to read it.

 

[Mallon]

If a TE wants to ask a question fine...

Are there certain types of questions we are not allowed to ask? Once I asked a couple of YECs here why they rejected plate tectonics and was promptly warned by yourself that my post was considered hostile in nature. Are there caveats to posting certain questions here?

 

[Gwenyfur]

*This* thread was started just for the purpose of clarifying the boundaries for creationism...if a question needs asking, it's here...

Doesn't matter if *anyone* has *ever* posted a fellowship post *anywhere* ...


The matter at hand is clarifying the rules of creationism, and what TE's are able to do about perceived falsehoods...

 

[Gwenyfur]

Are there certain types of questions we are not allowed to ask? Once I asked a couple of YECs here why they rejected plate tectonics and was promptly warned by yourself that my post was considered hostile in nature. Are there caveats to posting certain questions here?

Actually...after going back and reading the thread...that mod hat wasn't meant specifically for you...but for TE's in general as that thread has more than one TE posting in it

Yes, a question is allowed...refutation is not

 

[laptoppop]

Are there certain types of questions we are not allowed to ask? Once I asked a couple of YECs here why they rejected plate tectonics and was promptly warned by yourself that my post was considered hostile in nature. Are there caveats to posting certain questions here?

I would hazard that the key is if you are really seeking information versus trying to convince someone. For example -- as you already know, many YECs not only accept plate tectonics, but believe that catastrophic plate tectonics with runaway subduction may well be the mechanism God used for the flood. If in doubt, take it to OT.

 

[keyarch]

...Both Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists are welcome in this forum. This is not a forum solely for YECs, and OECs are allowed to debate and discuss here.

After reading thru most of the posts here so far, it seems that "Creationism" needs to be defined a little better. Obviously "Theistic Evolution" and "Evolutionary Creationism" don't qualify, but there are other world views that are "creationist" other than solely "Young Earth Creation". Here is a link to a general quick list of some worldviews:
http://tinyurl.com/2xd993

Now in my opinion, the following would be allowed without question in this forum -

1. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Young Earth Creation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]2. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Progressive Creationism[/FONT].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]3. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]The Gap Theory.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]4. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Day-Age.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]5. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Young Biological Creation. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]5a. (Two-Stage).[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]6. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]The Framework Hypothesis.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]Maybe something to this effect could be put in a "sticky" so that people will know that it's not just for the YEC view.
[/FONT][/FONT]
In other words, as a YBC (#5) I believe in a very literal interpretation of Genesis 1&2, and yet differ from my YEC brothers in that I believe scripture conveys the upper heavens and the primitive planet as existing prior to the creation week of some 6,000 years ago. Now we both have "Creationism" as a common ground, and we can debate the finer points here. But for us, to carry on a debate with a TE is like taking it to the "open to all members" forums. This is intended to be an area where we can talk to others whom at least share in the basic creation aspects of origins.

 

[busterdog]

Here's a thought exercise: I'm here making a post in Creationism. I'm agreeing with another evolutionist here, Kerr Metric, and I'm about to criticize some points mark kennedy has said.

The chances are that someone here is going to seriously consider reporting me without hearing another word. And if I continued the post exactly as I had planned, the chances are that at least one creationist here will consider me intrusive and unwelcome, and will see me siding with an evolutionist against a creationist, and will automatically come to the conclusion that I am breaking forum rules being here - at the same time, I will not be reported, because there is no concrete criterion for a post like this to be reported.

And yet, nowhere will I have actually supported evolution or criticized creationism.

See the problem?

When a rule says "only fellowship posts are allowed / no debate posts are allowed", it is a rule asking observers to confirm the propriety of a post based on intent. And since the observer cannot access my actual intent, they have to judge it based on perceived intent. And since the observers are not neutral here, you can bet that at least one will perceive hostile intent. And because there is no objective rule or ruleset according to which one can report the post, the offended user simply lets the hostility seethe and boil within, and when compounded with confirmation bias and selective memory, we get gems like "TEs were flooding every thread with coarse and condescending remarks" which are obviously factually wrong and yet in a sense entirely accurate - this accurately reflects what someone sees in the forum, even if it does not accurately reflect what the forum itself is.

The simplest way is to ban TEs altogether, either via filters or via rules. A regrettable but workable approach.

The complex way is to develop a rule, or ruleset, that does not depend on perceived intent. It must have objective criteria that determine whether or not a post is objectionable. Particular cases include:

- Is a TE allowed to make a factual correction to a creationist's perceived scientific mistake?
- Is a TE allowed to make a factual correction to a creationist's perceived theological mistake?
- Is a TE allowed to make a factual correction to a harmful and untrue comment on TEs?
- Is a TE allowed to supply a coherent TE interpretation of facts for which it is alleged that no coherent TE interpretation exists?
- Is a TE allowed to link to a thread on Origins Theology where s/he does any of the above?
- Really, is a TE ever allowed to say or imply that a creationist or creationists are wrong about anything, on this forum? (The de facto answer is, almost never.)

We have to judge posts on content instead of intent, since the former can be more objectively assessed than the latter.

I think the majority of TE posts here have been fine. But, as you note, your rule is the safest, but I wouldn't mind continuing to see the TE fellowship posts here. Of course, you can always invite the YEC into the OT thread to address an issue.

I PM'd the mods on this.

I am assuming there is to be a distinction between OECs and TEs. OECs can debate here, but not TEs.

Does this distinction make sense to others? I am kind of confused about who we are talking about here.

 

[Gwenyfur]

After reading thru most of the posts here so far, it seems that "Creationism" needs to be defined a little better. Obviously "Theistic Evolution" and "Evolutionary Creationism" don't qualify, but there are other world views that are "creationist" other than solely "Young Earth Creation". Here is a link to a general quick list of some worldviews:
http://tinyurl.com/2xd993

Now in my opinion, the following would be allowed without question in this forum -

1. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Young Earth Creation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]2. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Progressive Creationism[/FONT].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]3. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]The Gap Theory.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]4. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Day-Age.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]5. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]Young Biological Creation. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]5a. (Two-Stage).[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Bold]6. [FONT=Verdana,Bold]The Framework Hypothesis.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Bold][FONT=Verdana,Bold]Maybe something to this effect could be put in a "sticky" so that people will know that it's not just for the YEC view.
[/FONT][/FONT]
In other words, as a YBC (#5) I believe in a very literal interpretation of Genesis 1&2, and yet differ from my YEC brothers in that I believe scripture conveys the upper heavens and the primitive planet as existing prior to the creation week of some 6,000 years ago. Now we both have "Creationism" as a common ground, and we can debate the finer points here. But for us, to carry on a debate with a TE is like taking it to the "open to all members" forums. This is intended to be an area where we can talk to others whom at least share in the basic creation aspects of origins.

Thank you Keyarch!

These are indeed the definitions of Creationism...

 

[keyarch]

I think the rules should be changed such that to post in restricted areas, one needs to have their "Origin of the Life View" stated within their public profile. I think we should be able to know if the person we're talking to or who is giving their theology is of a certain world-view.

 

[KerrMetric]

I think the rules should be changed such that to post in restricted areas, one needs to have their "Origin of the Life View" stated within their public profile. I think we should be able to know if the person we're talking to or who is giving their theology is of a certain world-view.

And that would mean all Christians can post in the forum.

 

[keyarch]

And that would mean all Christians can post in the forum.

Within the rules. But some members are actually TE and don't list an "Origins of the Life View" and come into the Creationism forum and debate. All I'm saying is, that if someone wants to post in a restricted area, they should have in their public profile something that relates to that restriction, and if not then the software shouldn't even allow a post to go thru. That would cut down on our anxiety and the reports to moderators.

 

[Mallon]

These are indeed the definitions of Creationism...

Doesn't creationism essentially amount to a belief in a creator? If that's the case, then evolutionary creationists are indeed creationists.
It strikes me that the unifying aspect to the denominations listed by keyarch is simple denial of evolution. I don't think it has anything to do with a common belief in any particular theology, so much as a disbelief of evolutionary theory. Am I off the mark?

Also, keyarch, could you please clarify what you mean by the "Framework hypothesis"? Because most evolutionary creationists I know subscribe to the framework hypothesis as well.

Glad to see things are being cleared up around here! Thanks to everyone for trying to make this place that much better.

 

[Floodnut]

Bottom line: Creationists are not allowed to have a place to discuss questions about creationism, without the constant mockery and intrusion of those who do not believe in Creation. Anyone can claim to believe in "CREATION," under their definition that God used evolution over a period of MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years. That person is now a "creationist." They can mock, ridicule, and depreciate our creationist faith with the full permission of the Christian Forums.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Theistic evolutionists or "evolutionary creationists" do indeed *already* have their *own* forum...

It's Theistic Evolution. Changing what you call a position does not change it's characteristics.

 

[KerrMetric]

Bottom line: Creationists are not allowed to have a place to discuss questions about creationism, without the constant mockery and intrusion of those who do not believe in Creation. Anyone can claim to believe in "CREATION," under their definition that God used evolution over a period of MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years. That person is now a "creationist." They can mock, ridicule, and depreciate our creationist faith with the full permission of the Christian Forums.

When did Creationist become a Faith? I missed that part of the Nicene Creed.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Let's try to keep our eyes on the ball here....


This is about defining who can and who cannot post debate or refutations in the Creationist forum

it is not about the foundations of faith

 

[Dannager]

Bottom line: Creationists are not allowed to have a place to discuss questions about creationism, without the constant mockery and intrusion of those who do not believe in Creation. Anyone can claim to believe in "CREATION," under their definition that God used evolution over a period of MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years. That person is now a "creationist." They can mock, ridicule, and depreciate our creationist faith with the full permission of the Christian Forums.

And this fortress mentality will get you nowhere.

We don't have a problem with those who disagree with us bringing us their concerns, because we're confident that we can deal with those concerns in a helpful, rational manner, and that the end result will be that someone will be more educated (whether the challenger or us). We welcome that sort of opportunity.

Creationists, for whatever reason, do not. They feel that they need a place they can hide away and protect their beliefs. I feel very strongly that this is because they feel their beliefs are fragile and must be protected by the safety a restricted area affords. Perhaps I am incorrect, though. Could any creationist explain to me why this dichotomy of mentality exists?

 

[shernren]

Ironically, I think this thread should be moved to Origins Theology.

I don't think many creationists (as conventionally defined) would be comfortable with framework hypothesis people. For example, rmwilliamsll subscribed to the framework hypothesis - for those of you who remember him I don't think you would have been comfortable with him contradicting something you said here in Creationism.