Note from Staff

[laptoppop]

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?

Try reading the posts in OT as if you were a YEC, for example. If we truly had respectful, rational discourse, then it would be a different story. As it is, it often feels like being attacked.

 

[Dannager]

Try reading the posts in OT as if you were a YEC, for example. If we truly had respectful, rational discourse, then it would be a different story. As it is, it often feels like being attacked.

And again, I submit that evolutionists are "attacked" in the same fashion as much or more than creationists are in the OT forum. We could very easily operate under the same impression but for some reason we choose not to. Why do you think it is that you choose to view it as being attacked and needing a place to hide away, while we choose to view it as having an opportunity to discuss something with someone, and wanting to talk to them openly?

 

[busterdog]

Try reading the posts in OT as if you were a YEC, for example. If we truly had respectful, rational discourse, then it would be a different story. As it is, it often feels like being attacked.

Besides, its a very comfy fortress!

 

[Gwenyfur]

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?

Dannager:

TE's have a forum of their own, which creationists tend to stay out of and let TE's fellowship discuss and do whatever they want...

Creationists should be afforded the same courtesy.

This is not about faith, the strength or weaknesses, it IS about the rules of *THIS* forum...

anything else is off topic....including speculations of why

 

[Gwenyfur]

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.

I remember him

He always had reading for me

and some interesting theories...

but that's not the issue nor the point of this thread

It is about the rules of the Creationist forum...that's it...no rabbit trails, no justifications...

What I posted earlier to clarify the rules...they are not open to debate or conjecture, speculation or anything else...

Done...

 

[Gwenyfur]

And again, I submit that evolutionists are "attacked" in the same fashion as much or more than creationists are in the OT forum. We could very easily operate under the same impression but for some reason we choose not to. Why do you think it is that you choose to view it as being attacked and needing a place to hide away, while we choose to view it as having an opportunity to discuss something with someone, and wanting to talk to them openly?

See something in this forum you want to talk about...no problem here's what you do:

Start a NEW thread in OT and discuss it THERE

 

[Pats]

I was kind of reading this thread, not really seeing anything much that applied to me when I stubbed my toe on this.

Sure they can, Pats even got one of mine removed after converting to TE and blasting me zealously.

Mark, if you have a problem with me, you could always let me know personally. I don't know when on earth I ever "blasted you zealously." But if I did then I appologize for it.

 

[vossler]

What I posted earlier to clarify the rules...they are not open to debate or conjecture, speculation or anything else...

Unlike some other things.

 

[vossler]

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.

If nothing else you just overwhelm us with sheer numbers.

Creationists, for whatever reason, do not.

Yeah one us is usually sufficient.

 

[Floodnut]

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

Of course you would miss it. It is in the Bible. See, even this person's post mocks the BELIEF that God created the World and all that is in it in six days. But that is okay. This activity is one of the things you come to expect here.

 

[Gwenyfur]

This thread is to advise the OT participants of the rules of the Creationism forum

It is NOT to air personal grudges, nor are the rules up for debate.

There is NO Baiting

NO insulting

NO Debate on the rules that have been explained...

Thread will be closed if the personal attacks and debating continue.

 

[Floodnut]

Bottom line remains. No place for creationists to discuss their views without interlopers coming in and lighting up the mockery. They don't even claim to be creationists, but now they will. Any TE would identify the TE position as true the "biblical view of Creation."
Creationists have no place of comfort in the CF community. It is ridiculed as a "fortress mentality."

 

[Gwenyfur]

We are trying very hard to establish that they are not allowed to post here.
Have you read any of the posts from Letalis or myself?

Apparently not...

the rules will be enforced. Change takes time and establishing clear rules is a step in the right direction.

I'm sorry you feel it's not good enough or fast enough floodnut, but this bitterness is not very constructive.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I am all for:

1. Requiring people that post in the Creationist or TE forums to state their position in their profile. To me this is just plain common sense and is done in other areas such at the denomination forums.

2. Limiting posts from noncreationists to strictly fellowship. That means they can't ask questions. Why? They can ask questions in the general origins forum. Or they are welcomed to PM me. Questions can be, and are at times, asked in a way that is really a statement and not a question. Why cause problems by allowing this to happen? Please, no more questions in here from noncreationists.

3. No more links to a debate. If I want to debate evolutionists I know where to find them. Why do I have to always be bombarded with debate links in all of these threads? That isn't a real fellowship post and I believe should not be allowed.

If all this chaos doesn't get handled soon it will just get much worse. It current has been for the last several months. Even I just got my first real warning in all the years I have been here!

 

[Floodnut]

We are trying very hard to establish that they are not allowed to post here.
Have you read any of the posts from Letalis or myself?

Apparently not...

the rules will be enforced. Change takes time and establishing clear rules is a step in the right direction.

I'm sorry you feel it's not good enough or fast enough floodnut, but this bitterness is not very constructive.

Sorry if it comes across as bitter. I am not bitter, and I forgive you for making the charge, since it is so easy to misread emotions in this type of "TYPED CONVERSATION." I am not bitter, I am embattled, and yet I am accepting and resigned to the reality of the situation. Maybe it will change someday. But I still see it all the time, day after day. Now it is acceptable to be a TE and call that a "creationist worldview" and then come in here and mock YEC. And Now we are not even allowed to report the abuse? I guess I need to go back through and re-read all this and see what I missed, where it was declared that this abusive behavior was going to be banned.

 

[Gwenyfur]

no...it is not acceptable to call it "creation evolution" in order to post in here...that's already been addressed and defined...


I'm sorry, sometimes I do misread/misinterpret the emotion behind posts.. and I do thank you for your forgiveness.

We are trying to make this once again a haven for creationists...but change takes time...

I understand your frustrations, as I remember OT *before* it has the "Only" subforms.

If I may direct you and Project 86 to this POST I thnk that will bring a bit of focus back to the conversation.

 

[keyarch]

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?

I think the common belief is that God “created” the different kinds of creatures “fully formed” rather than merely starting things off with simple cells and allowing “macro-evolution” to take over. Regarding “Evolutionary Creationist” I can capsulize it by the following statement: “More concisely, evolutionary creationists claim that through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process God created the entire universe and all of life, including human beings.” The whole article can be found at:http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

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.

Here’s a link that talks about the “Framework Hypothesis” in a little more detail than I can do here.
http://www.asa3.org/gray/framework/frameworkOPC-SC.html

 

[keyarch]

And again, I submit that evolutionists are "attacked" in the same fashion as much or more than creationists are in the OT forum. We could very easily operate under the same impression but for some reason we choose not to. Why do you think it is that you choose to view it as being attacked and needing a place to hide away, while we choose to view it as having an opportunity to discuss something with someone, and wanting to talk to them openly?

I think rather than trying to "hide away" you can compare this to trying to have an adult conversation and your kids come up and just start talking and arguing and you have to stop and address them one way or another.

It's an interruption that takes away from the initial fellowship that we're trying to have. We're just trying to say - that when we're talking it this sub-forum, what we say doesn't really concern the TE or EC crowd and even it you don't agree with what is being said, it's not proper to start conversation while we're talking.

I don't mean anything personal here, I'm just trying to illustrate the feeling.

 

[Letalis]

Bottom line remains. No place for creationists to discuss their views without interlopers coming in and lighting up the mockery.

We are considering some ideas to solve this problem.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was kind of reading this thread, not really seeing anything much that applied to me when I stubbed my toe on this.

You reported a post that was removed, the issue you had raised about who I mentioned was of no concern to him. I mentioned something in passing and somehow it becomes a rule violation that is reported. I didn't appreciate it but since you just didn't think it was fair to mention his name when he couldn't respond. In retrospect I see your point but then I get this request for edit in may PM and find that it has already been acted on. I didn't like that and had that been the only thing that ever happened on here I'd write it off as a misunderstanding.

TEs can run wild in the OT and flood it with their subtle derision, I don't really mind. It's when they start taking over the Creationist subforum that I get a really short fuse. I decided to become a moderator to help out in Crevo in the common forum but I think that's pretty much a lost cause now. Then I tried to keep things civil in here and I had very little trouble, a couple of reports here and there, no big deal.

I think my problem is not with you personally but the focus of theistic evolution. It seems to have no purpose other then attacking Creationists, if there is a secondary reason for it I don't know what it is.

There is so much that Creationists can learn about the life sciences and the fascinating things that are going on in molecular biology. I just never get a chance to talk to them about it without a TE busting in here to correct something they don't like.

Mark, if you have a problem with me, you could always let me know personally. I don't know when on earth I ever "blasted you zealously." But if I did then I appologize for it.

I don't have a problem with you, it's the unrelenting attack of theistic evolutionists who...lemme see....can't accept Creationism.

I'm going to let it go for now...