please help!callin all creation scientists

[Jo1]

Hi im asking for any creation scientists out there if they could help me?
ive started this thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t5471151-the-builder-will-eventually-return.html
if any of you are willing to come and join in then i would be much apreciative.
thanks love Jo

 

[theIdi0t]

Hi im asking for any creation scientists out there if they could help me?
ive started this thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t5471151-the-builder-will-eventually-return.html
if any of you are willing to come and join in then i would be much apreciative.
thanks love Jo

I think they've all taken quite a beating here lately, so you'll be hard pressed to get them involved in an open forum, when they have been quite quiet over here in the christian only forum.

First you would have to figure out a way to get them out of hiding, in the creationist subforum.

Best of luck.

But if you wanted to find a less hostile examination of the original post, then why not bring it over here, and allow us theistic evolutionist to break it down for you, rather than being mercilessly devoured over there in the open forum.

 

[Jo1]

I think they've all taken quite a beating here lately, so you'll be hard pressed to get them involved in an open forum, when they have been quite quiet over here in the christian only forum.

First you would have to figure out a way to get them out of hiding, in the creationist subforum.

Best of luck.

But if you wanted to find a less hostile examination of the original post, then why not bring it over here, and allow us theistic evolutionist to break it down for you, rather than being mercilessly devoured over there in the open forum.

thanks for your advice. bless you.

 

[Dannager]

So...wait...you've made a thread to let other people know about another thread that you've also just made, in the same forum? I'm confused as to how this was necessary in the slightest.

 

[theIdi0t]

So...wait...you've made a thread to let other people know about another thread that you've also just made, in the same forum? I'm confused as to how this was necessary in the slightest.

, well the other thread was in the open forum: Creationist vs. Evolutionist, but the wolves tore in to it too quickly, that one could not read between the bites, and the knowledge.

Our poor creationist lambs over there, were led to their slaughter, and it was my suggestion to bring the post here, so the gentler theistic evolutionist could chew at it slowly.

Plus I think we always need to be on a recruiting effort to bring more creationist from the other forum here, so that ours don't die of boredom. Plus, I think some fresh meat, will wake those slumbering sheep up from their creationist subforum, back here in the mix for some more rounds.

 

[Galle]

Our poor creationist lambs over there, were led to their slaughter, and it was my suggestion to bring the post here, so the gentler theistic evolutionist could chew at it slowly.

I think you have a valid point. When someone posts something and ten other guys pile on, it's a bit overwhelming.

However, I don't think your approach can be as successful as you may hope. Creationists don't like to be challenged, and can only maintain a "discussion" when they can arbitrarily kick people out for the awful sin of dissent (e.g., Rapture Ready). So even though dozens of creationists and dozens of evolutionists may at one time participate in an open and fair forum, the creationists tend to drop off until there's only a few hardcore believers left and the evolutionists can be observed to stick around longer. You see this pattern at places like talk.origins, the Internet Infidels CvE subforum, Christian Forums' CvE subforum, and JREF.

That's not to say it's not a good goal to try and attract more creationists, and I think being open and polite will be helpful and beneficial. But as long as we insist on discussion based on facts, I think most creationists will prefer to sit in their fortress.

 

[Dannager]

, well the other thread was in the open forum: Creationist vs. Evolutionist, but the wolves tore in to it too quickly, that one could not read between the bites, and the knowledge.

Our poor creationist lambs over there, were led to their slaughter, and it was my suggestion to bring the post here, so the gentler theistic evolutionist could chew at it slowly.

Plus I think we always need to be on a recruiting effort to bring more creationist from the other forum here, so that ours don't die of boredom. Plus, I think some fresh meat, will wake those slumbering sheep up from their creationist subforum, back here in the mix for some more rounds.

Ah, I thought the link here led to the thread of the same title in this forum.

 

[laptoppop]

I think you have a valid point. When someone posts something and ten other guys pile on, it's a bit overwhelming.

However, I don't think your approach can be as successful as you may hope. Creationists don't like to be challenged, and can only maintain a "discussion" when they can arbitrarily kick people out for the awful sin of dissent (e.g., Rapture Ready). So even though dozens of creationists and dozens of evolutionists may at one time participate in an open and fair forum, the creationists tend to drop off until there's only a few hardcore believers left and the evolutionists can be observed to stick around longer. You see this pattern at places like talk.origins, the Internet Infidels CvE subforum, Christian Forums' CvE subforum, and JREF.

That's not to say it's not a good goal to try and attract more creationists, and I think being open and polite will be helpful and beneficial. But as long as we insist on discussion based on facts, I think most creationists will prefer to sit in their fortress.

It is totally not true that we don't like to be challenged -- we do want reasonable respectful dialog, not contentless insults. One would hope we'd see more of that behavior from Christians -- but it isn't always true.

 

[Dannager]

It is totally not true that we don't like to be challenged -- we do want reasonable respectful dialog, not contentless insults. One would hope we'd see more of that behavior from Christians -- but it isn't always true.

And the problem is, of course, that we don't view our social commentary on the issue as "contentless insults". You get your reasonable, respectful dialog. The creationists who demonstrate that they are not interested in a dialog get commentary instead. And much of it is not flattering to the creationist movement, but you're going to have to get used to that. The creationist movement hasn't currently got a whole lot to feel flattered about.

 

[laptoppop]

And the problem is, of course, that we don't view our social commentary on the issue as "contentless insults". You get your reasonable, respectful dialog. The creationists who demonstrate that they are not interested in a dialog get commentary instead. And much of it is not flattering to the creationist movement, but you're going to have to get used to that. The creationist movement hasn't currently got a whole lot to feel flattered about.

Would you classify these from earlier today as respectful dialog? I believe I have proved myself as interested in real data and dialog.

You know, I'm just about done hearing this from you. I don't care if you don't like calling yourself a literalist. In fact, I don't think any of us care. We're not necessarily directing our arguments at you. There are dozens of creationists that we've encountered here over the years that describe themselves as literalists. We're using the label they've provided us, and it just so happens that it's also pretty accurate. So stop calling it a straw-man argument. We didn't build it. If you think it's a straw-man, get together with your fellow creationists and come up with a united front to put forward.

Lord knows you guys could use one.

And despite the fact that you're too busy being amazed by the world around you to study it in any sort of critical fashion, it remains a fallacy.

Just because something appears so intricate that you, personally, can't fathom it not being designed doesn't mean that it is.

 

[Galle]

It is totally not true that we don't like to be challenged -- we do want reasonable respectful dialog, not contentless insults. One would hope we'd see more of that behavior from Christians -- but it isn't always true.

Please. You get plenty of respectful dialogue, which you then dismiss as "contentless insults" because it gives you an excuse to not address the points made.

Like Dannager said, there's a lot of unflattering commentary about creationists, but it exists for a reason. If creationists want to change that, they need to change their behavior. For example, they need to stop using logical fallacies, especially after it's been pointed out. They need to stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory. They need to actually go out and correct their fellow creationists when warranted instead of sitting back and saying nothing (or worse, posting a "me too!" comment).

 

[Dannager]

Would you classify these from earlier today as respectful dialog? I believe I have proved myself as interested in real data and dialog.

I'd certainly say that the first and third are respectful. They are certainly antagonistic, but that is the nature of debate. The second was perhaps a cheap quip, and I apologize for the way I put it.

 

[laptoppop]

I'd certainly say that the first and third are respectful. They are certainly antagonistic, but that is the nature of debate. The second was perhaps a cheap quip, and I apologize for the way I put it.

You insult my ability to understand and call that respectful? sheesh.

 

[Dannager]

You insult my ability to understand and call that respectful? sheesh.

I didn't insult your ability to understand. I did call you on a fallacy, but really, if you have a problem with being held accountable for your own posts you should not be here debating.

 

[laptoppop]

I didn't insult your ability to understand. I did call you on a fallacy, but really, if you have a problem with being held accountable for your own posts you should not be here debating.

You specifically said:

Just because something appears so intricate that you, personally, can't fathom it not being designed doesn't mean that it is.

This is not respectful -- it is insulting. I believe I understand the basics of evolutionary theory -- I just believe that the observable evidence fits better with the scriptural account and with a global flood.

 

[theIdi0t]

You specifically said:

This is not respectful -- it is insulting. I believe I understand the basics of evolutionary theory -- I just believe that the observable evidence fits better with the scriptural account and with a global flood.

Labtoppop, I have to agree with Dannager that this is not disrespectful, it's the truth!

I use to buy into the "Eye", because the eye seemed so intricate, that I couldn't fathom it not being designed.

That's the difference between an evolutionist and a creationist, one fathoms, and one doesn't fathom!

I cannot fathom us being here without a God, but the athiest can fathom!

Just because someone comments that you can't fathom something, it shouldn't be taken as an insult. If you can fathom what you see as so intricate as being naturally created, than you would say you believe it is naturally created.

If I could fathom my existence without a god, I would be an atheist.

You see, it's not an insult, but the truth.

 

[Dannager]

You specifically said:

This is not respectful -- it is insulting. I believe I understand the basics of evolutionary theory -- I just believe that the observable evidence fits better with the scriptural account and with a global flood.

Next time don't quote me out of context, laptoppop. The quotation you take issue with was a response to a question (posed by you). The discussion went like this:

It's not really a matter of being "disproved" it's more that the analogy fails on a very basic level.

And that would be....?

Just because something appears so intricate that you, personally, can't fathom it not being designed doesn't mean that it is.

It was the answer to your question, laptoppop. The analogy uberd00b was talking about does not function because (among other things) it assumes that because something appears intricate it must be designed, which does not logically follow. Why in the world would you assume that it was anything other than a response to your question? And an insult? Where did you get that? You've taken something that's clearly meant as a simple response and decided to quote it out of context so that it appears disrespectful. I don't want to assume that you've got a martyr complex when it comes to creationism, laptoppop, but you're making it pretty difficult not to.

 

[laptoppop]

Thanks for quoting the context. It remains that you said that I, PERSONALLY, could not fathom it. I'll leave it there and I believe the evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Dannager]

Thanks for quoting the context. It remains that you said that I, PERSONALLY, could not fathom it. I'll leave it there and I believe the evidence speaks for itself.

None of the response was directed at you, laptoppop. The "personally" was meant to apply to the hypothetical individual who would fall prey to the fallacy. Again, you're seeing insult in places insult doesn't exist because you want to, it seems.

 

[laptoppop]

uh huh. You reply to my post saying "you, personally" but I'm not supposed to believe it means me. Whatever.