Suggested new rule for this forum and sub-forums

[theIdi0t]

So should I start a thread about the lies, distortions, frauds, etc. done by evolutionists? How exactly would that help the discussions around here?

You act like it would be something new?

I don't mind if you say some evolutionist distorted the truth, just as long as you provide support for your claim. If I'm being "lied" to, I want to know it. If I've been taking some evolutionist source to be honest, and you prove them to be dishonest, then I'm going to thank you Pop.

 

[Dannager]

There is a huge difference between critique and criticism and calling people names, and accusing them of lying and defrauding people.

Accusing someone of lying is criticism.

 

[Dannager]

So should I start a thread about the lies, distortions, frauds, etc. done by evolutionists? How exactly would that help the discussions around here?

If someone in the field of evolutionary science is lying about their work, I'd certainly like to hear about it. Such things should be nipped in the bud before they spread out of control.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

So should I start a thread about the lies, distortions, frauds, etc. done by evolutionists? How exactly would that help the discussions around here?

Koko want to reading too!

It not scary or bad thing. If you thinking there are lies, surely you have a morally obliged to point them out?

But I think hard to find, maybe individual scientists can be crazy, but if they lie and distort, they'll get the reputation they deserve. That doesn't speak to evolution as a theory.

Please posting, Koko want to reading!

 

[USincognito]

There is a huge difference between critique and criticism and calling people names, and accusing them of lying and defrauding people.

Unless, of course, they are frauds, con men, or tax cheats, in which case it's called telling the truth.

So should I start a thread about the lies, distortions, frauds, etc. done by evolutionists? How exactly would that help the discussions around here?

Knock yourself out. Assuming you can find any examples that won't be immediately debunked, exposing fraud would be a good thing. And unlike Creationists, scientists and evolution advocates aren't afraid of criticism and having their feelings hurt by mean words.

 

[shernren]

So should I start a thread about the lies, distortions, frauds, etc. done by evolutionists? How exactly would that help the discussions around here?

I agree with all the other posters here who've said that a thread like that would be good if it was supported. If evolutionists have been lying to me, I want to know. Just within the week here, a physics lecturer crowed about being in the same institute as some of the key founders of dark matter science (notably Ken Freeman). If they're wrong I want to go into their classes (if I even take them) knowing exactly what to watch out for and exactly what questions to raise. I'm on the verge of a scientific career and I don't want to invest half of my life assuming something which I could have known was completely bogus 15 years prior.

Evolutionists need to know if they are being lied to and you would be doing them a great service if you had facts, figures and science to back up your suspicions.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

aren't afraid of criticism and having their feelings hurt by mean words.

Koko feelings is sometimes hurting and crying, but today Koko cheering up!

 

[Pats]

Well, the problem Pop is that no one is calling them "evil" because of their world-view, or because they disagree with us. Others accuse them of being con-men because of how they are presenting evidence, and how they are using terms erroneously to deceive readers, such as "peer-reviewed".

Accusing AiG or similar sources of being corrupted, is no different than calling the media bias, or the government corrupt, it is the nature of their entity that allows them to be criticized the way they are, even though they are not "here" to defend themselves. I can accuse George Bush of using evangelical christians, should someone then tell me I can't say that because George bush is not here to defend himself?

But as others have said, if you are going to accuse AiG and similar sources of such things, then you are required to provide support, and we can see if it is a fair accusation or not. But you can't afford AiG, the Media, the Government some special liberty to not be criticized because they are not here to defend themselves, as we would for each other.

I agree. Shernren proposed this in the rule Wikki as well. If a poster is showing a source to be unreliable for some reason, have them back it up. As long as they can do that, I would think part of what we're here to do is discuss the sources. I for one have been misled by sources and I appreciated being shown how I was misled.

There is an added element of them being brothers and sisters in Christ.

All the more reason they "should" be behaving like it. However, it's not always the case as many other posters have pointed out. Does that mean we just tip toe around their false reports?

This is not the right forum to talk about the government or the media.

No, but the comparison would be the same in those forums. It would be like saying the computer geek forum can't warn about potential computer rip offs on their forum from supposed Christian ran sites.

In terms of a Christian organization, I believe that attacking it in public without them having a chance to defend themselves is wrong. In the case of YEC organizations, I believe the bias of the people calling them names is a huge part of why it happens.

I can understand how you feel. But I don't agree that this is about some kind of simple name calling. It's about source viability and the right to test it out. I think we need to have that. I've also put my feelings on this in the wikki.

I am just suggesting that we might want to be a bit more careful about using name calling on brothers and sisters. It adds nothing to the discussions, and just creates hard feelings. I'd much rather discuss the evidence than deal with the name calling.

Suggesting that we be more careful, would be more along the lines of saying something like theidiot said about backing up claims of false reports with evidance.

There is a huge difference between critique and criticism and calling people names, and accusing them of lying and defrauding people.

Accusing someone of lying is criticism.

And criticism is part of what we're here to do. Open our ideas up for critique, right?

 

[laptoppop]

I agree. Shernren proposed this in the rule Wikki as well. If a poster is showing a source to be unreliable for some reason, have them back it up. As long as they can do that, I would think part of what we're here to do is discuss the sources. I for one have been misled by sources and I appreciated being shown how I was misled.



All the more reason they "should" be behaving like it. However, it's not always the case as many other posters have pointed out. Does that mean we just tip toe around their false reports?




No, but the comparison would be the same in those forums. It would be like saying the computer geek forum can't warn about potential computer rip offs on their forum from supposed Christian ran sites.



I can understand how you feel. But I don't agree that this is about some kind of simple name calling. It's about source viability and the right to test it out. I think we need to have that. I've also put my feelings on this in the wikki.



Suggesting that we be more careful, would be more along the lines of saying something like theidiot said about backing up claims of false reports with evidance.





And criticism is part of what we're here to do. Open our ideas up for critique, right?

There is a huge difference between criticizing someone's position and accusing them of lying. I've seen folks accused of lying because they did not accept someone else's argument. I've been accused of lying myself in these forums. But lying involves a level of knowing and agreeing with something and deliberately saying/writing something else. I am not a liar, but I may listen to a position/argument and not accept it as being true.

I ended up putting a poster on ignore because of his accusations of lying towards me. Yes, sometimes I might "peek" at his posts, etc., but I have purposed not to respond to him, because I refuse to accept such behavior. But I am here to defend myself. This rule involved people and organizations (both YEC and evolutionary) who are not here to defend themselves.

I wasn't proposing that we couldn't discuss various sources - just that we would decide to avoid inflammatory name calling. For example, there has been a particular interchange with Dr. Gish over an extremely limited technical point. We don't have Dr. Gish's view, only the "other side". Even from what we have, I can easily imagine Dr. Gish not following up because of busyness, lack of desire to fight with an evolutionist, lack of desire to engage with someone acting as a heckler in public meetings, etc. However, from this interchange we are supposed to declare Dr. Gish == Liar and ICR == con men. Sheesh.

It is interesting how some folks around here declare there is no bias against creationism in academic circles, and yet display that exact bias over and over. The best analogy I have heard is that of perpetual motion and physics.

Obviously, this community believes it cannot express itself without inflammatory language. This saddens me greatly. I have tried to conduct myself respectfully, focusing on issues not name calling. I cannot impose respectful behavior on people, but I have a hard time hanging around an area where it is specifically allowed.

 

[notto]

It is interesting how some folks around here declare there is no bias against creationism in academic circles, and yet display that exact bias over and over. The best analogy I have heard is that of perpetual motion and physics.

This right here demonstrates your own bias against mainstream science. If you can demonstrate that creationism is actually science you might have a valid criticism.

Do you think there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to keep creationism down and that mainstream science is anti-God?

AIG and ICR do. It is a lie (that you seem to be perpetuating here).

The only bias there is in academic circles is against pseudoscience. By their own words, creationists admit they are not doing science. By refusing to accept evidence based on religious belief, they are putting dogma above objective science.

Yet they claim they are doing science. They are liars. There is no other way to state it.

You seem to be exhibiting behavior that would be unacceptable under your own proposed rule.

How dare you claim that scientists are bias. That is disrepsectful and inflammatory!

How is it valid criticisms to suggest that scientists and academic circles are bias (without demonstration) but it is not valid to call (and demonstrate) that ICR and AIG are liars?

Suggesting that unnamed 'academics' or those on this board are 'bias' isn't constructive criticism. It is inflammatory and unsupported assertion. In your defense of your proposed rule you can't seem to help but break it.

Can you demonstrate an objectively drawn line? Who get's to draw it? You or me?

 

[laptoppop]

Thanks, Notto, for making my point for me so well.

 

[notto]

Thanks, Notto, for making my point for me so well.

And your non-responsiveness to my points demonstrates mine quite well. You can't draw the line that separates your behavior from the behavior you criticize.

You feel free to call unnamed academics and those on this board 'bias' yet when your own sources are criticized you try to change the rules to protect them.

I think that's called a Tom Delay.

 

[laptoppop]

Wrong thread, and we've talked about these things before.
Please try to understand the difference between bias and deception, and between bias and conspiracy. To me, your post exhibits extreme bias, but I would not call you a liar, deciever, con-man, etc.

 

[notto]

Wrong thread, and we've talked about these things before.
Please try to understand the difference between bias and deception, and between bias and conspiracy. To me, your post exhibits extreme bias, but I would not call you a liar, deciever, con-man, etc.

I'm asking you to explain the difference. You are asserting there is one but where is the line drawn.

Why are claims of bias any less inflammatory. It is certainly takes us away from discussing evidence and certainly only presents one side of the story.

You are making accusations that would be in conflict of your own rule.

 

[busterdog]

I like it.
Can we also stop with the posts about TEs being godless baby-eating heathens who constantly try to tear apart Scripture?

OK. Since I have not heard that any TEs are currently eating babies, and they generally seem to have stopped beating their spouses.

 

[laptoppop]

Bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
Conspiracy:
http://www.google.com/search?num=10...nspiracy&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Lie:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+lie&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS177US215
Deception:
http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...avclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS177US215

 

[KerrMetric]

OK. Since I have not heard that any TEs are currently eating babies, and they generally seem to have stopped beating their spouses.

I do like baby back ribs - don't they come from babies?

 

[notto]

Bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
Conspiracy:
http://www.google.com/search?num=10...nspiracy&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Lie:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+lie&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS177US215
Deception:
http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...avclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS177US215

How is claiming that academics and those on this forum who use an objective methodology for research are bias not inflammatory?

How is that any different than calling ICR or AIG liars?

You've define the words. Not tell my why one is more inflammatory than the other?

Show me why claims of bias against unnamed academics and those on this forum are not any different than the other behaviors you want to rule out?

Because we desire to have good respectful discussions, we agree to avoid all name-calling, both of each other, and of outside people and organizations. Describing outside groups as con-men, frauds, liars, etc., is not allowed, even if believed to be true. Discussions should concentrate on the data and the issues, and not speculative judgments of other people and groups.Why are claims of bias not considered name calling speculative judgments that are not concentrated on the data and the issues?

 

[laptoppop]

One involves deliberate intent to deceive. The other one is typically without knowledge or intention. One is against morals. The other is against opinions. Huge difference.

 

[random_guy]

One involves deliberate intent to deceive. The other one is typically without knowledge or intention. One is against morals. The other is against opinions. Huge difference.

So what if a person is ignorant, but then corrected, but continues to parrot the original statement? Is it now considered lying?