Changes Coming to Origins and Creationism.

This forum should be a lot more interesting if this is enforced.

It seems Madness and the rest of the wrecking crew debunk the same arguments just about every month. I think debunking creationist misconceptions is still an important part of discussing the creationist conspiracy; one of their major characteristics is to outright misrepresent science and deceive the general pubic, which they are pretty good at. Hopefully this will still be a topic on this forum.

reply to post by intrepid


Congrats on sounding like a bad ass. The crap in ATS is only here because no one is stopping it. So before you come in all White Knight ssit back and realize it is you and your fellow moderators faults. Hurry up please and then get the rif raff out of the other sections.

I agree with the moderators, I may even take a step further and suggest that this forum should be shut down all together. I am so fed up with the weekly "god vs. evolution" threads that somehow constantly manage to become "hot" or "important" topics. When will these people realize that there is no way to prove either of their theories one way or the other-- there will never be an end to it.

When will these people realize that there is no way to prove either of their theories one way or the other-- there will never be an end to it.

Well, if its proof your seeking, I would suggest one hold a lot more proof than the other one.

the "theory" of evolution is far more than the simplistic modern use of the term theory,..its akin to the theory of gravity..still hammering out the details, but the picture is pretty much there.

the "theory" of creationism does not merit the term yet...its more like a hypothesis in its first stages...the speculation of creationism perhaps...there is no proof backing any of the initial claims up.

Faith is the term used when proof is absent ...evolution requires no faith, as the proof is there in mountains.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


i very much agree with firt part of your post.
for the the second part however, it could work the other way around as well.

reply to post by mandrake


Ahh but the thing is, science and technology does seem to be bringing more evidence, to one side of the issue then the other.

reply to post by randyvs


If you're going to claim some of it and then ignore all the counter-evidence, sure.

And I have to point out that this isn't really the point of this thread, please take your shroud do a different location.



Intrepid, could you please explain briefly how we are to use this forum now? If you hadn't noticed, nobody's daring to post a new thread out of hesitation.

Is the sub-forum description accurate? Will it only be about attempts to suppress science?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It's on topic Madness. As response to someone. Ask a Mod to remove it if you're repulsed.

And as for your question about science I certainly hope that isn't the case ?

I have a tendency to agree at what some would consider to be an over cautious response to "bickering" and "arguing". Most of us over the years have been victims to bullying by one or another, but this kind of site will attract those individuals who choose to debate with anger instead of intelligence, and those cases should be dealt with on a case by case basis and there are already procedures in place for this kind of behavior.

I just want to caution the moderators that in an atmosphere such as this, the more control you assert the more claims of "conspiracy" you will be encouraging amongst the ranks. Just a thought.

reply to post by daggyz


Obviously I disagree with all the absurd nonsense you just said BUT you've proved my point for me. Even from the Creationist side this debate automatically includes what is perceived as a conspiracy of science. So saying that a post about Creation/Evolution will be moved if it doesn't include a conspiracy just doesn't make sense to me.

I thought everyones views we're welcome here. Further censorship imho is a slap in the face even to those who might abuse certain rules now and then. For example I have my own religious beliefs while they may not jive with everyone I don't see any reason for this.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by intrepid

 

Just a few questions:

What would qualify as a 'conspiracy' within the confines of this sub-forum now?
Would general discussions of evolution be moved to faith?
Would general discussions on origins be moved to faith?

It isn't difficult to understand. This is a site which focuses on conspiracy theories and fringe news. Creationist and fundamentalist establishment Darwinism are not fringe topics or conspiracy theory based so they're getting the boot!

You always toe the establishment line. The creationists toe a different fundamentalist line. It's pointless and boring to have the same argument with associated name calling and trolling every thread. If it ends now then great.

Well done Staff.

Thank you!

Creationists use The Bible as being the tell all answer to evolution, but in reality, The Creationism idea has only been around for less than 100 years. Before the evolution of the evolution theory, Creationism was pretty much ignored.

reply to post by intrepid


I'm glad for the change. All I ever see are stupid or silly threads with no proof of anything but simply to attack Christianity. Unfortunately there are posters like the one above me that spout off without any proof. I think some just sign up to 'troll' and they need to grow up.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Thank you!

Creationists use The Bible as being the tell all answer to evolution, but in reality, The Creationism idea has only been around for less than 100 years. Before the evolution of the evolution theory, Creationism was pretty much ignored.

No it wasn't ignored. Jesus believed in the creation and fall. Plenty of ancient cultures have a creation story too. Dinosaur wasn't a word till the 1800's. There's a picture of we'd call dinosaur on an ancient temple. If you're saying thank you to the op, he wasn't talking to Christians but everyone regardless of spiritual belief.

reply to post by Pimander

Originally posted by Pimander
It isn't difficult to understand.

Really?

This is a site which focuses on conspiracy theories and fringe news.

...and political activism, and all sorts of other things like music, relationships, jokes, and environmentalism.

Creationist and fundamentalist establishment Darwinism are not fringe topics or conspiracy theory based so they're getting the boot!

What the hell is 'fundamentalist establishment Darwinism'? And yes, creationism is a fringe topic and it is a conspiracy.

Also, if they were getting the boot they'd just shut down the sub-forum.

You always toe the establishment line.

...no, I don't. I'm unconvinced about some of the more speculative portions of current establishment science and I will gladly accept any challenges to the establishment so long as they are coherent.

The creationists toe a different fundamentalist line. It's pointless and boring to have the same argument with associated name calling and trolling every thread. If it ends now then great.

...you mean that stuff that the creationists have been doing for decades?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Yes there are other topics on the site. And it looks like the squabbling over this topic is being relegated to those sections to me. No bad thing in my opinion.

My point about fundamentalism (not worded that well TBH) is related to this. It isn't about you specifically but you sometimes...

By following Occam's razor, philosophers of science are likely to oversimplify their understanding of the known universe, increasing the amount of data which they can not explain. And then, typically, philosophers of science become unduly attached to their oversimplifications, and react skeptically to data which they can not explain.

Any time you believe something, any time you identify with a particular explanation, theory, equation, statement, myth, grouping, label, or expectation, you are placing an extra filter between your perceptual systems and the fundamental nature of your reality. Theories are never true, they are merely stories that attempt to explain a selective portion of reality. We create and rely upon theories because they usually work, most of the time, not because they are perfect.

Scientific fundamentalism blinds its adherents in the same way that religious fundamentalism does -- by convincing them that their beliefs are the only correct ones.
Scientific Fundamentalism and Occam's Razor

Don't get me wrong, I am a scientist too. I am also aware that the old razor has its place. However, I am pushing at the fringes and VERY open minded. Anything could turn out to possible. What we think is impossible often turns out to be quite the reverse.

Yes creationists do troll. But so do Darwinists after their own fashion.

In my opinion this would go a long way in improving debate and not just needless mudslinging and that would be the offhand slams of lets say any republican with more than one brain cell would be a yogurt or the old we all know and yada yada yada. And when ask to prove their opinion they have no factual basis for their remarks. Many of the post do not present a sterile presentation but they bring in a bias of my thoughts are better than yours because you are a non thinking homophobic Christian and probable a pedophile too type of mentality. Name calling and comparison without presenting the basis fact of the arugemtnt becomes a us against them.

reply to post by Pimander


*facepalm*

I'm not going to contradict that you're a scientist...but you're clearly not a biologist if you're using the term 'Darwinist', as there isn't a living Darwinist. There might be "neo-Darwinists", which incorporates Mendel's ideas into Darwin's..but even that is a misnomer.

Why are there no "Einsteinians" or "Newtonians" or "Planckists" or "Schroedingarians"?

Oh, it's because creationists don't want to vilify their ideas by using an ad hominem attack, linking the idea with the person rather than the 150 years of study that followed his initial idea.

Oh, and Occam's razor is a heuristic, a rule of thumb. It's something that's used in more initial stages and discarded when there's contradictory evidence.

reply to post by guitarplayer


All I can say is...lol wut?

I'm surprised by this accusation that we're implying that all Christians are homophobic and possibly pedophiles, because the majority of Christians I know aren't pedophiles (actually, I don't know any pedophiles), though there are a significant portion that are homophobic...but it's not the majority.

Examples please?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


madnessinmysoul = Scientific fundamentalism blinds its adherents in the same way that religious fundamentalism does -- by convincing them that their beliefs are the only correct ones.


I perfer Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life


both are accurate representations . What do you say madness?


can we just say evolution is just a silly misunderstanding of adaptation ? hehe j/k lol