One of the constant issues with moderating this forum is steering between the Scylla and Charybdis of maintaining high quality while allowing broad-ranging discussion.

I've just been asked to approve a post on creationism, and I've provisionally decided that it would lower the tone of the forum, but I'm not confident in my decision.

Which is why I'm asking for feedback. Is a post asking for evidence disproving the Genesis account of creation too far outside the generally accepted bounds of intelligent debate for it to be posted here?

While most Australians would regard it as a silly question, a large proportion of Americans wouldn't. So is it worth debating?

As this post is in the nature of an online poll, please, only short responses, and no discussion which might pre-empt the debate on the post if I ultimately approve it. I'll make a final decision on the moderation after 24 hours.

While it is either going generate lots of hits or none, you know it won't actually achieve anything. Noone will learn and lots of scripture will be quoted.

It's your decision, but just ask yourself: what are you trying to achieve with this site? Will this thread help or hinder that goal?

I personally don't think it will help, and obviously neither do you or you wouldn't have asked us.

Graham, a topic asking for evidence disproving the Genesis version of creation being "too far outside the generally accepted bounds of intellgent debate"? Even science based reasoning should be allowed.

Hmmm, it would probably be a discussion that could fit into the Satire category.
I may or may not contribute but I would certainly read it just for some entertainment.

Discussing creationism would probably evolve in a long thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui42Kdeb2R0

Graham
'Creationism' is well established in Aus too.
albeit at the behest of American based Churches. One of the noteable examples is the 7th day Adventists of which my mum is one.

I think that the topic is a valid even though I don't subscribe.
The only concern I would have is that the issue tends to generate steroid enhanced emotions. Consequently it will need greater editorial control than usual if it's not to degenerate into ad hominemism, gain saying etcrather than my approach of "each to their own"

One wonders why someone wants to raise this topic on a general site?
Beware of wooden horses.

Ultimately It is up to you as to if you think something will be gained by the exchange. Me I don't,being busy (lazy) the extra work would be enough of a final straw to say "why bother?"

Without sounding to be rude or crude or even vulgar, there is no point discussing creationism as it is purely a matter of faith promulgated by church doctrine and dogma. As such there can be neither "proof" nor empirical evidence on the matter. If you asked to disprove creation then we may have a viable thread.

I get a little involved in this. I am both a Christian and a geologist. I can say with confidence that the only possible way to hold the Creation Science position(s) is through untrammelled self-deception. There is no alternative to denying massive geological evidence.
This applies to:
1) The age of the Earth -
2) the immutability of species
3) Noah's Ark/Noah's flood
4) Adam and Eve

And a whole bunch more. Unfortunately, Australia has a solid share of this belief and being wrong on evidence is no obstacle to continuing to hold it. It is a serious waste of time 'debating' creationists, because their own rhetorical trickery is enough to satisfy them that they are right.

From the point of view of 'allowing' debate, if people want to waste their oxygen on this why not let them? With the limits on number of posts, debates here peter out before exceeding disk space or bandwidth limits.

Graham,

No matter what you approve or don't approve, I think that you would
be well aware, that some posters will turn just about any thread
into one mentioning the evils of evolution theory, creationism being
their understanding of the world. Runner is a typical example.
We have more then our share of bible quotes, no matter what the
topic.

Others will turn just about any thread into one about animal
liberation etc. Gertrude specialises in that field.

IMHO, these people just can't help themselves, its how their
brains are wired and what gives them purpose in life.

Fair enough. Between all that there are some fantastic posters,
of great intelligence and its worth trawling through all the
nonsense to read those gems.

The problem with discussing 'evidence' for or against Creationism, is that most of us lack the scientific wherewithall to enter into some of the deeper arguments.

We will get our share of those who promote the Genesis record as literal, I'd be one of them, but my undersanding is pretty broad, and does not try to squeeze it into a very tight mould.

For me, the language of Genesis is more open to science than is usually admitted.

If we can accept this, then a lot of the conflict dissappears.

The most important words of Genesis are the first verse.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

The 2nd vese "Now the earth was without form and empty and darkness was over the deep"

I mean..good grief.. we have a few hundred years of very exhaustive science describing 1000s of processes and activities in physics and biology.. Why do we have to try to disprove the simple theological expression of all that?

I don't think a thread like you mentioned would advance our positions on this much. Just provide an opportunity for a lot of hot, and often passionate, but possibly misinformed air.

Thanks for the chance to comment.
As you know I did not get a thread started recently.
And you got it right I can do much better.
But it falls to you, not us to say what gets into print.
I think we humans have great difficulty talking about this without emotion getting involved.
We in our schooling learn about evolution, and on Sundays learn it is wrong.
Some will forever condemn us for it but increasing numbers believe the first not the second.
Last who's creationism do we propose to debate?
Far more than one religion and creation story exists.
I am for open debate but take no offense if you do not want to take the risk with that subject.
Oh I too understand some just have to have their belief to get by in life.

Very interesting question there Graham(not creationism, but whether or not to censor).

You're right of course, the topic will inevitably degenerate quite quickly, I think that's unavoidable, but where possible I'd always err on the side opposing censorship.

I guess my ideal solution would be for there to be a fourth section at the bottom of the page, below elections. This would be for discussions which have been vetted from a legal standpoint, but with any topic being allowed. Essentially, it would be a mud pit.

From my point of view, it would be an interesting social experiment - will more people be drawn to the baser topics knowing full well why they are in that section? Will they go there despite the fact they're only there due to the controversy and charged issues instead of real debate? Or will they go for the intelligent topics?

Will we see some kind of split? will some people refuse to descend to that level?

Though I guess that requires some site modification, so for the time being, my recommendation would be to allow it, but include a post from a moderator after the initial post, stating that the topic is existing essentially on a trial basis, as ultimately it's not far from simple advertising, albeit of a theological variety.

Graham, not being party to what does not get past the editorial gates I may be misreading this but my impression is that a discussion around the evidence or otherwise of creationism is no worse than much of the other stuff that goes on here.

It's worth remembering that its hard to tell up front what will come from a discussion. Individuals can have productive discussions in the midst of others defending their turf or sometimes get distracted or drowned out by the same.

I value the site in part because the editorial hand appears to be very light and not as far as I can tell based around the editors own likes and dislikes. You publish articles promoting positions which you disagree with, you allow posts to stand which are bluntly critical of yourself and your positions.

There is a balance there which you have to decide upon but unless you want to start much more regular editorial involvement regarding silly comments and personal attacks cutting a thread on creationism because "it would lower the tone of the forum" seems misplaced. Perhaps a read of the recent stream of posts involving SallyG, samsung and Antiseptic (who I consider to be the one under attack) might put the "tone" issue in a different light.

R0bert

Thanks for that Robert. Perhaps you could shoot me a link to what you are talking about with Antiseptic etc.

I guess I've been becoming progressively more sensitised to the issue of how these sites work and what makes them tick. I think we do much better here than most of the mainstream media sites, and also most blogs, but....

When I started OLO I had a vision of spirited, but reasonably polite debate, a bit like you might get at a Liberal Party, or presumably Labor Party, branch meeting. I expected there to be nutters and know-alls, but ultimately a spirit of goodwill and tolerance. It's not necessarily how it has panned out, and I'm wondering whether too laissez faire an approach might have caused that. So I have been tightening up on thread creation for a while.

I'm not sure that asking for "evidence" to disprove the Genesis account will produce anything more than perfectly circular arguments, since the positions taken can only be faith-based, rather than evidence-based.

But it is still an issue, as you rightly point out, in that creationism itself is moving steadily into the political arena.

I'd say, give it a run. Letting some sunlight fall on views other than your own is one of the strengths of this forum.

I think you should have a post written by one of the many scientist that shows how futile and unscientific evolution is. Both creation and evolution are faith based beliefs. Any honest scientist knows at best evolution is a flawed theory. The marginalizing of the creation case is identical to the marginalization of the thousands of scientist that know that the theory of man made gw is unproven and a load of crap. In both cases 'the science is established' and all else are heretics. The only problem is that true science demands true evidence. In both evolution and gw the story continually changes to fit the politically correct dogma of the day. Maybe just maybe you might consider that the many Americans who decide to demand some evidence before swallowing the dogmas of evolution might be a little smarter than you give them credit for.

Graham! Its your site!. Creationism needs to be kept under control, with the conspiracies, to which are quite clear, in what christianties main goal is: they want the whole world to become under their laws. Its not just a belief, its a push of an idea, with political drives, which are not everyone's point of view.etc. I thought Sundays was the for preaching? This site IMO, is for facts! not fiction. I agree there should be a section for religious debate, but not in main stream reality. Religion should be a personal thing between god and ones self, not forcing or conning people to join their world domination.
Higher inter-elects want a site to where one can share ideas for the future of mankind, and not be told that we are evil all the time. Creationists make people feel that we are unworthy of pure existence. They are not sharing, they are forcing, like history has shown us.

Religious fundamentalists are the main causes of world unrest, and its spiraling out of control. Mountains of facts are available!

Creationists V,s evolutionists! This is not the case! Their annoying!
If we keep going around and around with such things of the past, mankind will get no-where! and whats bigger, is the fact that these people don't have a life! They just whinge about the coming of the end.
Like we need that now days.

I would like to see creationists save their energy for church where it belongs, and in the realm,s of reality.

EVO

Who said,"I may not agree with what you say,but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

What the religious folk must realise is that the reality of evolution is neither a confirmation or a denial of spirituality.The universe is far more diverse and subtle than our pathetic homage to an all powerful being.The concept of God eminates from our own insecurities.We have to progress from our philosophies based on fear.

There is censorship, and there is maintaining the standard of debate. When a discussion veers into creationism, it invariably becomes a match between people shouting evidence, and people shouting dogma back.

Unless there is some new, clear evidence which puts the theory of natural selection and adaptation in doubt, I think it's a topic best left to other, religious, discussion sites.

By way of comparison, if you wouldn't post a discussion of this: www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

...then a discussion of creationism isn't appropriate, either.

But I would post something on that Sancho, particularly if it linked to the article you've just linked to. It's a new one on me, and it has just enough touch with reality to make for some interesting debate.

It's a lot more interesting than Creationism, which has to ignore whole swathes of geological evidence. They're actually on to something, although not the thing that I suspect they think they're on to. The "laws" of physics are mostly just observations from which we deduce relationships. There is a mystery at the centre of it all. In a sense they may just be expressing the God of the Gaps theory in another form.

Or maybe not.

Seeing as you're asking, Graham, I think your provisional decision is the correct one. Approving a post on creationism would in my view definitely lower the tone of the forum, in much the same way that approving the articles written by climate change denialists has already done.

I actually think far too much emphasis is given to religion on this site. I doubt it is a subject of high priority in the lives of the majority of readers and posters, and yet, at any one time on OLO, there is always a disproportionately high number of articles and discussions on the subject.

EVO

'They just whinge about the coming of the end.'

Funny how their is a lot more press on global warming (sorry climate change) bringing us to the end than what the vast majority of Christians talk about. The earth worshipers speak of the evil men (usually white Europeans) who have done so much damage to this planet that it can't survive. Yesterdays West reported how thousands of houses are going to be swallowed up in Perth by rising sea levels. If anyone wants to sell one cheaply now please let me know. This sort of stupidity is the so called 'science' that is being indoctrinated into kids attending State schools (and some private). When I was at school it was the coming ice age that was going to bring us down. Anyone challenging this crap certainly was not given a hearing on ABC and was branded a heretic. The Greens and their blind followers are the biggest scare mongers on this planet. A lot of this garbage is swallowed because many choose not to believe in the obvious (their Creator) who one day they will answer to. Many non Christians how commented on how much of a fraud evolution is.

Well said runner.

Many who uplift science as the great power and the great direction above and away from Gods Word, are little more than those who cast the bones to tell the future.
The Genesis account is a solid, reliable description of what God Has done.
Men dont want to believe The Word because it speaks of sin and its consequences; and encourages a submission to God and not man doing his own thing...so they in their thrashing around in their ignorance and primitive ways, they shut it out of their minds.

The evidence of mans failure, as you said, is Global Warming.
We build the great technolgical revolution and we rape the planet to feed it!
Im glad God will soon step in and bring an end to the rape.

What Bronwyn said. Both religion and its more passionate adherents are already over represented here. We're already treated to a biblical take on everything from politics to potatoes. And we already know that discussion of religion invariably descends into a pooh fight. The proposed article asks for evidence, but we already know any evidence would be buried in a slanging match.

There's a strong possibility that these things discourage potential commenters from participating, and that's not good for the site.

I hope you're listening Graham. Our lefty mates don't like any competing ratbaggery on here. You must stop the god lovers having a say, even if they are rational.

Meanwhile, you're letting a few rational folk, interfere with those computer geeks who gave us the Y2K scam, developing their new one, with global warming. After all, they need something to replace all those lovely, highly rewarding, jobs they lost at the turn of the century.

Our lefties love this one, as it suites their dream of self flagellation for the human race, so would you please ban any thing approaching rational posts on these subjects.

Dear Graham,

I say, "Go for it!"

What have you got to lose?

It may prove to be an interesting thread with
a wide variety of explanations from religious,
to modern theories (Scientific Creationism).

You've always welcomed all sides of any discussion,
why fear this one? It can't be any worse than some
of the threads we've already had to put up with.

"You'll never, never know, if you don't..."

Please don't allow religion on this forum.
It is just emotional nonsense,nothing useful comes of it.
Why doesn't god tell us how to fix global warming?.
Because he does not exist ,that is why.

Undiddy.
We made the mess and we also failed to take the problem to God...so it compounded. I havent heard of anyone who prays about it. Many christians have also accepted that the final story of the planet is Written in the Book of Revelation.

Sorry.
Your name is Undidly.

Graham

I can not see any real benefit in discussing Creationism because it will likely spiral into a debate between "Intelligent Design" and Science (they are mutually exclusive).

Your call.

Dear Graham,

My final say...

"The world is full of mysteries,
Some large, and some quite small.
It will take a lifetime,
To solve them, if at all.

Discussing things is useful,
That, scholars say is true.
It broadens our perspective,
Our narrow point of view.

Some of us may wonder,
Is discussion worth a fight?
But how else will we ever learn,
That we're not always right?"

My observations on creation are very basic and creation wins every time . Creation Says everything reproduces after its own kind and everything I have witnessed in my lifetime reanforces that . Evolution says after the passing of much time superior organisms evolve eg chemical slime to man . I only have 1 life time and I am not going to waste it wondering what sort of decendants I will have in 1 million years if evoluthion is true.Religion is belief systems and evolution is part of the hindu religion . People don't object to religion with its rules and regulations but they object very strongly to relationship with Jesus .

Well, well ,well! I may have to "brake" it down in secondary simplistics. Graham! its a lovely little community with such a strong heartiness, with the most deterimed in-sights to what the causes are for human existence.

Without fuel for fire, there is no cause! and the in-sights for mankind will stop. ( check mate ) this is not good. Baby boots, is still the picture for common moral.

I have no hate for anyone here. Runner gibo David, are more than welcome here, and I think they have their right to think what they will.

Until the human race has found the truth, the debate must go on! No words will change anyone, just like the 1920,s: (its just another day in history, and nothing more), and correlation of thinking will slowly bring about the unity of the human species.

This is a work station! and if we meet in the streets, the best of us will reach-out with the best of common humanity. To be too serious without hard evidence is reckless! we all might be wrong. Lets proceded forward with the... of our thoughts, or the definition of debate will become moot!
I believe, if you put something here that is far out! you must take the consequences, and learn from it.
I have been shot-down many times, and people have been tolerant when i have pushed them to the edge, or have said something stupid.
There is no right or wrong, and many don't realize, we are all making history at this very moment.
There is not much point of debating with closed minds. (I believe there are indigenous humanoid species to the earth and something far more out-side our realm's of rational thinking. Evolution+god equals something else that is helping us.) This is just example of pondering, and this is why we are here! to find the truth.

Have Passions, but don't take it to heart.

I don't give a.... what you believe in, but I respect you.

EV

I agree with chainsmoker

"...The proposed article asks for evidence, but we already know any evidence would be buried in a slanging match..."

I'd add that any 'evidence' that would be put up by the creationists has already been discredited and refuted by scientific fact, but that won't stop the bible thumpers from quoting their faith based belief.

Evidence vs faith, do you see the problem? There can't be many replies to this question (or is it the same old religion argument disguised as a question), because there is no evidence, only faith.

*Creation Says everything reproduces after its own kind and everything I have witnessed in my lifetime reanforces that *

Graham, after reading that comment, I can only conclude that you
should let them have their say. There have been worse threads in
the General section :).

What the Richies, Gibos and runners will have to prove, is that
dna does not mutate. As we know, dna codes for genes and genes
is what species are all about.

Clearly none of them is involved in agriculture, where the problems
of dna mutation exist every day and are faced by those in the
industry.

The pesticide industry develops new herbicides, insecticides etc
and hundred of billions of specimens are destroyed. Along comes
one mutation and we are back to square one.Evolution in action!

Clearly this it not so, according to the religious, so let them
have their say.

If nothing else this thread proves the proposed thread would be interesting if untidy.
We do debate religion here often in threads not intended to take that turn.
Some who have posted seem to miss the question asked here but mostly we stayed on track.
No one can answer it for you Graham in the end you must run with your own thoughts.

Well well well....

UNDIDLY puts his foot in it. Kaaaaa-SPLOOOSH... yuk... *wipes of dirty substance from shoes*

"Please don't allow religion on this forum.
It is just emotional nonsense,nothing useful comes of it.
Why doesn't god tell us how to fix global warming?."

DIDLY.. God DID tell us how to fix it. II Chronicles 7:14

"If my people
who are called by my name
will HUMBLE themselves.... and pray..and... seek my face..

THEN... will I hear from heaven and heal their land"

It is humility which counteracts the rapacious greed which is driving Global Warming.

Pericles says it's all about faith.. indeed it is.. but it's not lack of evidence one way or the other.. it is that the EVIDENCE which is there, is interpreted by FAITH by scientists of both the atheistic and believing kind.

OK I'm going to post the thread, with a link to this discussion. But I've got a limited appetite for it, and I think the generaly consensus is that most do, so anyone interested in the issue should get into the thread when it goes up!

I'd also appreciate it if we killed this thread off, but I guess that won't happen for a while yet.

“OK I'm going to post the thread, with a link to this discussion. But I've got a limited appetite for it, and I think the generaly consensus is that most do, so anyone interested in the issue should get into the thread when it goes up!

I'd also appreciate it if we killed this thread off, but I guess that won't happen for a while yet."

I can understand why some may think that these comments are from one who is ‘torn’.

GrahamY:"I'm wondering whether too laissez faire an approach might have caused that."

I don't think so, Graham. On the whole, the forum is remarkably free from personal rancour (there is some, probably unavoidably), while vigorous and often well-informed debate is consistently produced.

Whether we agree or not with the views of others, as long as we are able to express our own views on those topics we find interesting, I can't see that the site is doing anything other than achieving its aim. There was once a fine tradition of public oratory and debate in this country and others, which has sadly waned as other forms of communication have taken hold. I see OLO as a modern version, allowing debate on a wide variety of interesting topics. One of the great virtues of such a system is that it exposes the holder of views to critique that would be unlikely in a more homogenous group. Speaking for myself, that has been a very good thing, forcing me to examine some of the basic concepts underlying my views and in some cases, modifying them.

OTOH, some subjects have been done to death and there seems little point revisiting them. I'm glad I'm not he moderator.

palimpsest,

2.7 degrees Kelvin. Redshift. Stratified Carbon-14 dating. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Plate tectonics. Evidence of an intelligent alternative to Genesis?

What was created c. 4004 BCE were the first city-states. Before that time, lore would have dominated early forms of wtiting. Mnemonics would have been employed to aid in recall and the transmission of stories: It would be very interesting Adam lived to be 47 and snakes didn't talk.

Oops:

It would NOT be very interesting Adam lived to be 47 and snakes didn't talk. Sorry.

O.

Dear Graham,

I have been an editor. As an editor you are an autocrat and have complete authority to decide what you want to publish or not. However, it is nice of you to ask.

If I were submitted a piece I would simply ask myself if it is worth publishing considering content, nature of the readers, quality of writing and whether it is repetitious of other material published. Considering the last item I would reject the piece as there has been too much comment in that area already. That is a subjective judgment on my part. You have to make your own.

Graham,

"Is a post asking for evidence disproving the Genesis account of creation too far outside the generally accepted bounds of intelligent debate for it to be posted here?"

My answer Yes. But, since you will go ahead anyway, please let the initial post be at least articulate and free from cliche.

"While most Australians would regard it as a silly question, a large proportion of Americans wouldn't. So is it worth debating?"

My answer: No. The two sentences have no necessary connection, but I doubt we'll see a 'debate'. It's likely to degenerate into barrage and counter-barrage.

Creationism would be hard to debate on OLO, as perhaps, we wont find anyone who beleives in it.

The notion, that natural processes cannot bring about the Universe and humans, is linked to the determinism as a philosophical concept.
The idea that a god, with free wil created the Universe and Humanity (e.g., Adam & Eve), rather than physical processes, such as the second law of thermodynamics, the fusion of elements (in stars) and evolution and DNA, is evident with Creationist thought.

In way, I guess, Creationism has some commonality with the Crystal Sheres, wherein, space was/is believed by Christians to be the supernatural realm (the heavens) and Earth has a special place, detached from it. Creationism is the dynamic cousin to the Crystal Sheres.

Both Creation and the Crystal Sheres adhere to the the anthromorphic principle. Herein, Christians believe that the Laws of the Universe are different for us, our little planet is held special and humans are to not a product of evolution and ecology and DNA. We are not held a planet of a common third generation spectral "G" star and not primates. We are held by them to have been created by god in His image and according to His calandar.

Resistance to the "natural" is to be expected, from those, whom identify themselves with the supernatural.

Spikey,
"While most Australians would regard it as a silly question"

Quite right.I am Australian and confirm that most Australians regard
anything to do with religion as very silly indeed.

We also think that many Americans are very silly.

somehow i feel Graham is getting his discussion without ever actually posting his article - emerging slowly as it is from the primordial soup!

I agree with the sentiments of many posters that this forum is hardly able to cope with assessing the quality of scientific arguments for and against old earth/young earth and it would soon degenerate into 'pooh' slinging.

a related topic of some interest that has been raised already is the 'subjective element' of science.

Science as i understand it is great at examining reproducable events but can struggle with 'phenomena' and 'history'. Scientists are great at manipulating stats to acheive desired outcomes, it isn't neccessarily objective. (VIOXX anyone?) So even reprodable events aren't immune to bias. Reproducable events however can be studied by someone else and the data re-processed leading to a more accurate assessment and we place tremendous confidence in its acheivements.

When it comes to recent history you have written subjective records from particular viewpoints and archeology which isn't quite as objective as reproducable science due to the biases of the archeologist and their interpretation of what they see. And that is just looking at recent history!

Does science become more vulnerable to subjective influences the further back it attempts to look?

McFly,

You say: "somehow i feel Graham is getting his discussion without ever actually posting his article - emerging slowly as it is from the primordial soup!"

I for one assumed the item in question was the forum discussion that followed under the title: "Any evidence that the Bible Genesis account isnt the truth?"http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2236

Actually the discussion that GrahamY started was more interesting and helpful than that the one that followed.

I was very interested in Graham's comment: "When I started OLO I had a vision of spirited, but reasonably polite debate, a bit like you might get at a Liberal Party, or presumably Labor Party, branch meeting. I expected there to be nutters and know-alls, but ultimately a spirit of goodwill and tolerance. It's not necessarily how it has panned out, and I'm wondering whether too laissez faire an approach might have caused that."

In the end, Graham decided: "OK I'm going to post the thread, with a link to this discussion. But I've got a limited appetite for it, and I think the generaly consensus is that most do, so anyone interested in the issue should get into the thread when it goes up!

I'd also appreciate it if we killed this thread off, but I guess that won't happen for a while yet."

We proved his point!

Because, McFly, if 2+2=4 today, it's reasonable to assume that it did 2000 years ago.

Also, what's being argued is not that science is absolutely correct about the origins of the universe, but that if it's incorrect about any detail, then Genesis must be the only possible alternative.

Interestingly, mathematicians theorise that mathematical rules begin to break down when applied to astronomical sums, but exactly what rules DO apply is unknown.

But using creationist reasoning, if 3 trillion gazillion + 3 trillion gazillion doesn't necessarily equal 6 trillion gazillion, then it must equal the colour blue, a soccer match, and fifteen Toyota Landruisers, if that's what my religion's holy book says.

I think this sums up the argument rather nicely.

http://shoutwire.com/fullpicture/faithscience_jpg8700d32d-3501-4251-8284-e2d2024e5a44.jpg

I understand it's too late for my vote to make a difference, but no, we shouldn't debate it because yes, it does decrease the credibility of this site.

These kinds of debate are the reason I rarely visit anymore.

It's all going tremendously well so far. The majority of the thread is the usual slanging match with side servings of witchcraft and the odd reference to fossils and sediment. Pretty much business as usual.

The general forum is the only one I'm aware of that operates this way, where the excellent idea of letting participants start their own topics is negated and devalued by the participants themselves. It's a terrible shame.

Having allowed this creationist experimental thread, is it possible to consider a moratorium on any religious reference whatsoever for, say, a fortnight, to see whether the situation improves? Or perhaps ban all atheists for a fortnight and see how that pans out?

McFly,

Both scientists and historians accept the notion of the possibility of error. Constructs are held tentatively and retested and held to be falsifiable. Individuals' pride aside, scientists ideally agree to justifiable paradigm shifts (Kuhn, Popper). Christian religionists don't, about the kernel belief that god "created" the universe and life. [However, I guess religions do evolve. The gods of Abraham, Moses & Paul/Nicaea (Jesus), are different constructs.]

As I mentioned in above, creation myths in religion, have much to with the idea of a god's "free will" to create things, whereas the universe being subject to the laws of physics is deterministic.

- Regarding Genesis: Why would an omnipotent god need to rest?

Organisms rest (and eat) because they need re-constitute having encountered the second law of thermodynamics. If a god is subject to experiencing an increase in entropy, said god is playing in the orchestra, rather than being the conductor of a fundamental physical process. Can said god, be a god,if its state of entropy is "determined" by external laws?

yeah a debate is a pain

especially one based on faith [as if however you chose what you believe after carefull study can be changed in a single post] those who have faith god [or faith in science] believe as they chose

but
THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO CHOSE

its all about what we chose to believe ,

i feel the 'debate' needs to be divided into its sub headings

like no xtians can quote the bible [re the 7000 earth years; its not in the bible [its presumed] as if any day is a day equally for man [or god]
[primatives measure today yesterday and tomorrow ,a moon or a season [science 'measures' in light years and theories [each needs its own SUBHEADING buzz word ]

so we need intelligent design DEBAIT, and natural s-election ,evolve [ie the meanings behind the name to be agreeable solidified [PROVEN}or disproven [like 'strawman' or the first 'life' that 'evolved'[when the science PROVES we devolve]to maintain a species norm [wildtype]

on the personal i studied the science [then the religion]

i proved science cant EVEN make ITS OWN living cell [let alone evolved it] [thus the THEORY of evolving [and 'intermediates' /missing links

[that somehow DONT egsist nor survive ;NOT A SINGLE ONE]despite via natural selection [whatever that natural OR selection may define SCIENTIFICly]and despite SUPPOSEDLY [theoreticlly , being higher evolutions]

so must by topic must be debated via its terms being clarified
and defined [as to what segments or starting point is of course [as usual] at the whim of the editor]

till i see science MAKE [evolve ] its own life , i will presume the TRUE cause of our creations [gifts of living] to be by powers ABOUVE that of scientrysts ;the gene counters [or theorists] ;

cosmic natural select science and the aithiests who support any theory that removes god [and morals ] from their systems and material lives

dear wobbles
simp-listic link
its typical of athiests [using science]

[as the link remains in this debate it must be replied]
i shall not be as peter was found wanting]
to wit perform an experiment [we who believe call that 'test'[experiment prayer ;till you tried it with a pure heart it dont work

we believers have tested [performed BILLIONS of experimentsin hundreds of beliefs pointing at the same god]

WE PROVED THAT the evidence does support the idea

and yes further theories were created[each formed its own speciality ;like blind men feeling an eliphant
WE TESTED and founf a bit of the elephant in the room bro

believe it or not science DOPNT do charity
but believers charity HAS led to better understandings [too]

we discovered many sciences [math astronomy[mendelism ,writing books
hey bro science HAS the runs on the boards [religions founded education ,exploraTION ,charity , money ,its roots bro COMES from these many BELIEF systems [even govt uses the lords prayer ,law uses the HIGHEST [local] religious text[aithiests seek to bring down govt/law?

can the theory be modified
has been hundreds of vtimes bro
we had revolutions as god explained MANY other theories

and yes now we ALL get a bit closer to knowing the allness of the light giving life [the one true life giver]

but bro believe as your natural selectivity allows
cheers
so we agree on the first two points [of your link]

start and get an idea
then the aithiest reveals itself [via how it expresses its idea [fruits]

one under god,
That's the whole point of this debate - science versus faith.

Show me the scientific proof that prayer actually works and I'll reconsider, otherwise it's no more than wishful thinking and random coincidence. It's the same sort of thing that virgins were thrown into volcanos for in the past, as a way of ensuring better crops.Not because of science but because of faith. It's why we cross our fingers and make wishes.

As for religions "founding" things -

Education? - The children of Roman slaves were educated because they would be of more value to society as slaves or citizens. That ended after Constantine when the churches burned down many schools and libraries.
The entire medieval period was one where the Church oppressed education and literacy so the priest class could keep the power of knowledge to themselves.
Heretics (like Galileo) were excommunicated because they believed in science, despite being proven correct.

Discovery? - More like exploration for reasons of conquest.
Like an African once said "When they came, we had the land and they had the Bibles. We closed our eyes to pray. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bibles".

Money? - Paper money was used by the early Chinese and cheques and some related banking systems were developed by Muslims as a way of more efficient trade - not for any religious reason but for reasons of commerce.

What are the creation "theories" that have been changed and modified over the years? Even one example will do.

wobbles>quote'point of this debate - science versus faith'

no bro this is about framing a debate [or not]

see that BOTH are beliefs
[even the faulse belief is yet belief [be it by belief of science deceptions or believing relgions mistakes] [even a beast knows the voice of his master][good/god/light/life OR vile drakness ,war and death

to reply your last point ,
see that a flat earth [creation]was deneyed but by acknowlegment [by the pope] has changed [the 7000 year/day thing changed]

im not a religionist so let them add the changes [but undenieably there have been many[if only via scism [dividing christs house]some even think the son to be the father

but we are drifting from the topic [wether to have the debate]
im trying to say we need to define the different facits of all[both sides are half right half wrong]

i was created BY my mother
i was given life by god
all parents create their children

[words are slippery like good comes from god [god is the only good
and the only life giver]

i may not have replied to all your points [but that isnt the point of these posts [on wether to debate the topic or not]

i say break this huge problem down ;define meanings behind the buzz words

list the first life [then evolve that bacteria [or whatever] into a insect [or whatever]then explain via dna , how this dna found a matching pair [mutations are random ,but corrected by our duplicated genes[resulting in genetic stasis within the species and micro evolution WITHIN the species

all darwins finches WERE yet finches
maCRO EVOLUTION
[into another species]
IS THE DECEPTION

Since you're talking about buzz words, I notice you employ "micro-evolution". That's a made-up term that no-one uses except creationists.

If a wolf can "micro-evolve" into a Pomeranian, why wouldn't apes "macro-evolve" into humans. Oh, that's right - it would upset the ego of people who need to believe that god made them special.

wobbles and one under god,

The Vatican recognized that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system in 1992, stating Galilieo was right after all. Every good thing in its time. :-)

You are correct, of cause; Christians destoyed th daughter library to the Library of Alexander along with its huge collections, going back to at least the time of Ramases II. Actually, Cgristians had be a problem to Romans going bck centuries before Constantine, as I have mentioned, in an old thread, because, they would go sin feasts before committing to adult baptism.

In the late fourth century to good, innocent folk, manic Christians must have seemed to be like the Taliban is today or General Monk in in the time of Cromwell.

Oliver! I tried a banana once' it was very overrated:)

EVO

Oliver! Are we alone? I am 41 religions. Again! I am a planet hunter.
I know what god is. Follow the white rabbit!

When a screen is haft loaded, STOP! there's a bar code! Mathematical\english!

A friend of mine said to run this.

Have fun.

EVO

Its a Riddle! It doesn't make much sense to me, but iam sure god exists. SMILE.

EVO

dear sanches google micro evolution my bro
31 million results

not bad for a buzz word

here i downloaded some learning for you

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species

while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with.

The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed.

Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible.

Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins [that science has not achieved ,.nor verified

[in its two hundred year folly]

a theory is not a science
but please dont generalise

NAME the first cell
then mutate it into the next evolution
replicate it [then claim a science]

but science CANT even make its own cell membrane
[let alone 'evolved it]

explain how a cell formed from nothing SCIENTIFICILY

[with just the right balance of the 20 basic things ESSENTIAL to life]as well as the dna and nuclious ,cell membrane to the grey streak

REPLICATE or lack of proof condems your theory fraud