Ever notice anything about this forum?

[Jose Fly]

As I've probably said too frequently, I've participated in online debates surrounding evolution and creationism for over a decade. So naturally, I've been a member of all sorts of forums...from ones like this one where the "evolutionists" outnumber the creationists by ~12:1, to ones where the inverse is the norm.

But this place (Religious Forums) is a little unique in one way I struggle with, namely the extremely poor quality of creationists that come here.

Sure, we've all seen our fair share of....well....flaming idiots, for lack of a better term in various forums and settings. This subject seems to attract such folks like few others. But even in other forums where the science advocates hold a clear majority, it isn't unusual to see an occasional creationist who has put at least a little time into the subject, makes at least token attempts to answer questions and address rebuttals, and generally engages in something resembling "debate".

But not here. Here we seem to only get the worst of the worst from the creationists, e.g. hit-n-run posters, trolls, liars, the ignorant, etc.

Why? This is a fairly active forum and comes up early in most Google searches. Is it 'cause we're so damned good that anyone who knows a little about the subject is scared to come here? Nah...although the folks here are impressive, I've been in other forums where the cast is equally credentialed (or moreso), and that never seemed to stop people from coming in.

So what gives with RF? Is it just me? I honestly haven't been looking around too much lately, and perhaps this is just the state of the "debate" nowadays.

 

[Skwim]

Just a thought, and maybe completely irrelevant, but this is not a Christian web site. Perhaps it's the number of diverse religions, which are openly discussed by their members, that puts off creationists. After all, being pretty much fundamentalists and people with little tolerance for opposing religious views, they would more likely congregate with those of their own stripe.

 

[waitasec]

i'm fairly new to this...
this is my 1st and only forum i participate with (other than CNN). honestly if i were to be debating with creationists exclusively...it would cause my blood pressure to rise ::banghead3
...and i sometimes feel as though the ones that do come and "debate" are aware of what they are getting into...some get too emotionally involved and avoid certain topics...or just stop coming around...but like i said i've only been involved for less than a year...
i have also learned a lot from everyone i have had a discourse with

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But this place (Religious Forums) is a little unique in one way I struggle with, namely the extremely poor quality of creationists that come here.

I have a hard time envisioning what a "good quality" creationist would be.

 

[Oneatatime]

Even sophisticated creationists are soon shot down when amongst the scientifically literate which was demonstrated nicely during Kitzmiller vs DASB. The kind who inhabit forums such as these are just an echo of these sophisticated creationists who tend to operate on the front of the varying legal and political approaches to promote their sectarian views.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just a thought, and maybe completely irrelevant, but this is not a Christian web site. Perhaps it's the number of diverse religions, which are openly discussed by their members, that puts off creationists. After all, being pretty much fundamentalists and people with little tolerance for opposing religious views, they would more likely congregate with those of their own stripe.

But we do have creationists here, and at times, several of them. So it's not like we don't get creationists, it's just that we seem to get really, really, really bad ones.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have a hard time envisioning what a "good quality" creationist would be.

Don't immediately run to the other end of the spectrum!

Just because I'm commenting on the extremely poor quality of the creationists here, that doesn't mean I'm wishing for some sort of "good quality creationist" that I've encountered in other places.

Creationists as a whole are generally pretty poor at debating science, no doubt. But it seems the ones who come here don't even really try, nor do they even show any interest in actually debating the subject. Instead, they just show up, preach a bunch of ignorance, refuse to understand anything, ignore most of what gets posted to them, etc. IMO, those sorts of people aren't even worth the time it takes to compose a post.

Believe it or not, I have encountered creationists who at least know a little bit of biology (they don't have to be educated about what a mutation is or how natural selection works), actually answer questions posed to them, and make a decent effort to discuss the subject. Of course in the end they still tend to wave away inconvenient data, change the subject when cornered, and fall back on copy-n-pastes, but at least they're more engaging than the "crazy guy on the street corner" types that seem to frequent RF.

 

[Jose Fly]

Even sophisticated creationists are soon shot down when amongst the scientifically literate which was demonstrated nicely during Kitzmiller vs DASB. The kind who inhabit forums such as these are just an echo of these sophisticated creationists who tend to operate on the front of the varying legal and political approaches to promote their sectarian views.

Agreed, but IMO the creationists here don't even rise to that standard.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Believe it or not, I have encountered creationists who at least know a little bit of biology (they don't have to be educated about what a mutation is or how natural selection works), actually answer questions posed to them, and make a decent effort to discuss the subject. Of course in the end they still tend to wave away inconvenient data, change the subject when cornered, and fall back on copy-n-pastes, but at least they're more engaging than the "crazy guy on the street corner" types that seem to frequent RF.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Honestly, people who show some ability to understand facts and reason, and still end up sticking to irrational positions, are even worse in a way.

 

[Skwim]

But we do have creationists here, and at times, several of them. So it's not like we don't get creationists, it's just that we seem to get really, really, really bad ones.

Oh, I'm not saying we don't have them, just that there may not be enough to constitute a population large enough from which a "good" one may emerge. And maybe there's simply some character difference in the type that comes here and those that don't.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, I'm not saying we don't have them, just that there may not be enough to constitute a population large enough from which a "good" one may emerge.

Well, for whatever it's worth, in my experiences this place does get a fair number of creationists through its doors.

And maybe there's simply some character difference in the type that comes here and those that don't.

And that's what I'm wondering....why?

 

[Thief]

So far I see a definitive bias.

So a good creationist is someone with a 'misconception'.....
and you would have your 'science'....change his mind?

Abandon faith in favor of not believing in God?

I have the impression that faith and religion do press a nod of the head
toward dogma.
And then the scientists come along and 'boo hoo' about 'myths' and
'sky daddy'.

I think it might work better if the so called scientist believed in God....
and endeavored to reconcile faith and science.

As for me....and maybe some of you have been reading my postings....
I believe in God.
I believe in evolution.

The creation story of Genesis is not without merit.
It just lacks the details.

Science would have the believer dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.

That won't happen.

 

[Jose Fly]

So a good creationist is someone with a 'misconception'.....
and you would have your 'science'....change his mind?

Nope. It has nothing at all to do with changing anyone's mind, but instead relates to how a person approaches a subject and behaves in the course of a debate/discussion.

Does that person make a good faith effort to answer questions and address responses, or does he behave more like a guilty defendant on the stand?

Abandon faith in favor of not believing in God?

Who said a single thing about leaving one's faith in gods?

I have the impression that faith and religion do press a nod of the head
toward dogma.
And then the scientists come along and 'boo hoo' about 'myths' and
'sky daddy'.

I think it might work better if the so called scientist believed in God....
and endeavored to reconcile faith and science.

As for me....and maybe some of you have been reading my postings....
I believe in God.
I believe in evolution.

The creation story of Genesis is not without merit.
It just lacks the details.

Science would have the believer dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.

That won't happen.

That's all well and good, but has little to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[McBell]

Science would have the believer dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.

That won't happen.

Seems to me that on this here forum, the "science" would settle simply for the creationists to actually learn.
However, it has been shown that regardless of how many times it is explained to creationists what they got wrong, they still plow full steam ahead merely repeating their false information ad naseum.

So no, it is not that science wants theists to dot their 'i's and cross the 't's, its more like science wanting them to actually learn and stop making complete arse's of themselves by repeating the same bull **** over and over and over.

 

[Thief]

Like I said....
I see a strong bias.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a bias. Towards truth.

 

[painted wolf]

So far I see a definitive bias.

So a good creationist is someone with a 'misconception'.....
and you would have your 'science'....change his mind?

Abandon faith in favor of not believing in God?

I have the impression that faith and religion do press a nod of the head
toward dogma.
And then the scientists come along and 'boo hoo' about 'myths' and
'sky daddy'.

I think it might work better if the so called scientist believed in God....
and endeavored to reconcile faith and science.

As for me....and maybe some of you have been reading my postings....
I believe in God.
I believe in evolution.

The creation story of Genesis is not without merit.
It just lacks the details.

Science would have the believer dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.

That won't happen.

what about me?
I'm a scientist and a person of faith... and I haven't been pressured to drop my faith.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a bias. Towards truth.

Science isn't "truth".
Perhaps we have a prevailing attitude of hostility & hubris which drives away or cows into silence the creationists who
are reasonable & don't want to be flamed. This might leave us with only less sophisticated types who just proselytize
or love a donnybrook. Even the OP is rather insulting towards the creationists here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science isn't "truth".

Are we still talking about Creationism? Because if so, science (Evolutionism) is very much truth, as opposed to the alternative.

Perhaps we have a prevailing attitude of hostility & hubris which drives away or cows into silence the creationists who are reasonable & don't want to be flamed. This might leave us with only less sophisticated types who just proselytize or love a donnybrook. Even the OP is rather insulting towards the creationists here.

What can we do if Creationism is by definition either ignorant or delusional?

 

[Quagmire]

What can we do if Creationism is by definition either ignorant or delusional?

We can hang out in a Religious Education Forum and explore other options.