Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[Subduction Zone]

Then what should one do when someone posts a lie about another member of RF?

I do believe that one can politely point out that that particular post was a lie and repeating it would be lying on purpose. I think that calling someone a "liar" is thought to be above and beyond what is allowed. It crosses over into name calling.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, creationists lie. Some do it on purpose, some merely repeat the lies of others. And most are cowards, at least when it comes to learning. But to keep the boards civil we cannot call a person a liar to his face, even if he is one.

And all that does is provide the creationists a platform where they can lie as much as they like without consequence. I've never been clear on how that's beneficial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And all that does is provide the creationists a platform where they can lie as much as they like without consequence. I've never been clear on how that's beneficial.

As a frequent breaker of the rules and the bans that went with it I can tell you that calling someone a "liar" only angers them and does not advance the argument. Go ahead, identify the lies. Do not call someone a "liar".

 

[ChristineM]

Then what should one do when someone posts a lie about another member of RF?

Report it

 

[Polymath257]

Then what should one do when someone posts a lie about another member of RF?

Report them. Rule 3:

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

 

[ecco]

As a frequent breaker of the rules and the bans that went with it I can tell you that calling someone a "liar" only angers them and does not advance the argument. Go ahead, identify the lies. Do not call someone a "liar".

I empathize and agree. However, shaming someone by pointing out their lies, has no effect on those people. Denial is a big part of their psyche.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I empathize and agree. However, shaming someone by pointing out their lies, has no effect on those people. Denial is a big part of their psyche.

That's true. Often I do this more for those that just observe the posts since there are almost no honest creationist posters. They simply cannot afford to have an honest discussion on evolution. Those that are willing to discuss the topic honestly do not last long as creationists. And we know that most creationists throughout the internet are dishonest trolls at times. They are corrected on their errors, they are shown how their errors are wrong, and then days, weeks or at the most months later, they simply start to recycle their old refuted arguments again.

 

[ecco]

Then what should one do when someone posts a lie about another member of RF?

Report it

Nah. That's akin to tattling. I've only resorted to it once when someone continued to falsly accuse me of something. It really wasn't worth it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And suddenly, there he was.........

......Gone!

I did not know that you were a fan of "Da turdy point buck:.

 

[Ouroboros]

Excerpts from a very long, eye-opener of an article by James Tour.


https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

That's the claim made by one of the leading chemist in the world - James Tour.

World leading chemists... hmm... I always find those kind of epithets a way to bolster a weak claim.

Then the claim is, he doesn't get it. No one can explain it to him. However, I think I understood "macro" evolution quite well from the first year in anthropology. Probably the first month, and it was quite clear. Maybe he's the "leading chemist in the world", but maybe he just not applying his mental capacity enough to understand a fairly simple topic. *shrugs*

In essence, argument from authority, where the authority argues from ignorance. One person. He's world leading chemist. So he must be right. So therefore everyone is who contradicts him, must be wrong. Got it. *rolleyes*

 

[ChristineM]

Nah. That's akin to tattling. I've only resorted to it once when someone continued to falsly accuse me of something. It really wasn't worth it.

Up to you, it saves a lot of agro, warnings and possible bannings. And it is the recommended course.

 

[ecco]

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

That's the claim made by one of the leading chemist in the world - James Tour.

There is another more important claim made by James Tour which one arrives at by reading about nine-tenths of the way through the article...

Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve.

​

Some years ago, I came across a story about a high school sophomore who, like Mr. Tour, disbelieved Evolution. Her reason: "It's all just too incredibly impossible." That pretty well sums up all of Tours objections to ToE. The only difference is, she said it in one concise sentence, your Mr. Tour dragged it out for multiple pages.

Tour's intellectual dishonesty has been discussed in these threads before. He admits it himself eloquently: "faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist".

'Nuff said.

 

[night912]

He is absolutely wrong about "life should not exist."

 

[tas8831]

And all that does is provide the creationists a platform where they can lie as much as they like without consequence. I've never been clear on how that's beneficial.

There is another more important claim made by James Tour which one arrives at by reading about nine-tenths of the way through the article...

Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve.

​

Some years ago, I came across a story about a high school sophomore who, like Mr. Tour, disbelieved Evolution. Her reason: "It's all just too incredibly impossible." That pretty well sums up all of Tours objections to ToE. The only difference is, she said it in one concise sentence, your Mr. Tour dragged it out for multiple pages.

Tour's intellectual dishonesty has been discussed in these threads before. He admits it himself eloquently: "faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist".

'Nuff said.

Ugh...

So, I watched the Gary Hurd interview on Bill Ludlow's YouTube channel a week or so ago, and now every time I go on YouTube, my 'People who Watched Bill Ludlow also watched' and 'Recommended for you' lists have all these idiotic James Tour creationism lectures and Discovery Institute propaganda videos popping up...

 

[tas8831]

And all that does is provide the creationists a platform where they can lie as much as they like without consequence. I've never been clear on how that's beneficial.

I think just calling people liars is unproductive, but in my experience on these forums, if the lie is a documented conclusion - as it almost always is on here - I don't think it is a rule breaker. Just like it is not an ad hominem for demonstrating a poster's ignorance on a topic.

Tale from the crypt - about 12 years ago, I was active on a forum that invited Jon Sarfati to come and 'close down' all the 'evos' who were humiliating the creationist posters there. He showed up and within the first day had violated most of the forum rules - calling people names was his go-to response.
Rather than ban their precious YEC hero, the forum admin decided to change the rules - it was now OK to call names as long as it was justified. And who would determine whether a name was justified? Why the YEC moderators, of course. And for the next few months, their forum was littered with Sarfati posts filled with name-calling directed at anyone that dared counter his assertions.
It was only when he started attacking other creationists that did not share his idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture that the admin finally started giving his suspensions - which he did not like one bit... He was eventually banned.

Point is - Jose is right.

 

[tas8831]

Nah. That's akin to tattling. I've only resorted to it once when someone continued to falsly accuse me of something. It really wasn't worth it.

Because nothing came of it?

 

[exchemist]

I think just calling people liars is unproductive, but in my experience on these forums, if the lie is a documented conclusion - as it almost always is on here - I don't think it is a rule breaker. Just like it is not an ad hominem for demonstrating a poster's ignorance on a topic.

Tale from the crypt - about 12 years ago, I was active on a forum that invited Jon Sarfati to come and 'close down' all the 'evos' who were humiliating the creationist posters there. He showed up and within the first day had violated most of the forum rules - calling people names was his go-to response.
Rather than ban their precious YEC hero, the forum admin decided to change the rules - it was now OK to call names as long as it was justified. And who would determine whether a name was justified? Why the YEC moderators, of course. And for the next few months, their forum was littered with Sarfati posts filled with name-calling directed at anyone that dared counter his assertions.
It was only when he started attacking other creationists that did not share his idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture that the admin finally started giving his suspensions - which he did not like one bit... He was eventually banned.

Point is - Jose is right.

Haha, that sounds familiar. Was that CARM by any chance?

 

[tas8831]

Haha, that sounds familiar. Was that CARM by any chance?

No, it was either TheologyWeb or TheologyForums. I stopped visiting whichever one it was out of disgust when this whole thing went down.

 

[exchemist]

No, it was either TheologyWeb or TheologyForums. I stopped visiting whichever one it was out of disgust when this whole thing went down.

OK thanks I'll know to avoid them, then.

 

[tas8831]

OK thanks I'll know to avoid them, then.

Good choice. I stop by those every 6 months or so, just to see if anything has changed. Nothing has. One of them is infested with a fellow named Jorge Fernandez. He is like usfan with a religious diploma mill degree. Insufferable.