Lady Florida. Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I didn't watch the debate because I'm not partial to either of those guys, but I did read some of the post comments on this board. I do subscribe to this newsletter and found their reflections of the debate interesting. If you disdain ID or the creation viewpoint, please don't bother wasting your time reading this. If, however, you have an open mind and like to explore various theories, you may find this interesting: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/the_ham-nye_deb081911.html I quoted the entire OP.. She does not ask anyone to refrain from posting, only suggests that some might not want to read the linked article. Except that the OP clearly asked that those who don't believe in creationism to desist from posting No, she didn't. Please read the OP or look at my quote above. I'm not singling you out milovany, as there were other posters who said something similar. I just grabbed one post to quote and it happened to be yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Mature adults should also be able to hear opinions they don't like. The OP asks people who don't have her viewpoint to not bother reading the link. I think it is silly to expect to fully control the flow of a thread posted in a very mixed forum. There are plenty of places that people can talk into an echo chamber if they wish. Katie, I addressed that above in #1. It can happen, it has happened, and it's nice when it does. I've learned more about different world views on this board -- through polite, respectful threads where no one is trying to prove someone else wrong and especially not implying those with opposing beliefs are pretty out there -- and I'm thankful for that. Threads like this just leave me shaking my head. Why not respect the stated/implied wishes of another? I just don't get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I quoted the entire OP.. She does not ask anyone to refrain from posting, only suggests that some might not want to read the linked article. No, she didn't. Please read the OP or look at my quote above. I'm not singling you out milovany, as there were other posters who said something similar. I just grabbed one post to quote and it happened to be yours. I understand, FL mom, but I've also said more than once that one can infer that she preferred that those who have disdain toward creationism not post because if they don't read (which she did say), they can't really post knowledgeably on what was linked, and the question/thread was about the link. So it's implied pretty clearly that those with disdain toward creationism not post. It's not a big stretch. Whatever, though. I understand that sometimes people feel the need to state what they believe about something over and over. I've done it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I don't think she was requesting an echo chamber. I think she was requesting that anyone with *disdain* for the creationist/theist POV refrain from posting. People refused to honor that request and almost immediately posted something full of disdain for the creationist POV. It is extremely rude. It is just as rude as people saying atheists have no morals or any of that other junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I quoted the entire OP.. She does not ask anyone to refrain from posting, only suggests that some might not want to read the linked article.Disagree. "If you disdain ID or the creation viewpoint, please don't bother wasting your time reading this." That is an imperative sentence. It is a request that those *with disdain* for the opposing viewpoint (not just those who disagree) refrain from reading (and one can infer from posting about) the thread and/or link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 :iagree: :iagree: :iagree: Disagreement isn't the problem. The insinuation that those who disagree with you are complete morons is the problem. And that kind of attitude often goes both ways in this kind of discussion, so I'm not picking on either side. Many people can disagree respectfully and still manage to get their points across. The snide comments serve no purpose other than to upset people, and aside from being unnecessary, I am pretty sure they also violate forum rules. I don't care whether or not anyone here believes in creation or evolution or that we are all descended from aliens from outer space. It doesn't matter to me. What does matter is when I see people I like (on both sides of the argument) being treated like they are clueless, dimwitted, and uneducated if they believe in creation -- or that they are evil and will end up with a window seat on the bus to Hell if they believe in evolution. Both arguments are just plain ridiculous, and more than that, they are mean, yet many threads on this topic have ended up being locked by the moderators for just that reason. Well said. I don't think she was requesting an echo chamber. I think she was requesting that anyone with *disdain* for the creationist/theist POV refrain from posting. People refused to honor that request and almost immediately posted something full of disdain for the creationist POV. It is extremely rude. It is just as rude as people saying atheists have no morals or any of that other junk. Yes. Disagree. "If you disdain ID or the creation viewpoint, please don't bother wasting your time reading this." That is an imperative sentence. It is a request that those *with disdain* for the opposing viewpoint (not just those who disagree) refrain from reading (and one can infer from posting about) the thread and/or link. This, too. I have had many discussions in my life with people of diametrically opposing viewpoints to mine, where we were not trying to prove the other wrong, or imply they are stupid or uneducated, but simply to share our views and come to a better understanding. I had really hoped that the people who would choose to post here might actually do that, but too many just don't seem able. And that is a shame. Bowing out now. Appreciate others who also tried to help the OP keep this thread moving in a positive not a negative direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wow. Almost an entire thread dedicated to deciphering the meaning of the original poster. :lol: FWIW, I did not think it was a JAWM. I thought it was a friendly heads-up that if you are not creationist this will not be your cuppa. I guess we may never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Woohoo! I just deployed the filters! Oh happy day! Thanks to whoever it was who made that suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wow. Almost an entire thread dedicated to deciphering the meaning of the original poster. :lol: FWIW, I did not think it was a JAWM. I thought it was a friendly heads-up that if you are not creationist this will not be your cuppa. I guess we may never know... Why not? Did you read the OP's follow-up posts at #12 and #41? Her intent is hardly a great mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Why not? Did you read the OP's follow-up posts at #12 and #41? Her intent is hardly a great mystery. True, of course she posted that well after the OP> One would have thought if that was really her intent at the time she would have been more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnificent_baby Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Mature adults should also be able to hear opinions they don't like. The OP asks people who don't have her viewpoint to not bother reading the link. I think it is silly to expect to fully control the flow of a thread posted in a very mixed forum. There are plenty of places that people can talk into an echo chamber if they wish. And FWIW, anyone thinking that I am militant about anything, much less this is off the mark. I am not an anti-thiest by any stretch of the imagination. I even planned to be a nun at one point. I agree with your first line. Except, that's not what happens (from what I've seen) with threads regarding Ham. I recall a cartoon of a dinosaur eating a watermelon followed by numerous exaggerated statements such as 'I just spit pop at my computer', 'funniest thing I've seen all week', 'I can't believe people actually believe that', etc. etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I agree with your first line. Except, that's not what happens (from what I've seen) with threads regarding Ham. I recall a cartoon of a dinosaur eating a watermelon followed by numerous exaggerated statements such as 'I just spit pop at my computer', 'funniest thing I've seen all week', 'I can't believe people actually believe that', etc. etc. etc. Some of those ideas are really far out of the norm and really far away from scientific thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Why not? Did you read the OP's follow-up posts at #12 and #41? Her intent is hardly a great mystery. I guess I did miss #12, but I was actually thinking about #41 when I posted. Somebody asked her to clarify her intent with this thread, but she declined. I hoped she would clarify because I am a Christian who accepts science. I didn't know if she wanted my input or not and I still am not sure. Not that it matters at this point... I was mostly being silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I agree with your first line. Except, that's not what happens (from what I've seen) with threads regarding Ham. I recall a cartoon of a dinosaur eating a watermelon followed by numerous exaggerated statements such as 'I just spit pop at my computer', 'funniest thing I've seen all week', 'I can't believe people actually believe that', etc. etc. etc. Come on. It was a picture of a T-Rex eating a watermelon (I believe it was even using its stubby little arms.) If that doesn't make you spit pop up I don't know what will. You shouldn't be upset at those of us who laughed at it. You should be upset at Ken Ham putting something like that out in the public sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I agree with your first line. Except, that's not what happens (from what I've seen) with threads regarding Ham. I recall a cartoon of a dinosaur eating a watermelon followed by numerous exaggerated statements such as 'I just spit pop at my computer', 'funniest thing I've seen all week', 'I can't believe people actually believe that', etc. etc. etc. When people poke fun at leaders that I agree with, I often see the humor too. Humor towards a public figure is not a personal attack of people who share that leader's general opinions. My favorite comedians are a team who often make considerable, side-spliting light of a person I voted for and would support again. We have to be able to laugh at things we both agree and disagree with. If you think that I am personally unkind to Ham, you should see what I have to say about Dawkins and Hillary Clinton. :lol: It is solid comic gold to assert that t-rexes were ever vegetarians or capable of holding something in their claws and eating it. We have their fossilized fecal matter (coprolites). We know full well what they ate. It wasn't ancient watermelons. We have their bones and can see plainly that the watermelon picture is at best an incorrect hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 People care about not letting scientific ignorance slide because this is a home education forum. I'm sure everyone here is deeply invested in a great education for children. I learn a lot about science from the very literate parents here. YEC isn't scientifically literate. People care about that because they care about children getting a solid science education. Now, if this was a crochet forum, no-one would care about your understanding of science. It isn't about hating on Christians or imposing materialism. It's about a passion for education and I'm sure all of us can understand that. Do you think statements like this: "The quote that summed up the debate to me (and bear in mind I am on the side of science here) is the following: Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over all the pieces, defecates on the board and then flies home to its flock to declare victory. (source unknown)" are conducive to the sorts of discussions that change minds? I do not. Therefore, another reason exists for *that type* of statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewb Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Since you put my quote out there I will answer. I was not trying to change the mind of anyone. That quote is my thought on the matter. No matter what evidence is produced there will be no changing Hamm's mind. The same way I will never change the mind of an extreme pro-lifer, a toe the party line Republican and/or Democrat, a tea partier, or any other extreme view. The conversation/debate will be the equivalent of playing chess with a pigeon. Since you believe there is another reason for these types of comments please enlighten me as to what you think that reason is. Do you believe it is to stir up controversy? To demean someone else's beliefs? To make the sayer sound elitest? Just to be a troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Since you put my quote out there I will answer. I was not trying to change the mind of anyone. That quote is my thought on the matter. No matter what evidence is produced there will be no changing Hamm's mind. The same way I will never change the mind of an extreme pro-lifer, a toe the party line Republican and/or Democrat, a tea partier, or any other extreme view. The conversation/debate will be the equivalent of playing chess with a pigeon. The OP wasn't asking about opinions on the debate and specifically said that she didn't even watch it. Do you not think it shows disdain for the creationist POV? Do you not think it was rude to post since the OP asked people with disdain for the creationist POV to refrain from the thread? Ken Ham doesn't post here. Changing his mind is irrelevant. And I don't pretend to know what the reason was, but you admit it wasn't to have a productive discussion. So, what was it, you tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's a slippery slope when one tries to attribute motive. One might ask about the motives behind starting this thread. I didn't assign motive. I asked what the motives were. The OP SAID what her motives were, to share information with like minded people or at least people who can exchange information without disdain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 These are education forums. People should expect to be educated about science here, not to be confirmed in their misunderstandings. In what way does the post I quoted educate anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 These are education forums. People should expect to be educated about science here, not to be confirmed in their misunderstandings. You are fairly new here, I think. Maybe you haven't read the community guidelines? They include this statement: Do not assume that everyone on the boards shares a particular religious conviction These boards are inclusive. You are welcome to ask theological questions, but don't post as though everyone who frequents the boards shares your ideology. Offending posts may be deleted. Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball. (Conversely: if someone posts, "We don't do Halloween; what can we substitute?" don't take this as an opportunity to prove to them that Halloween is really just fine.) They also include these statements: Be humble Post your opinions and your experiences, but remember that other families may have different experiences than yours and may reason their way with impeccable logic to different conclusions. Posts which "lay down the law" may be deleted. Be civil Don't attack another poster's background, religious convictions, experience, or parenting style. Above all, resist the one-liner subject-header put-down. Nasty cracks will be deleted. You can read the rest of them here: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Since you believe there is another reason for these types of comments please enlighten me as to what you think that reason is. Do you believe it is to stir up controversy? To demean someone else's beliefs? To make the sayer sound elitest? Just to be a troll? What was your reason for comparing a creationist to a pigeon pooping on a chess board if not to demean others' beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Tolerance means that no one will beat you or throw you in jail or criminalize your opinions. Wow. I guess I feel so tolerated since I have yet to be beaten or jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewb Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The OP wasn't asking about opinions on the debate and specifically said that she didn't even watch it. Do you not think it shows disdain for the creationist POV? Do you not think it was rude to post since the OP asked people with disdain for the creationist POV to refrain from the thread? Ken Ham doesn't post here. Changing his mind is irrelevant. And I don't pretend to know what the reason was, but you admit it wasn't to have a productive discussion. So, what was it, you tell us. I believe I already answered you. I posted it because those are my feelings on debating the issue with a creationist such as Ham. There is nothing productive about it. There will be nothing gained or lost in the exchange. There is no mind changing. You can replace creationist with any extremely held opinion and it will still be the equivalent of playing chess with a pigeon. My comment was not intended to demean, show contempt, disdain, negative adj. of your choice for anyone holding a creationist pov. It was intended to show the absurdity of debating with a fanatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wow. I guess I feel so tolerated since I have yet to be beaten or jailed. DH says that is how he feels at my family reunions. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Demanding respect for a lack of scientific literacy here is an odd demand and conflating an insistence on basic literacy (what is a theory) with disrespecting someone's religion is a stretch. Who is doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 How many posts hyper-focusing on one post can there be ?! Even bend over backwards polite threads on this topic end up with someone's nose out of joint. Demanding respect for a lack of scientific literacy here is an odd demand and conflating an insistence on basic literacy (what is a theory) with disrespecting someone's religion is a stretch. I don't find demanding respect for *people* to be the least bit odd. There are PLENTY of places on the internet that don't require it. Youtube comments might be a good place, if that's the level of discourse you are interested in. I am one of the *extremely few* people who actually provided real information that countered the article in the OP, but it isn't me that she's mad at. Go figure. Your claim that there is a demand of respect for "a lack of scientific literacy" is therefore demonstrably false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 People care about not letting scientific ignorance slide because this is a home education forum. I'm sure everyone here is deeply invested in a great education for children. I learn a lot about science from the very literate parents here. First of all, it's your view that what YE, OE, and/or IDers believe is scientific ignorance. I'm not sure the actual, real scientists with PhDs who subscribe to those scientific theories share your idea that they are ignorant of science. They graduated from the same institutions that evolutionists graduated from and probably are more well-versed in the subject than even you. Secondly, I purposely posted my thread on the LOUNGE - CHAT section of this forum, not the GENERAL EDUCATION section. So you should have bypassed this thread based upon your criteria of what constitutes science and gone to the GENERAL EDUCATION section for information that you approve of. YEC isn't scientifically literate. People care about that because they care about children getting a solid science education. So basically what you're saying is that any valid scientist, of which there are many other than scientist who've graduated from universities with PhDs, who don't believe as you do and take a creationists view are illiterate? How did they obtain their credentials? Now, if this was a crochet forum, no-one would care about your understanding of science. This is a Chat forum; not an Education forum. No one cares about your understanding of science here. I'm not promoting the education of anyone's kids in this thread. Nor am I asking anyone to subscribe to my views or evangelize anyone's kids in this thread. In fact, I didn't really express which view I held in the OP and specifically asked people who hold your type of views not to bother reading the article. If you don't read it, it's kind of hard to discuss it. That was the point. It isn't about hating on Christians or imposing materialism. It's about a passion for education and I'm sure all of us can understand that. Dress it up anyway you want. It comes off sounding arrogant, elitist, and down right rude and exactly like you're bashing someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You are fairly new here, I think. Is being a member for 2 years with over 2,000 posts considered "fairly new"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wow. I guess I feel so tolerated since I have yet to be beaten or jailed. If it is intolerant to point out the emperor is wearing no clothes, than so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Woohoo! I just deployed the filters! Oh happy day! Thanks to whoever it was who made that suggestion. It is has made my experience on these boards far more enjoyable! Thanks for linking the article. I found it very interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Is being a member for 2 years with over 2,000 posts considered "fairly new"? I have been posting on these boards since around 1998. So, yes. And they are kindly going to share information that is scientifically correct. That is a complete and total mischaracterization of what people are upset about. The poster in question refrained from posting scientifically correct information or any other kind of information. She only posted a rude comment. Again, I am one of the very few people who actually *did* respond with information and the OP didn't get upset with me for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I just think jumping down the throats of people who won't pat you on the head however erroneous the belief is a waste of time. Who is doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 YEC here. Just wondering why people feel the need to express their opinions with such vitriol against people who don't agree with you. I don't agree with major aspects of Evolution or Old earth (even though I used to), but I don't tear down, insult, or call whole groups of people who participate on this forum stupid for not agreeing with me. I'm referring to all of the threads I've read on this subject. My husband has two Masters degrees; he is not stupid. I have a degree in Science. I'm not stupid. I can learn about other viewpoints without agreeing or being mean. I find it interesting the posters that are constantly talking about tolerance are the least tolerant about others having their own convictions and understanding of the world around us. I was just thinking the same thing. Thank you for posting this so I wouldn't have to find the words to say to sum up what I was feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelwydd Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Well, coming from the POV that YE is about as scientific as unicorns and fairies, I am hardly the target audience here. However, I think Saddlemomma's original post was fairly clear she was trying to strike a non-contentious tone and wanted to avoid a debate of the merits of YE. Frankly, I think it was rather unmannerly to use her thread as a launching point to bash YE. I am all for dismantling myth posing as empirical evidence, but do it in another thread focused on that end. Attacking YE here is just bad form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 These are education forums. People should expect to be educated about science here, not to be confirmed in their misunderstandings. And the fact that you can't handle anyone not believing exactly the way you do .... There is just as much evidence pointing to creation as there is to the THEORY of Evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think people are too cold or something. Everyone is exceptionally cranky today. This is fun, though. Please....continue.... :lurk5: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 And...moving on from a single post...that has now taken up an entire thread...and which the OP has explained... Mrs Mungo, the YouTube comment was unworthy of you. Nobody who has posted here has posted vitriol, abuse or crude and obnoxious comments. I don't know what you call this: "The quote that summed up the debate to me (and bear in mind I am on the side of science here) is the following: Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over all the pieces, defecates on the board and then flies home to its flock to declare victory. (source unknown)" If you don't think it's rude, crude (it even includes a scatalogical reference) or obnoxious, then I'm at a loss. I think it's the sort of comment that belongs in youtube comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 And the fact that you can't handle anyone not believing exactly the way you do .... There is just as much evidence pointing to creation as there is to the THEORY of Evolution. No, actually there is not. Believe whatever you choose to believe, but please do not try to "justify" it by citing "evidence" that simply does not exist. And for the record, I don't believe you need to justify a single thing. You are entitled to your beliefs just like everyone else is. But let's just call it what it is....religious belief, based on faith and not on scientifically accepted theories. (And I will not go into the definition of a scientific theory versus a non-scientific theory. They are different things, as has been discussed ad nauseum on these very boards). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think people are too cold or something. Everyone is exceptionally cranky today. This is fun, though. Please....continue.... :lurk5: High of 80 degrees here today. But, two of my kids are sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewb Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I am sorry you found my comment rude and crude. Rudeness and crudeness were not the intended take away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 High of 80 degrees here today. But, two of my kids are sick. Ok, everyone but you. But for what it's worth, the fact that you live where it's 80 has made me jealous and crankier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I don't know what you call this: "The quote that summed up the debate to me (and bear in mind I am on the side of science here) is the following: Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over all the pieces, defecates on the board and then flies home to its flock to declare victory. (source unknown)" If you don't think it's rude, crude (it even includes a scatalogical reference) or obnoxious, then I'm at a loss. I think it's the sort of comment that belongs in youtube comments. I think anyone who claims it isn't derogatory is being willfully obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 That is a complete and total mischaracterization of what people are upset about. The poster in question refrained from posting scientifically correct information or any other kind of information. She only posted a rude comment. Again, I am one of the very few people who actually *did* respond with information and the OP didn't get upset with me for it. The comment was, arguably, funny to many people. Considering Ken Ham claimed victory when some 92% of people responding to a poll in Christianity Today overwhelmingly voted in favor of Bill Nye doing a better job presenting the facts, it's not too far off the mark, either. Ham offered no evidence, as the bible cannot be used as evidence to support the claims it makes. The link the OP provided does this same thing, albeit in a more nuanced way. It provides more sophisticated responses than "goddidit," but ultimately, they are based on assumptions, misinterpreted information, misrepresent facts, and are used as a means to rationalize a belief in the judeo-christian creation myth. Some people post lengthy replies, some people make their points succinctly. Humor doesn't extend to everyone equally, and I've been told to "lighten up" when I've commented on things I thought were wholly inappropriate, rude, and aggressive towards other posters even. Apparently, diff'rent strokes. That the thread has evolved into a kind of Miss Manners debate about what's too impolite to be allowed is a nice illustration of traditional privilege not being honored. It should be inconceivable to promote ignorance in a classical home education community, or to ask people to censor information and comments to protect the feelings of those who really don't want to hear contradictions to their beliefs. If the OP wants a "safe" place to share her religious takes on science, she could find one of the private groups here and share it with people who aren't likely to crack jokes at Ken Ham's expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 No, actually there is not. Believe whatever you choose to believe, but please do not try to "justify" it by citing "evidence" that simply does not exist. And for the record, I don't believe you need to justify a single thing. You are entitled to your beliefs just like everyone else is. But let's just call it what it is....religious belief, based on faith and not on scientifically accepted theories. (And I will not go into the definition of a scientific theory versus a non-scientific theory. They are different things, as has been discussed ad nauseum on these very boards). That is really were the problem comes in... NO, the creationist people are NOT entitled to their beliefs by the evolutionist people. Don't pretend like you are ok with someone else not believing exactly they way you do. And I have yet to see a YE person attacking anyone on here on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Ken Ham is the pigeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The comment was, arguably, funny to many people. Considering Ken Ham claimed victory when some 92% of people responding to a poll in Christianity Today overwhelmingly voted in favor of Bill Nye doing a better job presenting the facts, it's not too far off the mark, either. Ham offered no evidence, as the bible cannot be used as evidence to support the claims it makes. The link the OP provided does this same thing, albeit in a more nuanced way. It provides more sophisticated responses than "goddidit," but ultimately, they are based on assumptions, misinterpreted information, misrepresent facts, and are used as a means to rationalize a belief in the judeo-christian creation myth. Some people post lengthy replies, some people make their points succinctly. Humor doesn't extend to everyone equally, and I've been told to "lighten up" when I've commented on things I thought were wholly inappropriate, rude, and aggressive towards other posters even. Apparently, diff'rent strokes. That the thread has evolved into a kind of Miss Manners debate about what's too impolite to be allowed is a nice illustration of traditional privilege not being honored. It should be inconceivable to promote ignorance in a classical home education community, or to ask people to censor information and comments to protect the feelings of those who really don't want to hear contradictions to their beliefs. If the OP wants a "safe" place to share her religious takes on science, she could find one of the private groups here and share it with people who aren't likely to crack jokes at Ken Ham's expense. It was funny, so it's not rude? Is that your initial argument? I think LOADS of things are funny that are clearly rude. The second half of your argument is the *same* mischaracterization that Sadie made. The OP didn't ask people to refrain from posting information. I can *once again* point out that I actually provided information that refutes her argument, but she didn't get upset at me for that. Therefore, *once again*, this claim is demonstrably false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Ken Ham is the pigeon. The pigeon in the quote is any creationist, to include (one must assume) the original poster of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 That is really were the problem comes in... NO, the creationist people are NOT entitled to their beliefs by the evolutionist people. Don't pretend like you are ok with someone else not believing exactly they way you do. And I have yet to see a YE person attacking anyone on here on this thread. You are absolutely, completely wrong. There is just no other way to say it. Please point to a single, solitary post I've ever made that would ever indicate that anyone needs to believe exactly the way that I do. And by the way, the attacking thing? That's exactly what you just did to me with your "don't pretend you are ok...." comment. Again, I say you are entitled to your beliefs, but they have no sound scientific basis. Nor do they have to, if you're comfortable with that. Just don't call it something it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts