Lobstrosity

I don't know, I can kind of understand how there could be unintentional moderator bias. See, I sometimes see evolutionists write statements like "Creationists are intellectually bankrupt" and I don't really even bat an eye because I basically think it's true. I honestly think that anyone who is willing to assume a priori a supernatural cause for something and then follow it up with bitter tirades against anyone who looks for evidence that opposes their unfounded stance is lacking in intellectual motivation (with regards to the origins of life at the very least). I lose respect for people who in my mind take the easy way out by not using their brains to actually try to figure things out for themselves. As such, I don't view such comments as harsh, I view them as merely brutally honest. However, when I see a creationist say the same thing about evolutionists I am shocked because such a statement is seemingly so unreasonable to me. Creationist moderators might simply see it as "the truth," not as an insult and instead be "shocked" by negative blanket characterizations of Creationists. It's not a good thing, but it's understandable.

Also I notice that my posts at TWeb seem to garner very few responses. I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing... It could be good in that I make a lot of sense and people don't know how to refute me or don't have anything to add, or it could be bad in that people are just ignoring my stupidity.

keyser_soze

That makes sense, when you are considering PART of their ranting. But there is no way to justify the name calling, belittling, etc...

I have no problem with some TW saying, "hey, that sounds like BS!, what's your proof", or "I think you are over-thinking this or that"...The constant name calling by safarti and turkel though is RIDICULOUS. And DD has gone from mild mannered, thinking girl, to Turkel Acolyte and sounds just like him now. She's off the deep end, and I can't see where it might just be a differing viewpoint, it's a change of personality. She is crass to the point of nausea, and dismisses people's argument in the same manner as safarti and turkel, by ad hominem...A ridiculous tool for debate.

Lobstrosity

Yeah, I can't stand when someone uses the terms "whinged," "hurled," "spewed," etc because they are completely demeaning and disrespectful. If someone took the time to write a response, you shouldn't get to characterize it as "spew" just because you disagree with it. I think that should be completely eliminated, but sadly it's perfectly acceptable behavior there. I also can't stand how often "anti" is appended to things. All the damn time someone is anti-bible, anti-creationism, anti-theist...arg! If this were a Jewish site Socrates would be calling me an antisemite and I'd be mighty offended. I am not "anti" your religion just because I don't believe in its verasity. I'm no more antichristian that Socrates is antileprechaun, antisanta, or antiunicorn. Why does he have to turn all arguments into some sort of persecution? In my mind this should be disallowed as well.

I'm new to TWeb, so I can't comment on whether DD has changed at all. All I know is that she hasn't struck me as the most friendly moderator on the block. I can sense that there's warmth there, but it seems to be overshadowed by a lot of bitterness (at least in the parts of Natural Science that allow non-creationists to post).

Oolon Colluphid

Heehee! Well let’s see how you get on once you’ve been on the Ed thread a bit longer!

Also, dig back through the archives for posters like Thiaoouba and Nebula... whinging, hurling and spewing are the precisely correct verbs!

Oolon

Lobstrosity

Yeah, alright, I admit that sometimes the use of those words can be justified.

Passant

It's a good thing.

keyser_soze

Don't know, Socrates seems to despise you, but overall it's a good thing if you get few responses. I noticed socrates got quite verbose(though I am still fuzzy as to whether or not he said anything at all) in the thread for evidence for a young earth thread...I seem to recall you were in that one...

Valentine Pontifex

Socrates despises most everybody who is not kissing his you know what.

I hate to be so crude, but it appears to be true.

roxrkool

Lob:

You are kicking @$$ in that Evidence for a Young Earth thread!!!!:notworthy

Kevbo

Alright, I examined all of Sarfati's posts in the first two pages of his "search for all posts by user." I counted:

- 21 posts with childish icons, insults, or personal attacks
- 1 neutral post that is a simple statement of his favorite creationist couple
- 3 one-liner posts that were a single sentence, referred to an AIG article, or both.

That's 21 insults out of 22 substantial posts directed to people he disagrees with, and the one that doesn't contain an insult is a simple statement of fact and not an argument. This supports the contention that Socrates cannot make an argument against someone he disagrees with without resorting to insult.

He used the "whack the guy on the head with a stick" childish icon when responding in a thread with weinerdog and you, steadele!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...016#post111016

Just for fun, I went back into the depths of the archives and dug up some of his earliest posts. Here are some replying to a fellow Christian:

-------------------------
J.J. Ramsay, our local compromiser, replies:

"Oh, please! ASA is not advocating materialism, period."

Oh, sorry, they advocate "methodological naturalism" rather than philosophical materialism. But there is no practical difference, and this dodge reminds me of the assorted misotheists insisting that atheism means without a belief in God rather than belief in no God.

...

Proponents of either view are examples of the "scoffers" that Peter referred to in 2 Peter 3. These Scoffers, with whom Ramsay wants to ally, are WILLINGLY IGNORANT of two basic facts of history:

1. Special acts of creation
2. God's judgement of sin with a global Flood.

As for me, unlike JJR, I refuse to kowtow to the Gospel of Methodological Naturalism according to the atheist Eugenie Scott, but will accept God's clear revelation that there HAVE been those acts of intervention in the past. And note, philosophical materialists MUST be methodological naturalists, so why should Christians give in to them?

...

JJR:

"Desperate? You are telling me that Christians are desperate to defend findings that make belief in the Bible, theodicy, and our understanding of sin and death more complicated to understand and difficult to defend? Yeah, right."

Yeah, it is right. They have made their compromise with naturalism because they crave academic respectability above all else. And groups like AiG show up the fact of their compromise. So no matter how well argued their articles are, no matter how highly qualified their authors, the compromisers will reject them in favor of explanations of misotheists like Merde and Eugenie Scott.

...

JJR:

"Those so-called "excuses" are no more invalid than the answering of various apparent contradictions of Scripture. All the young-earth creationists have done is answered good methodology with bad."

As if you'd be in a position to know.

No, the YECs realise that since creation is CURSED, we should interpret the data in creation according to the unfallen Written word of God: Scripture. Compromisers like you and ASA twist the propositional revelation of Scripture to fit in with the data from the cursed creation interpreted by fallen men.

...

More likely, atheists are disgusted when they see that Christians don't even believe their own book! I've personally heard the erudite polymath CEO of AiG(Australia), Dr Carl Wieland, telling an audience how he was an atheist at university, and the various Christians would try to witness to him. Ya know, the usual "invite Jesus into your heart". But Dr W would always point out that if the Bible was wrong right at the start, why should he trust it anywhere else? And he could show that all the doctrines of Christianity, e.g. sin against the creator, punishment by death, the human ancestry of Christ, are all predicated upon a straightforward understanding of Genesis. He actually considered the claims of the gospel when some Christians actually affirmed that they did believe Genesis, and gave good reasons.

And the liberals are just more consistent: they interpret the Rez and Virginal Conception passages the same way as compromisers interpret Genesis -- i.e. use the same paradigm of methodological naturalism and call it "science".

...

JJR:

"Think carefully about what you just wrote. You seem to be implying that since creation is cursed, we cannot correctly interpret it without the guidance of the Scriptures."

This is especially so in the area of Origins science. And where claims about the past contradict the eye-witness revelation in Scripture, Scripture must take priority. In particular, any attempt to build a model of Earth history which rejects the global Flood a priori as per Hutton is inevitably going to be flawed. So is any attempt to build a model of biology that presupposes materialism (under whatever name you choose to call it) and rejects the clear Biblical teaching that living things were created to reproduce "after their kind", the first man was made from dust, and the first woman from his rib.

...

...It does not require infallible interpretation to know that some interpretations of Scripture are CORRECT, any more than one has to be an infallible mathematician to know that 1+1=2.

...

Answers in Genesis is an organization of integrity.

...

More revisionism. The 18th century was the time of the so-called "Enlightment" which was really the Endarkenment.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...1297#post11297
----------------------

JJR: Socrates, what you are doing isn't tough love; it's slander.

Then call the flippin' police!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...5047#post25047
-------------------------

If that doesn't demonstrate a complete inability to respectfully disagree, even with a fellow Christian, I don't know what does!