This isn't a chatroom; it's a forum. There are plenty of threads here discussing many topics. So long as a thread isn't "closed", you can post in it.
Well now hold on a second there, CTD. Someone made what I felt to be an attack (however mild) about my personality, my character. I responded in kind by defending it with an explanation.
I can fully understand being opposed to threads getting derailed. It happens in forums all over the internet. But if you're against derails of this sort I kindly ask that you direct them at the instigator, not the person defending themself.
If someone made a personal slander about you CTD (not that you really went that far with it Jeanie but a comment *was* made), how would you react?
The right of any creature to defend itself has no more dedicated advocate than myself.
But why did you accuse me then for defending myself? You said you're the number one advocate for defensive standpoints. I don't get why you would accuse me the way you did then.
I pointed out that this is a forum because your posts included challenges to present cases and trash talk about creationism being unable to withstand evaluation.
OK, now this is really an unfair statement. I've always been the sort of person to mind his p's and q's. I'm very careful how I word things (call it a professional habit due to the nature of my job). If there's anything - ANYTHING - I've said here which can be construed as trash talk, I'd like to know.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I know very little about creationism and am here asking for feedback on the subject. If I want to know about evolution, the library in the insitution I work for is chock full of them. If I want to read up on creationism, however, my sources are surprisingly sparse (or more aptly put, nonexistent). It is for this reason that I am not challenging creationism, per se, so much as questioning it. I apologize that you take offense to my asking questions about this subject.
This is a very strong indicator that you either haven't reviewed the threads, or do not care to address the issues contained therein therein.
Well there are literally tens of thousands of threads here. Please understand that a great deal of it is rather daunting and much of it is filled with argumentative diatribes. It's not uncommon on discussion forums for old topics to crop up and be rehashed, particularly when new arrivals show up. That being said, I am reading some of the discussions here and trying to catch up (hence my silence) but I do ask that you cut me some slack. If I ask something that has already been raised, I humbly ask that you forgive my ignorance as I clearly may have overlooked something (likely a needle in a haystack).
Creationism is both a doctrine which guides one in understanding spiritual issues, and a scientific pursuit. Although even a good number of creationists may not have given it sufficient thought, creationism implicitly denies the false dichotomy between "science" and all matters supernatural.
Now see, this last clause here in your final sentence is what makes me pause. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems to imply that creationism is not science. And this is the very question I am trying to come up with here.
I get the desire to have creationism in school. That's fair enough. It's a topic and people may want to know about it. What I don't understand and am trying to get an answer to is why it should be labeled science when, more appropriately, it would fall under the category of either religion or philosophy. What part about creationism is scientific?
As always, I ask these questions in the politest tones, even if they don't "sound" that way. A text based format is often sterile and a poor conveyor of emotions. Be that as it may, I am saying this to reassure readers that I am asking questions openly and politely. These are not challenges, they are not accusations.
All the best.
