Your story already contradicts itself. You claim you don't know this & don't know that, yet you produce this conclusion: "But most biblical stories are clearly lessons, not real tales."
But most biblical stories are clearly lessons and not real tales. What I don't know "this or that" about is how creationism is scientific in nature. I know what creationism itself is (and what it isn't). Moreover, the bible in no way correlates with creationism. There are numerous other posters here who have all indicated that creationism serves as an umbrella for multiple religions. Given that you use the bible as evidence to support a non-Christian ideology (creationism), I can't help but get the impression that you do not know about creationism.
But nothing in that part is responseworthy.
I count 88 threads at present in the Creation vs. Evolution forum here. Reading all of them would take most people quite a while; but one doesn't need to read every last thread to get a pretty good idea what some of the issues and evidence are about.
The vast majority of said 88 threads consist of you going off on a tirade rather than trying to discuss the matter at hand, including flaming other posters - the very thing which the new moderator has said (s)he wishes to put a stop to.
Yeah right...
Again you present a conclusion without anything backing it up. I have not said I want creationism in school; this is something you assume.
With all due respect, who said I was talking to you when I mentioned creationism in school.
The context indicates that you were.
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?
See what I mean?
The creationism movement wishes to position it in the public school system and that is what I was addressing.
There are some creationists who want creationism taught. There are some who want ID presented. There are some who want lies removed from textbooks. All face determined resistance. You have made some of your own desires clear. I get them.
The scientific aspects of creationism include historical research, scientific models, hypotheses, laws, theories, and the applications of all of these.
History is not a scientific aspect. It's history. That's a different subject.
History most certainly is a scientific subject. Your contention that it isn't is utterly baseless.
We have a thread entitled "History Rules". I should be interested in seeing you back up your assertion that "every historian" believes in evotime.
What is evotime?
Take a guess. If you make an honest effort, I think you'll probably get it right.
Did you happen to catch our Flat Earth thread?
Yes but {snip}
But nothing. You still brought up "flat earth" as if it's legitimately associated with creationism. You know it isn't, and we all know you know it isn't. What have you accomplished by doing this?
the initial post doesn't really mean much. It seems to be attempting to invalidate evolution by finding fault with specific individuals.
It seems to be setting the record straight, and exposing a fraud. A fraud which you... well, your actions have spoken, haven't they?
There's also another thread about how Geoffrey Dahlmer (sp?) was an evolutionist. This in no way invalidates evolution anymore than bad Christians invalidate the Christian religion.
It can only serve to invalidate the teachings of evolutionists if his actions were consistent with evolutionists' teaching.
Your responses are the fruit that make it look like you despise, or at least look down on, others that don't see things the way you do.
I'd like to back up Linearaq on this one. Though I suspect, CTD, you will translate this as people ganging up on you,
No. It's a matter of supporting your side, not matter what. You're just hoping someone will stumble across this & take your word.
...the fact remains that the posts of yours which I've read (including posts where you are responding to me personally) are heavily laced with contempt. When I arrived to this forum I came with the intent to word things very carefully so as not to offend anyone because I know for some it can be a delicate subject, yet I seem to have done the exact opposite in your instance. However, while other posters make their statements rather bluntly and I struggle to walk on eggshells, I suspect they have been dealing with your angry diatribes for some time. There is no need to be angry at anyone here because nobody is out to get you, even if some share different beliefs from you.
You know that famous quote by Gandhi where he says something to the effect of, I like your Christ but not your Christians - your Christians are nothing like your Christ? His quote makes me think of people like you. And that may sound incredibly rude and condescending but I think if you take an honest look at the way you choose to respond to people you'll see that there's nothing nice about it, nothing polite, nothing mature even and surprisingly of all for someone arguing for a Christian agenda: nothing Christian about it. And every time Linearaq points this out to you you seem to post more angrily and less Christian. Nobody is telling you to do anything, nobody is telling you to post politely - they're just pointing it out. You're only making it that much more of a reality by elevating the hosility when it *is* pointed out.
You've transformed overnight from someone who didn't know what creationism was, etc. to a veteran of forums with extensive knowledge of the threads here. Congratulations on your "promotion", or "coming out", whichever applies.
Your post contains a lot of advice, along with the typical attempts to misportray the situation. How about some practical real-world advice? How would you have me respond when evolutionists put false words in peoples mouths? How would you have me respond to obviously feigned stupidity? How would you have me respond to outright in-everyone's-face LIES?
If you are anything at all like the typical evoposter found in forum after forum, you'd have me take the crap. You'd have me defend any stupid straw man misrepresentation, too timid to call anyone on anything. You'd have me remain mute while my brethren are slandered, and certainly myself. You'd have the evolutionists free to put any stupid words they want in creationists' mouths.
I know all too well how that works. It ain't my style. I call the lies, the slander, the straw men, the countless logical fallacies, all of it. I don't let much slide. When I see mud slung, I call it. You can call that "flaming" all you want. And if I do it on a website you own, I fully expect I'll be banned and my posts will disappear.
The feature that makes this place an evolutionist's nightmare is the time limit on edits. All I have to do is wait for the time to expire, and when I call some crap, they can't go back and edit it away.
Boo-hoo! Poor widdle slanderers! Poor widdle punks who don't get to put lies in other people's mouths! I know what kind of heart weeps for them.
And my cruelest trick of all: Since I know that these cowardly tactics also serve to divert discussions, I make it a point to return to topic.
I shall be honest and state that I have solicited your advice primarily for amusement purposes. I don't follow many suggestions from entities unless I believe them to be qualified and in possession of good intentions. Your openly biased, Pwcca-style assessments have not contributed to such faith.
