Atheists and Christians on this Forum

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

And don’t confuse not being nice with bullying.

Is chivalry dead?

@Michael_Okoko

If you define “bullying” as being dismissive or unnecessarily snarky, then I owe you an apology, because I have being both to you. I am sorry.

Thank you, I appreciate that and forgive you. I don’t mind snarkiness if an argument is not well-thought-out. I’ve used it sometimes with others; then sometimes regretted it.

@Michael_Okoko

If you define “bullying” as repeatedly trying to correct an erroneous impression of a process that is data-based, then I am not sorry.

Maybe you should consider why I have that impression as well.

@sfmatheson

But I think everyone on the forum should be willing to expand their view of “bullying” to include situations in which bullying is not intended but is experienced. Most notably when one person finds themselves in a disagreement with more than two others. There is nothing particularly atheist/Christian/Zoroastrian about that, and IMO it matters little whether the 3 or 4 people on one “side” are being nice to the other person. It can feel like bullying and if someone says they feel that way, we should IMO take notice and do something about it.

I know @sfmatheson has muted me, but this is the way that I feel and I appreciate him articulating it so well.

What I feel like I can bring of value to this board and why you should care if I say I’ve been bullied:

1. A female perspective. I appreciate when @Michelle comes on, I can’t remember if there are any other women I’ve seen.
2. A non-scientist perspective as someone who newly appreciates science. Learning about COVID and seeing how that reverberated politically and socially got me started.
3. If scientists think that creationism is hurting scientific literacy, then I’m a voice to show you what you need to overcome scientifically to do so, and maybe also theologically. @swamidass gave a mixed scientific, theological argument - it needs to be developed more theologically before I’d accept death before sin.

@Rumraket

Now this may seem like it is insulting to say, but I don’t know a nice way to say it so I’ll just have to be blunt. Some things are just nonsense , and it would be a waste of time and effort to give it undeserved attention in the form of publishing rebuttals in the peer reviewed literature.

There’s a flat Earth society where flat Earth believing people are writing flat Earth books, and you generally won’t see that cited in the peer reviewed literature either.

And if some flat Earth true believer has managed to sneak a paper into a legitimate journal, which in some way indicates (without explicitly stating) that the Earth is flat, I don’t think researchers from the physical sciences are under any obligation to start publishing rebuttal articles to it either, because that would amount to giving it undeserved credibility.

Ok, so this is where I want to explain why you’re hurting your cause of “scientific literacy” if you make arguments comparing creation science to flat earthism.

1. You and I both know flat-earth or geo-centrism isn’t going to make it into a scientific journal.
2. Sanford had a successful career before he was a Christian. Somehow he also got invited to NIH to speak so someone must have thought he had something important to say. Imagine that happening to a flat-earther?
3. I’ve already show on this forum how mainstream scientists may end up throwing the age of the universe into question on their own and throw out the Big Bang Model on their own.
4. Many here regularly mock creation scientists who have degrees from the same universities you go to, as if they are liars or dumb. Then I’ve seen many of the same people admit to not having read their books or their papers. If you sincerely believe all of this is wrong-headed or a hoax for YEC only, then provide evidence of that. So far, the only evidence I’ve seen is that the model can’t work because your models are right. Also, the more mocking you do, I will continue to see it as persecution of Christians, which we are taught to expect in the Bible.
5. Focus on the scientific problems - Origin of Life needs to get somewhere and fast. Fix the holes in the narrative of the fossil record. Show that evolution has power as an origins theory. I was just learning tonight about RNA and amino acids. I see tons of design there. As it gains more power with design, to me it as less power as an origins theory. Figure that out.

What do creation scientists have to do:
1 - Prove the molecular clock - they’ve already pointed to evidence mainstream science agrees on the x chromosome.
2 - Explain radiometric dating.
3 - Explain the age of the universe - (wait, mainstream science may already do that for us)

Who has more work to do?

As far as how to treat people to win them to your side, I was watching a presentation @NLENTS gave and he was immediately engaging even though I didn’t agree with what he said. Act like he does. I think he would probably be nicer to me than many Christians here.