If @swamidass has been so worn- down in his expectations, would we be surprised if there were ZERO non-theists willing to do this?
We have to wonder, then, what attracts so many non-theists to these boards? Is it Joshua’s handsome visage?
Or maybe it’s the lure of a constant stream of Creationists willing to put their elbow down on a barrel top and arm wrestle with all y’all?
Let’s reflect on these highpoints:
1] Christian evolutionist creates PS.org to leverage his views;
2] Hopes to convince some creationists they CAN have historical Evolution PLUS de novo Adam & Eve.
3] Does not expect non-theists to embrace historical Adam & Eve.
4] Does not expect Creationists to accept life on Earth exists without God.
5] Expects “PEACE” to be promoted by
A) evolutionists who dont expect Creationists to deny God’s role in creation; and by
B) creationists accepting that God SOMETIMES uses natural laws, including evolution, to accomplish His ends.
6] Evolutionists who insist God is not needed and/or Creationists who insist God CANNOT use Evolution, are actively running against the peaceful goals of these boards.
Either faction is “exploiting” the platform @swamidass has created at great professional risk to himself for purposes clearly counter to what was the obvious intention of what this group would promote.
My guy, you can’t even keep your own complaint straight between one message and the next. Not that either of them has anything to do with the topic of this thread, mind you, but you derailing every thread you touch for this scarcely coherent crusade of yours[1] is nothing new enough to surprise, I suppose. Expectations, indeed…
Yes, your crusade: Joshua at no point elected you to represent him, or his interests, or his book, nor voiced any agreement with any of your disruptions even once. Everybody is free to register or to speak up in thanks of your heroics, and yet they do not. It stands to reason, that there is not anybody else on whose behalf you are speaking. ↩︎
So you ENJOY Bill’s endless attempts to prove God by math?
As one sagacious fellow already commented: “He never disapoints!”
First im criticized for showing no examples, now for showing EVERY example.
I was perfectly behaved while al y’all went through all your free will and determinism protocols. I figured it would be good for your carburetors to do some flat out running.
But you cant possibly be philosophical about this massive abuse of bandwidth every time someone wants to stir a bucket with a stick regarding the existence of God, can you?
Here is a rare case where the dialogue is between two Christians who both accept design (to one degree or another).
@swamidass works to use the Design benchmark as a pivot point for the Creationist to take a look at the conventional dispute from an new, UNCONVENTIONAL vantage point.
This would have been impossible if Joshua had started in with the usual points that random nature can do it all!
Multiple tags to Moderators are generally not helpful.
This thread is in Side Conversation because it is yet another iteration of the hopeless and endless dispute. Therefore your complaint has been answered long before you ever made it.
I would point out that these positions are not contradictory. It is possible to “insist [that] God is not needed” whilst accepting that some accept “God’s role in creation”. “Not needed” does not equate to being ruled out – so the positions can comfortably overlap.
The time has come for me to dance the ‘Mission and Values Two-Step’ again – this time to a rousing chorus of:
It says nothing about Evolution or Creation tra-la-la
In fact there is nothing in there that states that we are ‘expected’ to advocate any particular position on anything.
So your fifth point would be more accurately characterised as:
5] George Brooks Expects “PEACE” to be promoted by …
You are talking for yourself, and yourself only, on this George.
You, like anybody else, are free to discuss anything and advocate for whatever position you choose.
You are however neither an administrator nor a moderator of this site, so you are in no position whatsoever to instruct the rest of us on what we must or must not discuss or advocate.
If you want that authority, then you should do as others have suggested and create your own forum.
He’s not been worn down. AIUI this matches his original intent.
No. 2. Partly.
But you’ve missed the main reason: the opportunity to interact with and learn from experts in their fields. Perhaps this doesn’t interest you.
Disagreement, even insistent disagreement, can be peaceful.
However, your inability to provide examples of such insistence suggests that these people are not the ones running aainst the peaceful goals of these boards, since they don’t exist.
The people who are actually running against the peaceful goals of these boards are, IMO, those who present as facts things that are nothing of the kind, especially those who refuse to be corrected.
You seem to be the nightmare guest every host fears. We have a Christian host. Who wrote a book specifically to engage Christians:
1] who either mistrust the motives of the scientific community; or
2] who are looking for ways to reconcile an historical Adam & Eve with 1 or 2 evolutionary scenarios; or both [1] & [2].
@Tim, you eat at @swamidass’ table knowing both of these things. And yet all you can think to do is behave in ways that bring TUMULT to the discussions that INCREASES the suspicions that some evangelicals have against non-theist evolutionists.
I don’t want to add to the moderators’ already thankless task, but I think that this kind of behavior should not be tolerated on the forum. By “this kind of behavior” I mean the projection of intentions or opinions onto others. George Brooks constantly spams the forum with claims about what Joshua wants, what he thinks, and – most notably – why he founded Peaceful Science and what he established its mission to be. This would be inappropriate anytime IMO, but it is egregious when the projections are almost universally false. In short, George pretends to speak for Joshua and then puts falsehoods into Joshua’s mouth. This, to me, is as serious an issue as an abusive insult or deliberate misquote, both of which are also common behaviors by George.
Again, it would be unreasonable of me to suggest that moderators do more unpaid labor, and perhaps we have all decided that Side Conversations are not moderated at all. But this guy’s conduct is downright abusive, and my view is that he should be asked to leave.
I would suggest that this is a fairly ludicrous (dis)analogy to our situation. There have been 63 members active in the last month. If we were all siting at the same “table”, it would have to be 20m long – hardly an intimate gathering.
Yes, Joshua set up this forum, and so he, but not you, gets to frame what this forum is about. He has done so with the Mission and Values statement. This statement says NOTHING about “Christians”, “an historical Adam & Eve” or “evangelicals” – or anything else you have been making your absurd fatwas about.
I would strongly suggest that you read that statement, rather than making absurd claims to be speaking on his behalf. Stephen’s comments above on your stale and tedious mind-reading act would seem to be most appropriate. There is simply no need for such mind-reading, when Joshua has already articulated his position.
If we are going to talk about “TUMULT” (whose simple capitalisation is itself tumultuous), then I would suggest that you “considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye” – your continually spamming and derailing threads with your repetitive fatwas is far more disruptive than my own behaviour.
Addendum: I find the accusation particularly baffling as I spend far far more time on this forum assuming the existence of God, for the sake of argument, than I spend arguing against that proposition.
