They won’t go… they point to a sign on the wall that says “Welcome!”
So there’s not much the rabbi can do…
@gbrooks9 atheists are welcome here. You don’t have to join in conversation with them if you don’t want to.
6 Likes
You know that isn’t the point I’m trying to make. I welcome them too… but I’d welcome them a lot more if they had their own section. I find they interfere with our “mojo”.
They often are very helpful in the theological conversation. Both science and theology are engaging the same grand questions. To the extent they desire, they can participate. Flag anyone that is not respectful or a bully.
I mostly stay out of the genealogical Adam discussion. But @John_Harshman participates. Don’t you think it makes the case for GA a better one, if it can withstand the kind of criticism that John makes?
2 Likes
Not only that @John_Harshman has frequently defended it as good science, so has @T_aquaticus. I’m grateful to them, and that is exactly what secular scientists do. We are not guided by theological agendas, and care to be honest about what science is and is not saying.
1 Like
@nwrickert (and @swamidass too):
Notice how hard it is for people to stay on track with the point I’m making.
I am not trying to exclude anyone.
I am not trying to expel anyone.
I am not even trying to separate the participants.
I am trying to keep divisive discussions separate from non-divisive ones!
People appear to find it incredibly difficult to keep all these factors separate in their mind.
On many occasions I have found @john_Harshman’s contribution to be very helpful.
I think there would be a tendency for others to become more helpful if they weren’t always trying to make a “big point” on the two footnote topics, with their arch foes, that are so very irrelevant to Genealogical Adam/Eve scenarios!
That is fine. You can just flag things as off topic. You haven’t been complaining about off-topic posts (legitimate!), you’ve been railing against people, atheists.
Seems like you have had a hard time separating off topic posts from a whole class of people, at least in your language. Next time flag the posts as off topic.
This thread is not about the GAE. It is okay to talk about different topics here.
2 Likes
But of course. I was referring to the “big picture” here at Peaceful Science. I was not singling out this particular thread as particular out-of-line…
Yes, anywhere. Why do you keep coming here if you hate it so much?
I think @T_aquaticus is high on something… is there someone who can do a wellness check?
Assuming you are not high, this is the only place i know of that combines de novo Adam… and God-guided evolution.
So where else can i go to find support for these 2 positions?
You can bring up the subject on many other forums, so why do you keep coming here?
Perhaps you should rethink the idea of appointing yourself the Sheriff of the Thought Police.
5 Likes
@T_aquaticus, i think you should rethink the idea of how a @pro-evolution atheist can help a Christian agenda if he doesnt understand the logic of AVOIDING unnecessary arguments with Christians.
The Sheriff is on patrol.
8 Likes
@gbrooks9 Please understand that your vision for the purpose of this site, the conversations that take place, and constraints upon them that should be placed varies dramatically from others. You are absolutely correct to say that if everyone agreed with the God-guided evolution and de novo Adam, there would be far fewer arguments. That said, Joshua has made it clear that this place should be a destination where people of many different viewpoints should be able to converge and discuss many items concerning science and faith. Certainly not all will agree. Often, most won’t.
5 Likes
Well, I believe there is a very simple answer to that.
Creationism is rather general, and makes no claim about the intelligence level of the creator. On the other hand, ID assumes that the designer is intelligent, according to some not better specified metrics.
So, intelligent design is a possibly proper subset of design, and therefore, the two things are not equivalent. For instance, stupid design would still qualify as creationism, but not as intelligent design, by definition.
I believe that is enough to conclude that the two are not necessarily logically equivalent.
Ciao
- viole
1 Like
As I’ve said before… I certainly have no interest in expelling anyone. What’s the fun in that?
My point is, and will continue to be, that Footnote Discussions should be held in a Footnote section … not in front of all the doors… with peoples zippers half open and all the rest of the unsavory aspects of 24 hour argumentation …
1 Like
Definitely flag these instances as “inappropriate”!!! 
1 Like