No, you arent a child. But like your peers, Patrick & Harshman, you all share a pronounced tendency towards “concrete thinking”.
So when something doesnt line up perfectly with your expectations you have zero idea of what to do with it.
This is what I said about J.Burke:
I offered this example as evidence that many creationists are delicately constituted … and can be upset by a range of commentary not even involving their Supreme God.
I was prepared to explain this in response to your inevitable complaint … but you flagged the post. Once you folks flag a post I really lose interest in trying to revive it. I have yet to figure out how that is supposed to work - - especially when im not sure what is being flagged or why.
Maybe what I need to do is start my own version of PeacefulScience.org (of course, under a different name) and advertise it as an Atheist-Free zone.
I used to think it was rare to come across people who are so narrow-minded about meta-physics that they are virtually mentally crippled when a hybrid scenario like GAE pops up on the horizon.
But it turns out concrete-thinking atheists are everywhere. BioLogos had its own share … and they ignored Dr Collins as often as they could. And PS.org has its own lively delegation (who gleefully ignore @swamidass ). Maybe i should explain these dynamics to some of the big money who fund projects like these?
Once again you fail to offer a single example of such a thing. Name one person who is “virtually mentally crippled when a hybrid scenario like GAE pops up on the horizon”.
Is that some kind of threat? “Nice little web site you have here; it would be a shame if anything happened to it.” Are you trying to sound insane?
I had thought that this was being run on a shoestring, with perhaps a small amount of help from Pateon contributors.
This page seems to indicate that there are six such contributors, four of which are also moderators. Amusingly enough, @Faizal_Ali is one of these six.
According to this page, it seems that these contributions amount to around US$80/month.
Admittedly, all you really need to run a forum like this is (i) have (or hire) a server (or a share of one), (ii) get a copy of Discourse (it’s Open Source, so presumably free) and (iii) find somebody to set it up for you.
But then of course you have to find people actually interested in posting on it, and moderating it.
Shouldn’t we first try to nail down what is being meant by “concrete-thinking” before we seek an example of it?
It seems, from the context, that “concrete-thinking” here means something to do with the act of complaining, when the context seems to clearly indicate that this was being offered as an “example” of atheist misbehavior, that the behavior in question is 100% atheist-free.
I must admit I am curious as to why this “example” is now being re-packaged as
… evidence that many creationists are delicately constituted …
… when nobody demanded evidence of this (if for no other reason than because it is not exactly news that many Creationists are thin-skinned).
But then my expectation that examples will be given in support of disputed claims, as opposed to in support of claims that have not been disputed (or even, I suspect, claims that have not even been made), may also be an example of “concrete-thinking” on my part. Who knows?
As opposed to what? Loose thinking? Construction foam thinking? What expectation is not being met here, and who is handling this poorly, exactly?
Which is a problem how? Why on earth would it be anybody else’s responsibility to manage creationists’ emotions? Are they not adults too? Should we not treat them with the same respect as we do each other?
Certainly a better plan than any attempts would be to transform this forum into an atheist-free zone. Good luck!
For a clear example you stated that GAE’s premises include:
When John corrected you on that you insisted:
And to support that you appealed to the cover diagram - which clearly contradicted you:
According to the legend the Mitochondrial Eve lineage and the Y-Chromosome Adam lineage are coloured and other genealogical ancestors are drawn with a heavy outline.
At the level of Adam and Eve only ONE individual is neither coloured, nor marked as a genealogical ancestor. Two are in the mitochondrial lineage leading back to the mitochondrial Eve. Two are Adam and Eve. The remaining eleven are all genealogical ancestors. If 15 out if 16 people living at that time have genealogical descendants that would be far more than a “handful”.
Ah, I see. I suppose it’s helpful to know that some of them should not be allowed anywhere near the internet without a fainting couch and healthy supply of smelling salts close at hand. But you have been asked to provide examples of how atheists specifically, are dissuading people who might otherwise accept theistic evolution from doing so. You’ve gone back four years without finding any, but don’t let that discourage you!
I don’t flag comments.
Now there’s an idea. I’m sure your rhetorical and diplomatic skills will ensure the great success of such a venture.
Huh. I had no idea I was playing such an outsized role in keeping this place afloat. It’s good thing I’m not a power mad egotist who would leverage my economic might to shape the direction of this forum. Actually, even if I was, it would probably look pretty much as it already does.
You mentioned me in regard to “concrete thinking”. Am I to suppose that "virtually mentally crippled when a hybrid scenario like GAE pops up on the horizon” is the same thing? What are the symptoms of virtual mental crippling, and when have I displayed them?
What details? You need to present actual examples of concrete thinking, not just of people who supposedly display it. Your communication skills need a lot of work. So far nobody reading you knows what concrete thinking is or why it’s a problem.
