C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I'd like the mods to reply before the real posting begins. This thread is created as a follow up on the "evolution thread" that died recently - something I'm very displeased with. I know a few (unnamed) people went ballistic in then end of it, and it was the mod's right to close it as such. However, I'm asking if it's possible to simply edit or delete the offending posts when it comes to such a matter - it gets the point across to the offender and won't sadden everyone by closing a good topic. Another idea is to temporarily ban the offender - if they can't debate without resorting to flaming or name calling, they need a severe reprimand. I know this is Yoda's Swamp and most everything goes, but I simply won't stand for this. In all respect, sometimes the swamp is a bit too tolerant, only resorting to locking threads, not doing anything against the people who killed them in the first place. As a sidenote, I think it speaks volumes that the flaming was one-sided. Most (if not all) of the immature name calling came from the creationist side of this debate, leaving me to question why they needed to resort to this. Mods, with your permission I'll gladly continue this thread but with a warning this time: If you can't debate this matter in a mature and polite way, don't even start. If you choose to delete or lock this thread immediately, I'll get the point and stop bothering you, the mods. The evolution thread was one of the most interesting ones to date, I'm very sad that there'll only be "game threads" left now - something I personally hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacky_Baccy Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 For the most part, I agree with you, cjais... I went digging for an excellent 'serious discussion' thread that we had in the Swamp a fair while ago (Vestril's return reminded me of it), and it was good to read it again... If we could keep it like that one was (mostly mature, well-formed and thought-out arguments), then these newer ones would be much better... I never did get a response from obi-wan 13 in that old thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I really would like to see where we called you guys names or "flamed" you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pad Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 last night i had a discussion about the thread on msn with grets sirob. and although we thought completly different on things we didnt start calling each other names or somethin like that. its totally immature not to accepts other ppl opinion. so i suggest u keep it open to discussion but just delete/edit the immature posts. i really think it was a good discussion. and as for all the ppl, accept it that other ppl may think different on things!!! we r open to debate, not to flamin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by Padanime the immature posts. i really think it was a good discussion. and as for all the ppl, accept it that other ppl may think different on things!!! Basicly they will consider anything they dont agree with to be a "flame"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg I really would like to see where we called you guys names or "flamed" you... I won't name any names here, but look through the thread again and you'll see. It's a very relevant debate, and not at all one where everyone feels we aren't moving anyone - I refer to the one person who at least changed his view on things dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Basicly they will consider anything they dont agree with to be a "flame"... I take that by "them", you're referring to non-creationists - where do you find that this has happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Folks I tried to tell you before this subject makes people angry. If you decide to talk about this be prepared for insults, since telling someone that their core beliefs are wrong is more then a simple insult. Having said that I will go onto the topic at hand. We did not evolve from monkeys. We have found HUMAN fossil hundreds of thousands of years old. Now because we have found these fossils we must assume that the evolution of this imaginery ape happed hundreds of thousands of year before the last known human fossil. Thus LOGIC would beg the question.... If some apes evolved MILLIONS of years ago., why have no other apes evolved similar traits? Before you shout "evolution takes MILLIONS of years" remember these other apes had MILLIONS of years and ALL evolved in similar ways. So out of ALL the HUNDREDS of species of monkeys and apes NOT ONE evolved traits similar to our own? I find that hard to believe, but evolutionists take this part on....yuppers....FAITH. Also please ask yourselves this. Why is it that we find so many ealry mammels that were tiny, disosaurs no bigger then house cats that are millions of years old, yet we have so much trouble finding early humans, or our direct ancestors? Gee its almost like we just sprang up isn't it........ I welcome your arguements, I have had this very discussion before and am more then prepared to illustrate the faith that evolution demands of its believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 As told, I will not proceed arguing this matter until it has been deemed fit by the mods. Don't worry though, I will adress your points when I've been given the green light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by FatalStrike Folks I tried to tell you before this subject makes people angry. If you decide to talk about this be prepared for insults, since telling someone that their core beliefs are wrong is more then a simple insult. When I last checked the meaning of the word fundamentalist it was along the lines of: Person who bases his entire belief system on religious documents. I am not saying that anyone around here is fundamentalistic, but his/her own posts will, as you said, reveal whether it is the case. Originally posted by FatalStrike Having said that I will go onto the topic at hand. I thought that cjais posted that the actual topic was not to be debated until the MODs had cleared it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 guys come on...the topic was debated and ran into the ground. Really - what do you try and accomplish by debating those threads. Its good to read others opinions on the subject but when you guys start arguing and quoting and what have you. It gets rather old...really fast. Not to mention...I loose interest about halfway through the posts. I personally think that the thread had worn out its welcome and was due for a lock. You guys got your points across no need to continue on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by STTCT guys come on...the topic was debated and ran into the ground. Really - what do you try and accomplish by debating those threads. Its good to read others opinions on the subject but when you guys start arguing and quoting and what have you. It gets rather old...really fast. Not to mention...I loose interest about halfway through the posts. I personally think that the thread had worn out its welcome and was due for a lock. You guys got your points across no need to continue on. We never got our point across, according to WhiteRaider. I was still not finished debating this before it was closed. And I'm not forcing you to participate. For me, it's the only really interesting thread at the moment. The same can be said for those silly "battle-threads" - they've worn out long ago IMHO. EDIT - Groovy, should I take that as a sign that it's alright to debate this further but you're just expecting it to turn out just as bad? Or, if you feel like it should be locked or deleted, please just do so instead of posting that picture. I like a clear message. BTW: Read my comments on editing/deleting ugly posts instead of locking the entire thread - and my idea to temporarily ban the offender. EDIT nr 2 - Oh, I see you've deleted your post Groovy. What does that mean? Does it mean anything? Oh, I'm starting to get philosophical here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I didn't participate in the thread in discussion. I did read through the first portion and the end where it got ugly. I don't participate in the battle thread either. To each their own . I don't think that you could argue whiteraider into believing what you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 First of all I think you guys are getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too out of hand, you should take some advice from STTCT's comment. Second of all I hate heated debates, it is quite obvious you are just looking to start another one. If that's your cup of tea, that's fine by me since I have no jurisdiction here, and as long as no rules get broken, i'm pretty easy. Either way, this thread is going to get very ugly, I can just tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Ugly as Michael Jackson? *readies hose and thread-closing rifle* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by STTCT I didn't participate in the thread in discussion. I did read through the first portion and the end where it got ugly. I don't participate in the battle thread either. To each their own . I don't think that you could argue whiteraider into believing what you believe. Good point, but that does not make it a less interesting topic. And I did actually change someone's opinion on this matter to my big surprise Groovy - Don't hate the heated debates, hate the people who heat up because of debating. If people can't handle debating in a calm and serious manner, they shouldn't even start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skate Boy Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Groovy I hate heated debates I have to agree with you on that, I don't like mindless Spam but, always fighting gets under my skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Groovy First of all I think you guys are getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too out of hand, you should take some advice from STTCT's comment. Second of all I hate heated debates, it is quite obvious you are just looking ot start another one. If that's your cup of tea, that's fine by me since I have no jurisdiction here, and as long as no rules get broken, i'm pretty easy. Either way, this thread is going to get very ugly, I can just tell. That is why we have MODs on the forums IMO. If those who are to clean up the mess (i.e. those who moderate this forum) judge that they will be spending too much time on any thread, they should just close it down, end of story. What cjais was complaining about was the lack of explanation. At least that's what I think. BTW: Is this post your personal opinion, your MOD opinion or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 As a sidenote, I think it speaks volumes that the flaming was one-sided. Most (if not all) of the immature name calling came from the christian side of this debate, leaving me to question why they needed to resort to this. Dude, just saying "the Christian side of the debate" is way too broad. I'm a Christian and, really, this whole evolutionist/creationist thing doesn't impact my core beliefs in the least, and there are millions of Christians who feel the same way. I see Genesis as God telling Moses a parable (just like Jesus told when He was on earth). Moses (and the Jews) might have just not been ready, at that time, for the insanely complicated, headspinning scientific explanation... so God used a parable to explain to Moses the one fundamental Truth: I created everything and that's all you need to know But anyway, don't just say "the Christian side of the debate", because there are varied views. Call it the Creationist side, or the Fundamentallist side, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 i thought this thread was about why the debate was closed...not a continuation of that debate........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by FatalStrike We did not evolve from monkeys. We have found HUMAN fossil hundreds of thousands of years old. Now because we have found these fossils we must assume that the evolution of this imaginery ape happed hundreds of thousands of year before the last known human fossil. Thus LOGIC would beg the question.... If some apes evolved MILLIONS of years ago., why have no other apes evolved similar traits? Before you shout "evolution takes MILLIONS of years" remember these other apes had MILLIONS of years and ALL evolved in similar ways. So out of ALL the HUNDREDS of species of monkeys and apes NOT ONE evolved traits similar to our own? I find that hard to believe, but evolutionists take this part on....yuppers....FAITH. Also please ask yourselves this. Why is it that we find so many ealry mammels that were tiny, disosaurs no bigger then house cats that are millions of years old, yet we have so much trouble finding early humans, or our direct ancestors? Gee its almost like we just sprang up isn't it........ Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and more are our ancestors, we didn't just spring up from nowhere. Also, no human fossiles have been found - only human bones. Why no other apes have evolved into some "human-like" race? Well, for a time, humans and neanderthals lived side by side, but eventually Neanderthals died because they couldn't stand the competition - Humans outresourced and outlived them. Chimps have local wars and political games that resemble humans in terrifying detail. We didn't evolve from monkeys nor apes - we simply have a common ancestor - which was, an ape - but the difference is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk Dude, just saying "the Christian side of the debate" is way too broad. Yes it was - and I deeply apologize. What I meant to say was "The Creationist side". Once again, sorry - I've edited the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by cjais Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and more are our ancestors, we didn't just spring up from nowhere. Also, no human fossiles have been found - only human bones. Why no other apes have evolved into some "human-like" race? Well, for a time, humans and neanderthals lived side by side, but eventually Neanderthals died because they couldn't stand the competition - Humans outresourced and outlived them. Chimps have local wars and political games that resemble humans in terrifying detail. We didn't evolve from monkeys nor apes - we simply have a common ancestor - which was, an ape - but the difference is important. Once again why did only one species of man live on? You must realize that not all of this evolution would happen in the same area. By the evolutionary theory different species of man should have flourished in different areas. However only man remains. Also why did one species of man cause all other to die out, yet one species of ape did not do the same for other apes. Basically what I am saying is that the evolutionary theory has a great deal of wholes that are pugged up by the fiath you have in science. I have no problem with that. Also when I said we sprang up I didn't mean in our modern from. Also you have still failed to account for the exceeding difficulty in finding human bones even though they are larger and stronger then bones we keep finding that predate them by millions of years. The very core of evolution, which is to say humans are a relatively young species on this planet should make finding our bones intact and in good shape fairly easy. Also I still do not believe life results from a mix of chemicals. I saw an article that they had figured it out but they only made amino acids. There is still no infomation that I have seen explaining what would cause these amino acids to suddenly grow a coating of some kind and come to life. ---- This debate should be allowed as long as people do not insult eachother. For example Cjais and myself are clearly and politely discussing a very complex topic. It can be done as long as people do not let emotion result in insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by FatalStrike Once again why did only one species of man live on? You must realize that not all of this evolution would happen in the same area. By the evolutionary theory different species of man should have flourished in different areas. However only man remains. Also why did one species of man cause all other to die out, yet one species of ape did not do the same for other apes. Basically what I am saying is that the evolutionary theory has a great deal of wholes that are pugged up by the fiath you have in science. I have no problem with that. Also when I said we sprang up I didn't mean in our modern from. Also you have still failed to account for the exceeding difficulty in finding human bones even though they are larger and stronger then bones we keep finding that predate them by millions of years. The very core of evolution, which is to say humans are a relatively young species on this planet should make finding our bones intact and in good shape fairly easy. Humans spread rapidly across the planet - they would very soon have conquered the planet and outevolved the primitive neanderthals. Human bones aren't fossilized yet and they're made of organic material. Look at the pyramids - made of stones and several thousand years old. They're not in good shape, they're slowly decaying and eroding. Now, compare that to bones that are at least 5000 years older than the pyramids and not made of stone - you'll see it's very difficult to find them, but not impossible. Bones decay easily over time, you can't expect archeologists to dig up intact bones or fossils from every race that lived. [edit] - Mods, please change the thread name to "Evolution vs Creationism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalStrike Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by cjais Humans spread rapidly across the planet - they would very soon have conquered the planet and outevolved the primitive neanderthals. I still don't see it happening. Why would the humans cause the neanderthals to die out? It doesn't make sense. Also human bones are younger then dinosaur bones and bigger and stronger then many bones that we have found of smaller dino's. If we can find them, then we should have no problems finding humans remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.