Creationism Discussions - Should We Allow Them... Again?

[John Cuthber]

That's not inconsistent with having a sticky topic with the rebuttals of all the usual dross.

[Sensei]

But Carbon-14 dating isn't trustworthy...

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

 

This one is interesting, as it's article not made by creationists fanatics.

Do you see why it's giving false answers above 20,000 years +- 3500 y difference in water living animals with shells.. ?

It's not carbon that has source in photosynthesis in the first place. But it's carbon in CaCO3.

Animals with shells that died, their shells are starting dissolving (it's slightly soluble in water 0.013 g/L @ 25 C), and calcium carbonate is taken by other still living animals for building their own shells, obviously influencing results.

[studiot]

The unintended consequences of your proposed "cure" strike me as far less desirable than the "disease" you're seeking to ameliorate.

 

Care to elaborate ?

[John Cuthber]

 

Care to elaborate ?

If the "cut off" was set to 30 posts and the limit was applied to this thread, then whatever someone posts next would be the end of the discussion- even if it was total nonsense.You could post anything, and there wouldn't be a reply.

Also, cutting people off would either look like censorship or drive them to start new threads which clutter the place up even more.

[studiot]

If the "cut off" was set to 30 posts and the limit was applied to this thread, then whatever someone posts next would be the end of the discussion- even if it was total nonsense.You could post anything, and there wouldn't be a reply.

Also, cutting people off would either look like censorship or drive them to start new threads which clutter the place up even more.

I believe I suggested 5 posts per member responding, not a total length.

 

Isn't there a vigorously enforced policy of not opening another thread on a closed subject?

[Phi for All]

We do need some clear lines of arbitration; what we will not put up with.

 

Maybe instead of a Q&A, which has a low probability of being read, we could do a sticky list of Those Things Up With Which We Will NOT Put.

 

The Gish Gallop Moontanman mentioned should be on the list. Questioning radiocarbon dating is also a dead end.

[StringJunky]

 

Maybe instead of a Q&A, which has a low probability of being read, we could do a sticky list of Those Things Up With Which We Will NOT Put.

 

The Gish Gallop Moontanman mentioned should be on the list. Questioning radiocarbon dating is also a dead end.

Yes, just like that.

Yes, just like that.

You could also do a Saint of the Month banner for the person that stays the coolest the longest when dealing with creationists.

[Acme]

...

Also, cutting people off would either look like censorship or drive them to start new threads which clutter the place up even more.

Censorship here is not a four-letter word. The rules clearly set the censorship guidelines and the staff is responsible for enforcing the guidelines. Folks who don't like the rules here are free to leave and go somewhere else or start their own forum or blog.

 

What I get from this thread's title is that creationism was at some point set out as against the guidelines. If this is the case then keep the guidelines that way and enforce them.

[iNow]

Care to elaborate ?

I would, but your recommendation was already implemented here in this subforum and I was unable to submit my response.

Maybe instead of a Q&A, which has a low probability of being read, we could do a sticky list of Those Things Up With Which We Will NOT Put.

 

The Gish Gallop Moontanman mentioned should be on the list. Questioning radiocarbon dating is also a dead end.

You know, Galileo was attacked for his ideas, too!!1!!one!!2!exclamationPOINT!!

[Phi for All]

You know, Galileo was attacked for his ideas, too!!1!!one!!2!exclamationPOINT!!

 

Oooh, that reminds me! No referencing Darwin when you're talking about modern evolutionary theory. It's like claiming the Wright Brothers barely got off the ground on their first flight, so they obviously would have crashed an airplane the size of a 787, therefore the theory of flight is flawed and the controversy needs to be investigated.

You could also do a Saint of the Month banner for the person that stays the coolest the longest when dealing with creationists.

 

I can already tell this is going to be important if we do allow this creationism thread. Anyone who chooses to participate is expected to be uber civil and present the best, coolest, calmest side of science. Creationists love to pretend you're afraid of their questions when you get angry.

[swansont]

 

Maybe instead of a Q&A, which has a low probability of being read, we could do a sticky list of Those Things Up With Which We Will NOT Put.

 

The Gish Gallop Moontanman mentioned should be on the list. Questioning radiocarbon dating is also a dead end.

 

That sounds a lot like the objection, though — refusal to discuss science.

[zapatos]

I believe there will always be people on this site who will benefit from following these discussions, even if they don't participate in them. Therefore I would allow them.

Just because the people here have debunked creationism multiple times does not mean the creationist who wants to debate it has heard the arguments before. Another good reason to allow them.

If the creationist is simply preaching or trolling we can painlessly let the thread die a quiet death by individually deciding further discussion is a waste of time and no longer responding.

[Acme]

I believe there will always be people on this site who will benefit from following these discussions, even if they don't participate in them. Therefore I would allow them.

Just because the people here have debunked creationism multiple times does not mean the creationist who wants to debate it has heard the arguments before. Another good reason to allow them.

If the creationist is simply preaching or trolling we can painlessly let the thread die a quiet death by individually deciding further discussion is a waste of time and no longer responding.

Since we have umpteen threads already here with the debunking I see no sense in allowing more. As others have suggested, any new attempts should be referred to the old threads and the new bit closed. Anyone 'interested' whether new or not need only use the forum search function to get their fill.

 

This give-equal-time meme is the same as the creationists trotted out in their attempts to include this crap in US public schools and which US courts determined was not science and soundly put the kibosh on. Honestly, anyone who wants to read what creationists write can go to creationist sites.

creationism and creation science @ The Skeptics Dictionary

[DevilSolution]

I don't mind creating it if its the general consensus

[zapatos]

Since we have umpteen threads already here with the debunking I see no sense in allowing more. As others have suggested, any new attempts should be referred to the old threads and the new bit closed. Anyone 'interested' whether new or not need only use the forum search function to get their fill.

Perhaps we could do the same for people who want to understand the twin paradox. Why waste everyone's time? Just tell them to use the search function. There are already umpteen threads here on Relativity.

 

This give-equal-time meme...

Is that what I was doing?

 

I'm unsure why you object to people having a discussion. You are under no obligation to participate, nor even to read the threads.

[DevilSolution]

Ah well i made it, Not sure if it includes all the generic arguments as i dont generally debate creationism. So please reply to modify or add anything that should be in there.

[Ophiolite]

It was my report that led to this thread being created.

 

This is my argument for not only entertaining creationism discussions, but for embracing them.

 

Science progresses through the collection, validation and distribution of knowledge. While most descriptions of scientific method focus on the first two, distribution of knowledge is important in order to minimise unnecessary duplication of effort and to educate laypeople in the findings of science.

 

As a site devoted to science I believe we have a small part to play in the distribution of accurate knowledge about science and the scientific method.

 

The same tired old arguments that get floated month after month by creationists are not tired old arguments to many of the lurkers reading those threads. In some cases they are even new to the creationist presenting them. We may be bored, frustrated, disinterested, or angered by their seemingly endless reincarnations, but the neophyte lurker is not.

 

From the viewpoint of the neophyte lurker, if they see a creationist argument ignored, they can readily believe this is because no sound counter argument exists. Pointing people to other resources alone is perceived by them as a cop-out. If we do this often enough - and it does not take much - they are likely to decide that the creationists may be right.

 

The lurkers, and some of the creationist posters, stand on a watershed. On the one side is the objective, scientific method and its revelations about evolution. On the other is the subjective, faith based response and its diatribe against evolution. We have a duty, regardless of how boring, frustrating, or repetitive we may find it, to reach out and guide that lurker or poster off the watershed and towards science. Every time.

[Phi for All]

 

That sounds a lot like the objection, though — refusal to discuss science.

 

And it may be received as such, but this isn't a refusal to discuss. It's more like stipulations. "I'll box with you but you aren't allowed to kick me in the groin, or gouge my eyes", that type of thing. No deceitful tactics, no dirty tricks like the Gish Gallop. I think when it's put this way, it will have at least as good a chance of being read as the Q&A sticky (I think we need both lists, actually). If it's a tad humorous, it may help people take the message on board less defensively.

[swansont]

 

And it may be received as such, but this isn't a refusal to discuss. It's more like stipulations. "I'll box with you but you aren't allowed to kick me in the groin, or gouge my eyes", that type of thing. No deceitful tactics, no dirty tricks like the Gish Gallop. I think when it's put this way, it will have at least as good a chance of being read as the Q&A sticky (I think we need both lists, actually). If it's a tad humorous, it may help people take the message on board less defensively.

 

The Gish gallop is a tactic, though, and a dishonest one. That's why you disallow it. But saying you can't discuss C-14 falls under the whole rubric of why we had been shutting these down — ALL of the topic brought up are invariably ones that have been thoroughly discredited. So I don't see how there's a middle ground here. Who decides whether a topic is so well-established that we disallow it? Certainly the cdesign proponentists aren't going to agree with that. Either you allow all topics, or you allow none, IMO. What you do is set the rules for fair discussion: no shotgunning (Gish Gallop), no straw man arguments, back up what you say and cite your sources, etc. IOW, it has to be a science discussion.

[Acme]

...

I'm unsure why you [Acme] object to people having a discussion. You are under no obligation to participate, nor even to read the threads.

And you're under no obligation to read my posts or even respond to them.

[zapatos]

And you're under no obligation to read my posts or even respond to them.

I don't mind. I like reading your posts.

[Phi for All]

 

The Gish gallop is a tactic, though, and a dishonest one. That's why you disallow it. But saying you can't discuss C-14 falls under the whole rubric of why we had been shutting these down — ALL of the topic brought up are invariably ones that have been thoroughly discredited. So I don't see how there's a middle ground here. Who decides whether a topic is so well-established that we disallow it? Certainly the cdesign proponentists aren't going to agree with that. Either you allow all topics, or you allow none, IMO. What you do is set the rules for fair discussion: no shotgunning (Gish Gallop), no straw man arguments, back up what you say and cite your sources, etc. IOW, it has to be a science discussion.

 

I'm probably wrong, but I thought the C-14 argument was a pretty firmly established fallacy of Composition. Creationists claim that because C-14 was in error in some instances, it can't be trusted to accurately date anything.

 

Using logical fallacies is a dishonest tactic, but we have rules in place for that already. For the thread we're talking about though, I think we need to be very clear about what is considered hitting-below-the-belt, and what is considered viable for discussion purposes.

[swansont]

 

I'm probably wrong, but I thought the C-14 argument was a pretty firmly established fallacy of Composition. Creationists claim that because C-14 was in error in some instances, it can't be trusted to accurately date anything.

 

Using logical fallacies is a dishonest tactic, but we have rules in place for that already. For the thread we're talking about though, I think we need to be very clear about what is considered hitting-below-the-belt, and what is considered viable for discussion purposes.

 

Yes, the argument is that because it has failed in some circumstances, it can't be trusted. It is indeed a fallacious argument, but then again, virtually all of them end up being so in one way or another.

[Acme]

 

And you're under no obligation to read my posts or even respond to them.

I don't mind. I like reading your posts.

 

Well I'm flattered I'm sure. My point though is that you suggested I not read the creationist posts and since I have no way to know if a post is creationist or not without reading them, your point is kinda silly. It has been suggested that if these threads/posts stick to science then we should allow them, but again I would have to read them to make such a determination. My larger point is that NONE of the creationist posts or threads are actually science based so none of them belong here. Moreover, such posts/threads are fundamentally religious arguments that favor some particular religious viewpoint over others, a tactic that strikes me as contradicting our guidelines.

We don't allow racist, misogynist, or other types of prejudice against groups of people and creationism is clearly prejudiced against science and per se scientists.

[zapatos]

And you're under no obligation to read my posts or even respond to them.

...your point is kinda silly.

Clearly I seem to have offended you. My apologies.

 

The point I was trying to make was that some people really think that creationism is valid, and some people enjoy watching that kind of debate, and some people like to learn how to debate creationists by watching others.

I am of the opinion that reading an old thread is no substitute for actual debate, just as reading about football is no substitute for actually playing it.

Since no one here is required to participate in a creationist debate short of having open the thread to see what it is about then quickly closing the thread, I am unsure why said person would object to others participating in the debate if they choose to do so.

 

I don't like political fundraisers, but I don't try to stop anyone from participating in them. Once I realize I have walked in on one, I simply leave, closing the door behind me.