It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suggestion to Rename this Forum

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Mods, my apologies if this is not the appropriate forum.

I suggest the name of this forum gets an update!

From Origins and Creationism, to Origins and Evolution.

What's the most debated subject in this particular forum? Evolution! Of course the other side of the argument are typically the creationists. However, creationism is never actually debated. It's shut down. As any frequenter of this forum knows, more often than not the theory of evolution is attacked by the creationists and in their attempt to debate flaws or prove it wrong they bring nothing to the table. They do not address the science or do not fully understand it, and choose to remain ignorant even when corrected on certain points. A simple example of this would be when it comes to the scientific definition of theory. Some flat out refuse to discuss the subject in one intellectually dishonest way or another.

They make claims that aren't backed up. Such as a scientific conspiracy to discredit God. Personally I would be more than interested in a thread about a conspiracy of that magnitude. But alas, no such evidence of a conspiracy is presented. Unless they are counting previous frauds (Piltown Man etc) as evidence. Those handful of hoaxes have been exposed (thanks to science, go figure) for what they are. Not to mention their legitimacy or lack of it isn't and never was the crux of the Theory of Evolution. In short, there really hasn't been a legitimate debate from the creationist camp.

Their position is tied to their religious beliefs more than anything. I was reading an article about science denial and there was a good quote from Joshua Rosenau (National Center for Science Education). He said, "As with any kind of science denial, it’s never the science itself. It’s these cultural fears,". Good observation. One many of us here have made. Origins and Creationism implies this is a religious forum. While I'm definitely not opposed to religious views being discussed when it comes to origins or evolution I do feel Origins and Evolution is a more appropriate title for the forum.

In a previous thread SO threw out the idea that "Creation Science" and "Young Earth" threads be tossed in the Hoax bin. I may have agreed at the time but I feel this would be a better solution (not that there is necessarily a "problem"). ATS serves as a place to deny ignorance and keeping those threads open is good. While there are those who are convinced of their position, there are still those that can learn a thing or two from the ample amount of dedicated and knowledgeable defenders of science!
edit on 2-9-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: format




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
You cannot have evolution without creation.

All
edit on 9-2-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Define "created".


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Define "created".
If you need clarity on that word then this topic may be way over your head.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Not a bad idea. Then the forum may get more threads about fossils, ancient art, and the newest and most interesting theories and finds without going all creationism on us (I enjoy some creationism data, but they give the impression that all life forms snapped into place ready-made in an instant when Goddess or someone snapped her fingers).



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Good point, though maybe not the one you were trying to make (if any specifically). If creation is the origin than there is no need for the redundancy in the forum name.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

Good points as well. I didn't even think of the possibility of increased traffic to these parts. (From more diversity of threads). Though not entirely sure how much would actually change. Hard to say. Though more people may feel inclined to come here if it didn't feel as religious.
edit on 2-9-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Seems more of an attack on creationists than a request for a name change.
snidey dig time....



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

For something to be created it needs a creator.
Evolution happens with or without a creator, it'll happen regardless.

The issue with renaming the forum is that it's a forum about beginnings, origins, and it might involves creationism. Evolution is an after affect of the beginnings.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
You cannot have evolution without creation.

All


One can argue that creationism is already defined under the "Origins" label of the forum. Evolution isn't "origins" nor "Creationism", but it is discussed here. The OP has a point, and technically the title "Origins and Creationism" is redundant since again Creationism IS an origins argument.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
snidey dig time....


i think the op made a reasoned case rather than a 'snidey dig'

and i think it was both an attack on creationists and a request for a name change



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: aynock

If it was an attack on creationist then it was a snidey dig, as the title suggest that this was a request for a name change.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: aynock

There was some rant in the OP.

Not meant to be an attack necessarily but to point out imo it's kind of lame to have creationism in a forum name when those in that camp often don't actually supply anything in support of their views.

Edit:
Not to mention, evolution is one of the topics they bring up most.
edit on 2-9-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Instead of being condescending, why don't you instead define "creation" within the context you used it? Considering the forum, it's a pretty loaded term depending on the definition.

Anyway, as for the OP, "Creationism vs. Evolution" would be more appropriate. That's what 99.999% of the topics are. Or the "Groundhog Day" forum.
edit on 9-2-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

...or what about "Origins of Life" and leave out the specific words of contention?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Why does it have to be one or the other?

Just because you believe in one argument and feel excluded over a forum name does not give you the right to flip that and exclude the other. That's just stupid and is the main thought process behind any conflict between two opposing views whatever they may be that causes all the fighting and bickering.

Why not meet in the middle and just call it Origins, or Origins of our Species. This leaves to door open all views, theories, conspiracies, beliefs....ect

This way no one is excluded. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster camp can join in.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
NVM, SgtHamsandwich already mentioned this, so i agree, 'Origins'.
edit on 9-2-2015 by LionOfGOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

I personally don't feel excluded, so that was not a hidden motive for my suggestion.

The suggestion to simplify it to "Origins" or something similar, may be a better one though.




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

i would have described it as legitimate criticism (though not necessarily correct), rather than an attack - to some people though they are perceived as the same thing

i certainly wouldn't characterise it as a 'snidey dig' - that would be a one or two line post with little more substance than a personal attack - i thought you argued a case




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: aynock

Thanks. I felt it was pretty legit too. Of course I went into it knowing there will be some who perceived it as an attack. All I wanted was to open some dialogue. So far so good. Already have had a few better suggestions.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join