Appropriate topics for discussion on the Forum


(Brad Kramer) #1

The moderators have had to deal with a large number of off-topic discussions recently. I’m not just talking about people going off on tangents (although that is a general issue here), but conversation on controversial issues that are not relevant to the BioLogos conversation. This Forum is not meant to be a free-for-all for a small group of verbose individuals to endlessly discuss whatever they please between themselves. Its purpose is to foster conversation between people of different backgrounds and perspectives on issues at the direct intersection of faith and science, and particularly relating to origins. Here are some practical examples of topics that do not belong here:

-Abortion
-Homosexuality
-Terrorism
-Gun Rights
-Broad discussions about Christian doctrine that have absolutely nothing to do with origins

The moderators will delete public conversations about these topics, according to their discretion. Of course, you are free to use the “private message” feature as you wish—as long as conversation remains gracious—but for public posts, all conversations must stay relevant to BioLogos topics.

Thanks,
Brad (and the other mods—@jstump and @Christy)


Why did the chicken cross the road?
(Brad Kramer) #2

(Patrick ) #3

Good point Brad.

Here an origins science results for discussion. Many people feel uncomfortable having a common ancestor with monkeys so how do you feel about our common worm ancestor?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151118155119.htm


(Brad Kramer) #4

Patrick, this is an appropriate topic for discussion. Why not start a new thread for discussion based on it?


(Patrick ) #5

Sure, go ahead and make it a new topic.


(Brad Kramer) #6

It makes more sense for you to create it. Then people know it was you who found it in the first place.


(Patrick ) #7

Sure but you make me wait four hours to create a new topic.


(Brad Kramer) #8

That’s very much on purpose.


(Patrick ) #9

I wanted to ask you. Does Biologos get hacked much?


(Mazrocon) #10

Sorry for going off topic, Brad. I’ll try not to delve into political and ethical issues and just stick to the topics at hand…

-Tim


(Patrick ) #11

Yes, I would like to discuss “harmonizing science with faith” again. Everytime discussions go down rabbit holes, I get the feeling the Jerry Coyne is possibly correct in that it is impossible to harmonize science with any faith. But it worth a try as it is sad to see YEC children having to struggle in the secular world when they realize they have been lied to both in the science and their faith.


(George Brooks) #12

I concur with and support this policy. I will re-double my efforts to be more disciplined in confining my writings to the relevant topics!

Keep up the good work, @BradKramer

George Brooks


(Henry Stoddard) #13

@BradKramer,

I must agree that the topics mentioned in your general comment are not appropriate here. If individuals wish to discuss these topics, they should find blogs that deal with them. I would say that this is a discussion about how God created the universe and anything else there may be. It is a discussion of faith and scientific evidence and how they can fit together. Also, I do not mean to insult anyone; on the contrary, I am just stating what seems to be the fact. God bless and Happy Holidays. Charles E. Miller AKA Henry Wynns.


(Patrick ) #14

Brad,
New article. WOuld this be appropriate for discussion?


(Henry Stoddard) #15

@BradKramer, @Patrick, @Eddie,@TimothyHicks, @aleo
May I make a suggestion? Perhaps the article can be discussed in a way to show how BioLogos can be a witness to the young that evolution is creationism too and that we do not need to separate ourselves from faith to believe in a scientific theory that seems to be true. We could discuss Darwin to show that his form of evolution may not fit all the facts of creation. This would not be the God of gaps; on the contrary, it would show that there must be a First Cause for things to be. Logic would also show this. Remember that 0+0= 0. A creator would be needed to bring something from nothing. Time seems that it may in an eternal way have no beginning. As I see it, there must be both temporal time and eternal time. Something living and thinking that is eternal and greater than all time must be behind what exists. These are just my thoughts. Evolutionists can be Theistic and do not have to be agnostic and atheistic. Aristotle, a non-Christian, even believed in a creator God or First Cause. Perhaps God was using him as He used the King of Persia in the Book of Esther to bring His truth to us. Equation: Creator + 0= Creation.


(Brad Kramer) #16

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I would love it if you would start a discussion about that article. I read it today and wasn’t happy about it. Start a new topic.


(Brad Kramer) #17

@henry,

Sounds good to me. Start a new topic to discuss it.


(Patrick ) #18

Sure, I will do that but you need to open up my ability to create new topics. The four hour rule is an unnecessary annoyance.


(Patrick ) #19

I went to create a new topic and now it is 12 hours. If you want it, you do it as I don’t have time for your moderator nonsense.


(Marvin Adams) #20

you sound like you do not want to submit to the rule of someone else, a bit like suffering from puberty where everything has to be now and by your terms.