Change in Moderation?

The feedback's appreciated - thanks!I'll try replying to several posts, I'll include member IDs in the quote: WmScott's theory draws upon evidence from many different branches of science and he makes organized presentations of it (see, for example, Message 157 of his Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II thread, and compare this to Salty's Manifesto), while Salty references his own papers and makes unsupported assertions. I can actually describe WmScott's theory to other people. It wouldn't suit Salty's purpose to have his theory understood, so he sees to it that it is not. This by itself seems such a huge difference to me that I see no similarity in topic style at all.And while I know you were talking about style of topic and not style of debate, if you add Salty's ascerbic and obfuscative and issue-avoidance style versus WmScott's patient and thorough addressing of issues, the contrast is staggering. I would say that WmScott's and TB's style of analysis *and* style of debate are very, very similar (hey, has anyone ever seen them in the same room together?), and they seem as dissimilar to Salty as possible. I would place Salty and PB in the same category, though PB never tries to pick fights.You know, there's another issue here. I feel I'm just enforcing the guidelines. I don't let SLPx do what Salty is doing, why should I let Salty? The more I think about it the more I believe the guidelines are going to be a major issue for me. I think it's reasonable to interpret the guidelines flexibly, and I try to do that, but I feel I'm being asked to ignore the guidelines for certain individuals. If my perspective is wrong on this then I'm going to need some major help here getting through this issue. I was only trying to say that because of how illogical, not to mention arcane, they are, they have no chance of achieving the popularity of YEC, a result of the appeal it holds for those who cannot accept both Genesis and an ancient earth. Genetics holds no such appeal, and their theories make no sense anway. Now, maybe if PB or Salty were working from within an organization and were developing a consensus and a base of support, then I'd worry, but there's no chance that such illogical proposals could gain a following simply through postings on obscure bulletin boards. WmScott takes a well-reasoned approach and has a book, and even that's having no impact. Join the club. I own the place, and I'm even more confused now than you. Not all the forums are science, for instance, Faith and Belief and The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy. And discussions of the nature of science are fair game in the Is It Science? forum. But most of the rest of the forums are science forums, and the debate is usually framed by claims that Creation science is just as much a legitimate science as evolution. Maybe my timing was off, but I thought I waited a day and then noticed you posting in other threads, so figuring you had no objection I closed it. I've just reopened it. By the way, I'm not sure I'd call topic drift an infraction. I know it's in the guidelines, but it's human nature to take the thread of a conversation into new subjects, so we usually just note that it's happening in a short post. Anyway, it's never been a guidelines problem. I've never had anyone say, "I'm going to talk about whatever I want wherever I want." That's not a bad idea - if the theory picks up support it moves to one of the regular forums. There's still the moderation issue, but this possibility deserves some thought.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

"Where are TB and TC, anyway?"
--I've been absent for a couple of reasons actually. Recently I've been sick. One of my articles on Plate Cooling is being revised with the help of Dr. John Baumgardner for a forthcoming publication of it. So I have had my mind on that quite intensely. In addition I am designing a site for a business so that I can finally get myself some cash and get my long awaited subscriptions to Geophysical Research letters and the Journal of Geophysical Resarch. I'll become more active as soon as this web project is finished. Progress for me and the participants in the Paleosols thread is also quite tedious because of relevant materials I need in order for that thread to continue with additions of much needed information.------------------

I am wondering in light of this board being an evolution versus creationism discussion area if there is anything that can guard against such comments made about creationist scientists not at all being able to be scientists?
I enjoy reading this board but it sure is sad to see some people that only like to shoot cheap shots rather than give friendly debate?

The rate of change / gradualism / etc. is tied in historically with the blended inheritance theory, where heridity is fluid and not discrete. Darwin observed all kinds of slight (gradual) differences among finches which later were mostly found to be non heriditary. I would say it can be deceptive to present quality changes in terms of a gradual rate of change, since the rate of beneficial mutations is random, and not gradual.Even so this argument of mine may be wrong.... it is not obviously wrong, which is why it's arguable IMO.I think most everybody is engrained in the Darwinist conception of selection, where selection is between one or the other type, where in my selection, selection is between reproduction or no reproduction of the one type. But reasonably this different formulation is understandable to anyone. Why not stop Peter from once again trodding out an old argument that ignores my counterargument that I mentioned to him about 5 times before, in stead of stopping me to post about it in the first place? How about stopping yourself in your persona as Percipient from posting that variation is required in the definition because variation is most times present without addressing my counterarguments at all why that is false, which I already mentioned about 5 times before?http://EvC Forum: Quetzal, John, Peter and other non-variationist Darwinists -->EvC Forum: Quetzal, John, Peter and other non-variationist DarwinistsYou "forgot" to address that:
- stasis is most times observed in populations, not any "meaningful" (scientifically interesting) evolution.
- that you still need to describe how a trait functions in reproduction even if it's not varying
etc.So whose at fault here, me for endlessly repeating arguments like that, or you and others for endlessly ignoring arguments like that? And what if you hadn't ignored arguments like that, wouldn't then my case be seen to be a lot stronger, so it might interest creationists in the merits of my case when it comes to how this small difference in the fundaments of the theory affects religion?Sorry but I can't consider your closure of the thread fair play, several things point towards it being prejudicial.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I've never claimed to be unbiased. My recognition of this fact is the reason for the goal of balanced moderation. You're not even being prevented from discussing your General Theory of Reproduction because you can always discuss whatever you like in the Free For All forum. I'll move your thread there now.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Well, many (not all) Creation scientists either have dubious/false credentials, make uninformed claims in areas far outside that of their field if they do have legitimate credentials, or simply do poor science.All of these claims are demonstrable, BTW.

I don't quite understand how you see the role of a moderator, but since the thread is opened again I guess it's not worth going into.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

First a side note - For some reason, the Mozilla browser is crashing, when I try to reply here. I've gone back to using IE for the moment. Added by edit - well, Mozella does't seem to want to work at Terry's place either - might be a javascript thing - I wonder if that "critical update" I recently did from Microsoft, is mucking things up (the "evil empire" strikes again?). - end edit.Admin, I agree with what you're saying in message 31, but I'll add some comments.

quote:

---

You know, there's another issue here. I feel I'm just enforcing the guidelines. I don't let SLPx do what Salty is doing, why should I let Salty? {snip} ...but I feel I'm being asked to ignore the guidelines for certain individuals.

---

I fully concede that I'm "protecting" (note quotes) Salty a bit. But he is new to this forum, and so far has confined himself to the one topic. He is also in the position of being the one against the many. SLPx has a substantial history here, and has very much earned special administrative attention. That said, it is my intent to get back to the Salty topic, and give it a careful review. I will post some comments there, and link back to this topic.As I see it, individuals such as Salty, Peter Borger, and Michael Behe straddle the line between "old earth creationist" and "theistic evolutionist". Peter Borger has (as far as I know) never defined himself as such; Salty has (at Terrys Talk Origins) explicitly stated that he is an old earth evolutionist (non-Darwinian variety), and has strongly implied that he thinks God input was part of it.The difference between Salty and Borger (in my view), and Behe, is that Salty and Borger are mostly on the "old earth creationist" side of the fence, which essentially leaves them in no-mans land in the creation/evolution debate. Behe is 99+ percent on the evolution side - he is an evolutionist with a touch of creationist in him.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-23-2003]

[This is an excellent topic for discussion, but is off topic for this thread. I think this has come up before, and so it would be a good idea for someone to open a thread for it in the Is It Science? forum. --Admin]and how is it that you 'know' there credentials are bunk? For some reason it seems that many of these so called fakes have taught in major institutions or have taught in them.... or have worked for major organisations such as NASA...
I believe that what you are doing is slandering some people who have worked hard to get in the positions that they have...
I can understand you saying look at this particualar person there and go to this place and see that in truth he/she has false credentials, but to label the organisation as such I do not think should be tolerated...
I do appreciate you saying not all of them though.. but none the less show me any whom have falsity to there name...[This message has been edited by Jesuslover153, 03-23-2003][This message has been edited by Admin, 03-24-2003]

Hi Admin,
Sorry I did not get to this sooner but I was offline all weekend due to the Starkbierfest in Munich I think what you suggest here is a bad idea IMHO. I don't think a hypothesis should have to have more than one proponent to be discussed. I think the proponent must be willing to supply data they have generated themselves, data from other groups (even interpreted novelly), or a theoretical model. They then would have to support it, defend it, and try to account for information that perhaps falsifies it. It is not that PB has his GUToB that is the problem per se, it is his unwillingess to define it and a complete unwillingness to support his statements i.e. I have challenged him dozens of times to demonstrate an example of non random mutation and even suggested experiments he could finish off in a couple of weeks if need be. He either ignores me or claims he has "defeated evolution" and then continues to make the same claims or says nobody has ever addressed those claims. This is the problem with salty as well. As much of a pain in the posterior Fred Williams could be, he occassionally attempted to bring things to the table to support himself even if they were comically wrong.You are probably correct that myself, SLPx, Quetzal, Mark24 and the other evolutionists on the board do not have major disagreements about evolutoinary theory so a board dedicated to us debating esoteric points about molecular clocks etc. would not serve he purpose of this board. Hence, some of us are asking for leniency towards some of the creationists because as Quetzal indicated, they are the catalysts for broader and more interesting discussions. It is usually clear after a while when a thread is falling apart...therefore, I still am in favor of the idea of transforming the Free for All into a dumping ground, as PaulK so aptly described it, and have the rest of the forums moderated under a different more stringent set of criteria.This of course does not exclude the possibility (and a good idea at that) of having a creationist moderator such as TrueCreation or TB if they are willing to shoulder that responsibility.cheers,
M

I already realized there are inherent weaknesses in the idea, but the arguments you present to make this case seem, at least to me, to argue in the opposite direction, eg: Why should we be the first to attempt to understand a theory? By providing evidence of at least one other proponent of the theory the originator indicates that he is capable of making his ideas understandable to at least one other human being, and that his ideas deserve consideration because they have the power to persuade.The concise definition of a crackpot was recently provided by SLPx (it came from some major magazine, I forget which one), and it is a precise fit for PB, Salty, LRP, Alan Cresswell and others that don't come to mind at the moment. One of the reasons they're crackpots and not cult leaders is because of their inability to convince anybody. Why should we be bothered?That being said, I think that part of my negative reaction is that we seem to be visited by too many crackpots simultaneously. I would probably have an easier time enduring them successively rather than simultaneously. In other words, I understand that I'm overreacting, so don't worry that anything drastic is planned.On the other hand, I'm still not emotionally prepared for another "That's GUToB rule #3". If you and Quetzal and PaulK and others think you understand what this is saying and you want PB to stay here, then help him out and explain what he's saying for the rest of us. In fact, what I would like is a short but sufficient definition of GUToB and associated terms that is expressed, as Grape Ape requested, in familiar terminology.I agree very strongly with the value of learning through debunking, and in the interests of objectivity one must concede that one's own ideas may be the ones debunked, so in the end I guess I don't want PB or Salty or any of the others to go away, either. But neither am I willing to settle for the way things are now.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Admin,
I think you are slightly misinterpreting what I was trying to get at.Think of it this way, Stanley Prusiner won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his infectious prion work. There was a time where he was one of the only proponents of his protein only thoery of disease transmission. So presenting a theory as a lone proponent is not inherently bad as Prusiner was ultimately recognized as having been correct. However, in contrast to Borger, salty, etc. he both rigorously defined his hypothesis and then backed it up with an immense amount of experimental evidence. There is still a lot not known and maybe he is wrong on some minor and even major facets of prion disease. But nobody can accuse him of not being able to back up his assertions or at least of attempting to do so...having heard him lecture twice..it must have been a heck of a rough ride to convince people.That is what I have (very unsuccessfully) been trying to impress upon salty recently. Why is debating Tranquility Base on "kinds" or genomics worthwhile and debating with salty not? Because even though I think both of them are completely wrong, TB often would cite research that he felt supported his claims and argued with me over research articles or arguments that I presented...and thus the debate could progress. TB was a lone proponent of his view but a useful one...though he also had some annoying tendencies Ok, I agree that Borger is a crackpot and salty as well. I am not defending them as great thinkers with compelling arguments. Only as catalysts for discussion (for example: As a result of Borger's non-random mutation nonsense, I am getting some interesting questions from judge today). Borger with a lot of work would sometimes progress to another level i.e. at least stating his "theory" . It has been months since he has gone any further so I can see how you would consider him a waste of time. I am quickly reaching that point with salty.I think rather than the number of proponents one has for a hypothesis, the criteria should be 1) can the person formulate their view understandably 2) can they support it with experimental evidence, observation, theoretical models 3) and will they willingly debate counter evidence presented. Failure to abide by these criteria would mean their threads get booted to the Free for All.I think this would isolate the crackpots and encourage people to up the quality of their arguments...and the moderated areas would probably be more to your liking.On another note, do you really think their are more crackpots now than in the recent past?...I mean there were a few months last year with Wordswordsman, Borger, Fred Williams, and Ten-sai all posting at the same time. Things seem peaceful now..though I have to admit I have restricted myself to the Evolution forum.cheers,
M

Percy,I concur with my hairy proboscidean friend here. It might require a bit more moderation, but the idea has merit. And no, I have no earthly idea what "GUToB Rule #3" means. I applaud your ultimately vain attempt to clarify the infamous "theory". However, if you HAD been successful, you'd have accomplished quite a feat.

Good arguments, I see what you're getting at now. Sorry for the short response, but I have other projects I have to move on to. I just want to say that the feedback and suggestions from you and others has been very helpful.I can't compare to the period you refer to. My then project was on a hellfire mission and I had no free time to participate or moderate - Moose bore the full load during that period.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

At http://www.laurelhighlandsmedia.com/ they describe Salty' manifesto as: "John A. Davison's unique perspective on evolution"I don't see Salty as being the problem Peter Borger has been, since Salty at least has been focused to only one topic.But anyhow, if a special place for Peter Borger et all is needed, perhaps a "Unique Perspective" forum should be started. Somehow PB etc. would have to be confined to the individual forum.Moose