Big Bang - Big Dud

You had a delusional rant.

Eta - I can understand your frustrations, but these guys aren't worth shooting your blood pressure through the roof.

quote:

---

By the way the Big Bang and star/planet formation HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION WHICH IS A BIOLOGY THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

See previous comment, above.Now that said, surely you can accept the term "evolution" to be used as in "stellar evolution". See my signature also.{Your response can be "Well, OK. But don't call be Shirley".}The word is "decaf",
Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

quote:

---

You never had a theory.

---

Maybe not, but it was more than you had any answers for, it seems.

arkathon - I think you need a break, to consider how your participation fits into this forum.Take about (a forced) 24 hours off (You're getting a short term suspension).And yes, I know you didn't receive a real formal warning. Despite that, I'm confident you'll survive the ordeal.Adminnemooseusedited to fix the "I before E, except after C", in "receive".[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-31-2004]

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

I haven't read enough of Arkathon's posts to judge for myself, but I'm curious if this can really be considered an appropriate response from Eta in Message 7: He goes on to back up this assessment, and if Arkathon is truly making a habit of interjecting unrelated faith-based interrogatories into serious discussions then perhaps it isn't as inappropriate as it first appeared. There are those, after all, who believe faith justifies even the most boneheaded behavior, and serious discussions deserve some protections from such people. I just wanted to be sure.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Part of this is also due to his actions on ChristianForums. He takes pieces from here and posts them there and vice versa.I'll stand by the dimwit comment though. I accept I was probably a tad over the line.Just read his stuff closely. It's gibberish. No law against that - many do it - but he eats up literally a couple of hundred posts of it.

Arkathon doesn't have a chance of understanding anything about cosmology. That is why I suggested he move to something that he just might be able to wrap his head around. That is, dating the earth itself.Of course, I'm also sure he's just smart enough to know that he can't play the bafflegab game so well there and hasn't a chance so he stays away.

quote:

---

They check them, concoct new mindbending pagan stories, and practice making fun of those who use them against their new, improved, imagined 'monopoly on science' doctrines.

---

Could you please show us, with data and evidence, how these new theories are merely concocted and not based in reality. You are coming close to accusing scientists of falsifying data. This is one of the greatest sins in science, and such an accusation needs to be based on actual evidence instead of a disliking of the conclusions drawn. Being a scientist myself, I take this as a personal affront that fellow scientists are being accused of lying without any basis in fact. In other words, put up or shut up.

He may not be the only one considered a "dork" and "imbecile". It's nice to be important, but more important to be nice. After all you guys are simply in denial that your veiw of science is a religion as well. At least that's the way I see it.

quote:

---

Arkathon doesn't have a chance of understanding anything about cosmology.

---

Since no one proved him wrong, maybe it's you who do not have much chance of understanding? Very brave, the little pep talk here, after suspending the guy without warning. Reminds me of some kids I knew in school.

quote:

---

After all you guys are simply in denial that your veiw of science is a religion as well. At least that's the way I see it.

---

Nice try, but no dice I am afraid. If evolution is a religion, why are people of every religious affiliation involved in its construction? Sorry, evolution is the result of eliminating religion from science, not the other way around.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-31-2004]

quote:

---

Since no one proved him wrong, maybe it's you who do not have much chance of understanding?

---

It behooves the person asserting a position to support it, not on the detractors to prove in wrong. You are putting the cart before the horse.

quote:

---

Nice try, but dice I am afraid. If evolution is a religion, why are people of every religious affiliation
involved in its construction? Sorry, evolution is the result of eliminating religion from science, not the
other way around.

---

I might ask then why people of every religious affiliation are involved in it's destruction? Result of eliminating religion? About as much as catholics and protestests in Ireland are eliminating each other. Pure science is a different matter. You cannot put a blanket of pureness over all modern science, and every part of it. Much of it is belief biased and based.

quote:

---

You cannot put a blanket of pureness over all modern science, and every part of it. Much of it is belief biased and based.

---

Methodological naturalism is the blanket, and as long as it is adhered to the science is solid. Getting back to the topic, where in the laws that govern the celestial bodies should we insert supernatural mechanisms? What evidence can only be explained by the supernatural or the direct interference of a diety into the natural world as observed in the field of astronomy? How can we reliably test for the presence of the diety's influence in a repeatable fashion? No one has ever been able to do this, and this is why methodological naturalism, the "blanket of pureness' within science, works, has worked, and will continue to work. Methodological supernaturalism has yet to make a reliable theory, why is that?

Most of us, perhaps all, have not been trying to prove him wrong, because his ideas are carefully crafted to be unscientific, untestable, and unrefutable. Every attempt to find some prediction of his "theory" that could be tested has been met with obfuscation and denial. I noted early in his "bulletproof alternate universe" thread that his ideas could not be refuted.Most of the "discussion" has been attempts to correct his egregious errors and misconceptions about science and the Big Bang.I'm a little troubled by his suspension. However, he has steadfastly refused to support his claims and conduct a good-faith discussion. If this suspension leads hin to change his ways (I doubt that it will) then it will be a good thing.