Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
49 online now:
Coragyps, Mercury, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,053 Year: 2,699/14,102 Month: 364/703 Week: 17/168 Day: 17/21 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Post your short questions here. No need to start a thread everytime.
Mr. Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 198 (227087)
07-28-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AdminJar
07-28-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Post search
Does that mean that most everything that a creationist will try to say has already been said? And then what about the evolutionists, have they run out of topics as well? If not the I need to be busy writing rebuttels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AdminJar, posted 07-28-2005 12:33 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 12:49 PM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 17 of 198 (227091)
07-28-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mr. Creationist
07-28-2005 12:43 PM


Re: Post search
Does that mean that most everything that a creationist will try to say has already been said?

LOL

More than likely, many times over. But that does not mean you might not find something new. There's always that possibility.

And then what about the evolutionists, have they run out of topics as well?

Nope, new things come to light near daily. It's an exciting period.

But go ahead and propose a New Thread. If it's been discussed recently and there's an open thread on it we can probably point you there. If there's something unique about your message, then a new thread is always welcome. Either way, we'll work with you to see that it gets the best beginnings.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-28-2005 12:43 PM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 07-28-2005 12:58 PM jar has responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 198 (227096)
07-28-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
07-28-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Post search
While I agree that a new thread shouldn't be opened when there is an inactive but fairly recent thread dealing with the same topic.

But I don't think that a topic should be rejected simply because it is something that has been seen before, even a million times before. If it has been long enough in the past since it was discussed, then it is quite possible that some of the new members (and lurkers) have not really discussed it in depth. Considering that we will all see these same arguments again in real life (I know I have), it might be useful for some people to see what the arguments really are. And reading (and perhaps participating in) a current discussion is certainly more interesting than reading an old one.

I certainly agree when the admins ask someone to think a little more about their proposal if they are posting a PRATT, but I think that allowing it to be discussed openly is more effective than simply saying its been discussed to death and moving on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 12:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 1:01 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 19 of 198 (227100)
07-28-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
07-28-2005 12:58 PM


Re: Post search
agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 07-28-2005 12:58 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Mr. Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 198 (229554)
08-04-2005 3:06 AM


Question:
The rules say not to make a "bare assertion". What does that mean? If I am guessing right, it means to not make blanket statments with no backing. For example, to say that evolution has no evidence for it, and then never back up that claim.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Michael, posted 08-04-2005 7:02 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

Michael
Member (Idle past 3500 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 21 of 198 (229588)
08-04-2005 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Mr. Creationist
08-04-2005 3:06 AM


bare assertions
I think your intuition is correct with regard to bare assertions.

In addition, a bare assertion made from a state of ignorance on the subject would not only be against the rules, but would also be viewed with derision.

Cheers.

This message has been edited by short attention sp, 08-04-2005 07:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Mr. Creationist, posted 08-04-2005 3:06 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by CK, posted 08-04-2005 7:31 AM Michael has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 22 of 198 (229592)
08-04-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Michael
08-04-2005 7:02 AM


I hope this is helpful
OK some examples of what I consider to be bare assertions:

quote:
Evolution is a terrible theory - it has no evidence to support it

quote:
Jesus was a homosexual - it's really really obvious to anyone with a brain

quote:
There is evidence for the flood but the atheist scientists cover it up

The following is NOT a bare assertion but a statement of faith so I don't think it needs much in the way of support

quote:
I think that God made the flood possible, that's why it doesn't match with normal physics, because of the intervention of God

Let me repost something else that you may find helpful:

I think the problem for many Christians who come here is as follows:

quote:
Zragger was the mighty plusrazor master of the shattered oyxy box. Before he existed, he was able to perform mighty crackletoes of zograds. But low he had an nemisis - the unholy slapperbotrum. And a day came when they fought with jellyguns.

Now it seems like I'm taking the piss and suggesting that Christianity is nonsense, I'm not. But to a disbeliever, the claims of Christianity can sound like that. May disbelievers don't wish to offend but many Christians find it difficult to understand why people don't "get it". It’s very difficult for people who put great store in something to understand that to many people it is of no significant at all.

This tends to led to two types of problems here:

quote:

1) The special pleading:

“it says such and such in the bible therefore it must true”.

“God could have just released all of the heat into space with a wave of his hand”.

Now this is fine in the faith forums but may posters run into trouble because they try to use this line of reasoning in the science forums. Christians who come here have to accept that in the SCIENCE forums the bible is given little to no credence, it is just a book. Others, will for a while, try and practice Pseudoscience, they will offer explanations but when cornered will resort to goddunit or “well you don’t know the answer either so it must be true!!”


This causes friction and problems.

quote:

2) testimonial

"But it was very dangerous to be a christian in those times"

"Won Ryatt was a great man and I knew him. I just know he was telling the truth when he says he found the Ark."

This is the second big problem I see here on a regular basic. The Christian religion is one that is built on testimonial, again something that most people in the science forums will not accept. This lends to all sorts of problems because many Christians then try to argue the scientist NOT the science – “But he was an honest man, it must be true” or more commonly “He’s covering up the evidence because he’s an atheist”. This cuts no ice at all in the science forums.


This causes friction and problems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Michael, posted 08-04-2005 7:02 AM Michael has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 08-04-2005 8:16 AM CK has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 329 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 198 (229605)
08-04-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by CK
08-04-2005 7:31 AM


Re: I hope this is helpful
Zragger was the mighty plusrazor master of the shattered oyxy box. Before he existed, he was able to perform mighty crackletoes of zograds. But low he had an nemisis - the unholy slapperbotrum. And a day came when they fought with jellyguns.

I'm pretty sure I once played a Human Occupied Landfill campaign that began like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by CK, posted 08-04-2005 7:31 AM CK has not yet responded

bernd
Member (Idle past 2843 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 24 of 198 (236224)
08-23-2005 5:47 PM


Request for clarification and advice
I have a question concerning the following messages [1],[2],[3].

AdminNosy told me in [1] that I should stay on topic because keeping a discussion focussed is good and


In addition, this is not on the science side of EvC and this is not a place to be discussing the science of the matter.

Leaving aside the question whether my post was on topic or not, I do not understand his advice, that the “science of the matter” should be discussed elsewhere - probably in the science forum. This would in effect end the discussion, because Faith is not allowed to post there and I’m discouraged to continue the debate in all non science fora. On the other hand this message - [4] - seems to indicate, that it’s acceptable to discuss science topics for example in a faith forum. Since AdminNosy probably has overlooked my request for clarification in message [2], I rephrase it here:

Please explain the rules, please advise me how to proceed! Thank you.

-Bernd

References
[1] Message 216
[2] Message 221
[3] Message 222
[4] Message 7


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 08-23-2005 10:49 PM bernd has responded
 Message 28 by AdminJar, posted 08-25-2005 12:56 PM bernd has responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 198 (236286)
08-23-2005 10:22 PM


Can we get a new "why we are in Iraq" thread? I wanted to respond to a poster.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 08-23-2005 10:51 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5699
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 26 of 198 (236292)
08-23-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by bernd
08-23-2005 5:47 PM


Re: Request for clarification and advice
I do not understand his advice, that the “science of the matter” should be discussed elsewhere - probably in the science forum.

My take on that was that it is okay to bring up science where it is appropriate for the topic, but you shouldn't get too deeply into the scientific details in a non-science forum.

I could be mistaken, of course.

I think the comment was a reaction to the thread having drifted way, way off topic -- not merely off-topic for the thread, but off-topic for that forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bernd, posted 08-23-2005 5:47 PM bernd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by bernd, posted 08-26-2005 7:03 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

nwr
Member
Posts: 5699
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 27 of 198 (236294)
08-23-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by robinrohan
08-23-2005 10:22 PM


New thread
I think you can start a new coffee room thread yourself. Just click on "New Topic".

I'm not sure it is a good idea. IMO that discussion had just about run its course, and maybe it is better to let it lapse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2005 10:22 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 198 (236811)
08-25-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by bernd
08-23-2005 5:47 PM


Re: Request for clarification and advice
The difference between the Faith based forums and the Science based forums is primarily in the area of what can be accepted as evidence and how much weight might be granted that evidence.

One good example is using the Bible as a primary source for science. In the science areas an answer to the age of the universe that said, "The universe is less than six thousand years old because if you add up the ages of folk mentioned in the genealogy sections of the Bible you only reach back 6000 years" would be immediately rejected. In the Faith forums, a statement that "The universe is only 6000 years old because the Bible says so" is acceptable.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bernd, posted 08-23-2005 5:47 PM bernd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by coffee_addict, posted 08-25-2005 1:01 PM AdminJar has responded
 Message 36 by bernd, posted 08-26-2005 7:04 AM AdminJar has responded

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3637
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 29 of 198 (236817)
08-25-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by AdminJar
08-25-2005 12:56 PM


Re: Request for clarification and advice
What about people's personal evidence in the faith forums? Would something like "I just know from personal experience that the IPU is guiding me toward IPU heaven..." be acceptable in faith forum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AdminJar, posted 08-25-2005 12:56 PM AdminJar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AdminJar, posted 08-25-2005 1:12 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 198 (236828)
08-25-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by coffee_addict
08-25-2005 1:01 PM


Re: Request for clarification and advice
The IPU or even the FSM are certainly acceptable.

If you believe, really and truly believe in Fairies or Unicorns or the Buddha or the Christian GOD, that belief should certainly be accepted in the Faith forums.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by coffee_addict, posted 08-25-2005 1:01 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021