Topic: Is evolution the only thing to contradict the Second law of Thermodynamics?
This thread was closed before I could respond. If I had to make a judgement it was due to "evo" devolopmental bias. I am at least cognitively aware of artistic interest in things that may "contradict" the 2nd law and not be evolution such that on another (other) side of evolution falsified in culture it could be possible to express this ANTI-my own position as to carrer goal In science.
YOU suggest that one can simply start a new thread but the point is that the creation side on the web is begining to come into its own and by SEPERATION electronically we can be haptically challenged in ways that were only visual challenges in the past.
The question about Maxwell's Demon was not off in answer. I was in the middle of a thought in SICENCE and was not able to turn my mental image immediately out of this conditioned state of my mind but now I have a response which could show how sicne topobiologically logic is not what changes cellcollectives the physilogy of the artist and the biologist would have to be the same but the interpreation could differ and sTILL not be evolution in the sense that GOUld intedns to use economic analogies. My short cuts I always try not to expose like this but the adminstrator got to "tigger" finger the fish before I could eat it.
I was aware that I was not liking the kinds of changes this borad is going thru over the new Year and this incident reinforces my opnion.
If anyone has other threads they feel they didn't get a chance to respond in just let me know in this thread and I'll consider reopening them. Threads that were closed due to stalemated discussion probably won't be reopened unless new information or interpretation is being offered.
Your willingness to make this concession in some cases, is imo, commendable. As for my "chariot wheels" thread, I was hoping there would be some response to my last subject post of the widow of Ron Wyatt's statement. Other than that, I don't have much more to add to the thread until I can get more information on the discovery and of the subject of the Exodus. I'll be ok with whatever call you make on this and try to work within whatever parameters that are settled on here. I do appreciate the quality of the media you hard working folks have provided, that we can all learn from one another, in hopes that in the end, truth may emerge.
This forum has recently shut down a number of Creationists for reasons consistent with the forum guidelines. Names that come to mind are Salty, Peter Borger and Inquisitor. Then there's Syamsu who has been "persuaded" to stay in the Free For All forum. Booboocruise just disappeared, and now I'm afraid Buzsaw may do the same since his primary thread, Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!! was just closed after IrishRockHound enumerated his reasons that Buzsaw had lost on almost all the points from his opening message.
Naturally I agree with Irish Rocky, but it is becoming obvious that we're making it damn difficult for Creationists to participate there. They sort of get a month or two to see if they can get a feel for the nature of science, start to understand some scientific principles, and get into the habit of supporting arguments with evidence, and if they don't then we just gradually turn up the pressure until they're forced into misbehavioral patterns that cause discplinary actions that eventually influence them to leave, or they just leave on their own.
There's no reason why we should tolerate illogic and ignorance, but Creationists can only maintain their beliefs if they have healthy doses of both. Their goal is the defense of their religion, not the advancement of science. The prominent Creationists defend their religion through the construction of pseudoscientific arguments, and they feel good about their accomplishments because their work bolsters the religious beliefs of those of their faith, which was their goal. And while science suffers by their efforts, as much as they might care about science they care much more about their religion.
If Buzsaw departs then I'll feel sad because he leaves without ever understanding almost everything that was explained to him. On the other hand, as I've said many times, it is very rare that anyone is ever convinced by discussions at discussion boards, so the likelihood that we'd ever make progress with Buzsaw is tiny, no matter how long we argued.
I don't know what we're to do. This board is now dominated by evolutionists when the goal was to have some balance. But how can there be balance if board administration is determined that the primary component of any argument be evidence. The rhetorical arguments that are more the realm of philosophy and religion don't carry much weight here.
I often ponder this problem, but the only answers I can come up with involve more active moderators, and we tried this a few months ago. It bothered the evolutionists more than it bothered the Creationists. The more recent and more subtle approaches haven't raised the ire of the evolutionists but appear to have been even more effective at discouraging Creationists.
Given that my initial goal when I created the site was balance it disappoints me that the board is probably gaining a reputation as a pro-evoultion site. I suppose that's unavoidable, but I prefer to think of this as a pro-science site. It puzzles me that we can't even reach agreement about proper scientific arguments with the Creationists who appear to know a lot of science.
I for one think that the closure, or steering isn't soon enough. Generally I'm very glad to have the administrators there. I think that you should always be harder on the "evo" side as far as staying on topic etc goes. In fact, I think you could be a little firmer. So don't worry about doing your job. You're good at it. :-)
It's too bad there isn't anyother role that an "arbitrator" could play. One trying to stand back from the specifics of each argument and point out to the parties when they are talking "past" each other or aren't answering the questions put. Do I make sense? More of a referee within a thread rather than an "administrator". Darn hard to find someone I suppose.
I've tried doing the arbitrator thing, and creationists tend to totally miss the point.
Every person who debates well is able to put themselves in their opponent's shoes. This is not so that you can agree with your opponent, but so that you can understand what he means by what he says, and then you can answer him effectively. It's important not just to rebut your opponent's arguments, but also to help steer his thinking, at least if you're going to convince him or any readers who might agree with him.
Every time I've tried to get a hard-headed creationist to look at what their opponent is saying through their opponent's eyes and understand the logic behind it, thus enabling him to answer that logic, I've gotten nowhere. They ignore my attempts to help them see every bit as much as they ignore their opponent's rebuttals.
So, my conclusion is that an arbitrator might be helpful for two people who are already somewhat reasonable, but who need a little help hearing each other, but for people like Buzsaw and the others mentioned, an arbitrator's assistance is as lost on them as the scientific method is.
I missed this post since I was offline for a while but thought it interesting. I guess that the issue of balance is almost an impossible goal. How many creationists actually have any scientific background or education..even interest? Most biblical literalists/fundamentalists are actively discouraged from obtaining scientific information as far as I can see. What is more surprising to me personally as John, Brian Johnston, Mr. Pamboli and others have often pointed out is how often many of the creationists do not really have much of a grasp of the bible or biblical history. I do not wish to paint all creationists with this brush but there are many who fit the bill of being scientific illiterates who don't really know much about the religion(s) they supposedely support. Given this observation, it is not surprising that when dealing with science, those with a scientific background tend to dominate the forums. In the more religion oriented forums I would say there is (or has been) more balance.
What has been the most disappointing are people like salty, or Peter Borger, and Ten-sai/Inquisitor who have some background but are totally unwilling to engage in a rational discussion. Inquisitor was one of the biggest disappointments for me personally because I thought it would be interesting to argue a scientific principle from a legal perspective or mock legal setting and all he wanted to do was claim that he was an intelligent lawyer, that everyone else was stupid and then disappear i.e. internet troll.
In any case, your post got me thinking about the forum in general and my own participation here over the last year and I just disgorged my thoughts....
Why did you close Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods? Just when it seemed we had got all the chaff out of the way, & Buz was about to realise he needed data, not opinion, you close the thread! It had remained mainly on topic, so what was the reason it was closed?
One thing that I have been having an ongoing concern about, is the possible uneveness of supplying references. The evolution side seems to be real demanding of the creation side to do such, but the evo side are perhaps lax in supplying the references also.
Regarding the cites, that radiometric dating was squiffy was Buzz' contention & quite rightly he should bear the burden of proof.
I feel cheated, I've ploughed a fair amount of time into that thread, & it was closed without a reason being given.
------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
Usually requests to reopen threads are honored, your reasoning makes sense (to me), so I'm going to reopen this one since Adminnemooseus may not be active at the moment. If Adminnemooseus decides it should still be closed then I think he should close it again, I'm not going to try to second guess him on his reasons.
------------------ --Percy EvC Forum Administrator