|
Author
|
Topic: Gettin' Banned - Our favorite moments
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
Message 91 of 121 (192360)
03-18-2005 7:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
02-28-2005 9:51 PM
|
|
Re: Buzz (if you see this jump in)
quote:
Too many Christians and specifically too many pastors, evangelists, web masters, university professors, teachers, et al have a problem somewhat like science professionals have, imho. They've been indoctrinated via an assembly line of technitions who have programed into their minds what their minds should think and how they should act from 1st kindegarten on up.
...except that in professional science, people become celebrated, admired, and famous for having come up with ideas and concepts which are completely different (yet supported by evidence gathered and tested with good methodology) from what they came up with. Contrast that with clergy; often they have to start a completely new denomination or sect if they view their religion even a teensy bit differently from the one they came from.
quote:
Judge Christians on the basis of the New Testament, the apostles of Jesus and Jesus himself.
Uh, I don't get it. I should judge Christians not by their fruits, but by some idealized image that none of them will ever come close to attaining? No, I think that a good judge of how wonderful Christianity is to judge how it is that people who call themselves Christians behave.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2005 9:51 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 92 of 121 (192361)
03-18-2005 7:53 PM
|
|
|
I think I've set a record
I just joined this Creationist run Yahoo Group on a lark about 4 days ago, and I've already gotten a one week suspension. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/ It was for referring to Creationists who purposefully misquote scientists as sometimes engaging in "misleading chicanery".
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 93 of 121 (192397)
03-18-2005 11:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
03-18-2005 7:53 PM
|
|
Re: I think I've set a record
omg what a biased forum. you're not even allowed to call a lie a lie.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by nator, posted 03-18-2005 7:53 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 9:51 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: I think I've set a record
I was accused of calling another poster dishonest, and this was considered grounds for a one week suspension. The only problem was, I never did that. I asked the poster what they would think of someone who would promote such misquotes. So, I have e-mailed the site owner/moderator to ask them to show me exactly where in my post where I called the other member dishonest, and that I expect an apology when they find they cannot do it. The owner does say he posts private e-mails regarding board issues to the board, but we shall see if he does it this time. I think it's good for me to be at such a site for a bit at least, if only to appreciate how open and free this site is, and also how high the general quality of debate is here. BTW, Zhimbo (my husband) joined that group in order to discuss the misquote issue, and has so far not been suspended, but neither has he made any headway in getting people to even agree that the obvious misquotes were even misquotes. I don't think I will be wasting my time there much longer, as there is no point with such bias and abuse of moderator power.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 95 of 121 (192761)
03-20-2005 10:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
03-20-2005 9:51 AM
|
|
Re: I think I've set a record
i thought about jumping in and making some waves myself. but just a cursory examination of the board and it's population proved to not be worth my time. i mean, heck, they have a bacterial flagellum as their icon. that just screams "i'll listen to anyone who say evolution is wrong!" to me. nevermind that irreducible complexity is a predicted result of evolution, or that said flagellum contains at least one notable subsystem (making it not ic). and, you know, nevermind the fact that behe is not a creationist. second, the board maintainer is taking some time off to write a book called "problems with evolution." like we don't have enough of these sorts of books, all filled with the same drivel and outdated material. is it suddenly every christian's personal little jihad to take a pot shot at this field of science? cause i missed that memo. so, no. it doesn't suprise me at all that you were suspended. you were, after, probably attacking the person who started the board, if indirectly. because i'm willing to bet HE'S promoting those misquotes. ----- added by edit: on second though, maybe i'll join just to mess with every single one of his premises in his book. i found his outline. here's the religion section: iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip 3.1 is "evolution is anti-religion." 3.2 is "evolution is religion." both cannot be true. 3.1.3 is "evolution is anti-design." perhaps he's never heard of artificial selection and genetic engineering? these are two VERY effect methods of designing organic beings within the construct of evolution. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-20-2005 10:25 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 9:51 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: I think I've set a record
also, i've so far failed to figure what level his "biology degree" is. considering that he completed it in two years time, i don't imagine it could be very high level, and seems to take place WELL after his mind's already been made up. looks kind of suspicious.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 10:56 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: I think I've set a record
Hey, be my guest and join. Don't say you weren't warned.  They don't take very well to Theistic Evolutionists, however.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 98 of 121 (192975)
03-21-2005 4:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by nator
03-20-2005 10:56 AM
|
|
Re: I think I've set a record
yeah, i sort of noticed that from his book outline.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 10:56 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 99 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 8:56 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: I think I've set a record
You know what else we noticed just recently? The owner of the group publishes a website that consists of a huge list of quotes related to Evolution vs Creationism! I had no idea when I brought up the misquote that was someone's sig quote, but that explains why he went so postal and suspended me for a week. I was essentially saying that people who misquote in order to mislead are engaging in dishonest chicanery, LIKE HIM! LOL
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 100 of 121 (193009)
03-21-2005 9:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by nator
03-21-2005 8:56 AM
|
|
Re: I think I've set a record
this list? iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip i told you he took personal offense at it. i wonder if he's ever had any RELIGIOUS debate regarding creationism. i really am half tempted to go do some pwnage over there.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 8:56 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 9:29 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: I think I've set a record
Yes, that list! LOL! You were totally right. And yes, I think he regualrly spars with a YEC on the list...the same one who's misquote I objected to, IIRC. I doubt that anybody over there has the theology and Biblical scholorship background that you do. At least, I haven't seen any discussion of that nature yet. Mostly they pick at each other over surface things.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 102 of 121 (193066)
03-21-2005 1:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
03-21-2005 9:29 AM
|
|
Re: I think I've set a record
And yes, I think he regualrly spars with a YEC on the list...the same one who's misquote I objected to, IIRC. i think i'd really piss him off. i'm "sort of" a yec. i think the bible definitally supports a young earth, and that days in genesis 1 are literal. i just think the bible is wrong about that.
I doubt that anybody over there has the theology and Biblical scholorship background that you do. eh, i just pretend.  i wish i had better background. one of these days i'll learn hebrew.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 9:29 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 103 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 5:57 PM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: I think I've set a record
quote:
eh, i just pretend. i wish i had better background. one of these days i'll learn hebrew.
I wish I could pretend the way you do, that's all I'm gonna say.
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3944 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 104 of 121 (730392)
06-27-2014 10:25 PM
|
|
|
Minnemooseus banned at evolutionfairytales
Something I posted at the "What if this forum was dominated by creationists?" topic last September ( message 2):
Minnemooseus writes: Subtitle was: A forum dominated by creationists Bot Verification Possibly the finest collection of heads up asses you will ever find. The above was a follow up of sorts of something I had posted August 7, 2013, in the Private Administration Forum as as PAF PNT of sorts. That message is as follows: Topic title was: Minnemooseus banned at evolutionfairytales
Minnemooseus writes: The EFT topic that did the trick:
Logical Fallacies By Evolutionists I did one message in that topic, which was a reply to Sammy7's message one. My reply(message 27):
quote:
quote:
Some standard logical fallacies by the evolutionist
'DNA says' or 'rocks say' DNA cant speak, rocks cant speak.
OK, you start out with one that is plain dumb. What you have there are informal ways of saying "DNA evidence indicates/supports" and "Geologic evidence indicates/supports".
quote:
'99.78% of biologists believe in evolution' 94.6% of the time the statistic is just made up (as mine is here). 2 logical fallacies (maybe 3) in one sentence. Appeal to majority fallacy and equivocation fallacy with the 'e' word (evolutionists never define which definition of the 'e' word). The 3rd might could be considered ipse dixit bare assertion logical fallacy.
Setting aside what the precise percentage is, it is a fact that the vast majority of people trained and knowledgeable about biology (in other words, the experts) believe that biological evolution is a reality. Now, the "appeal to authority" or "argument from authority" part. From Argument from authority - Wikipedia (find your own source if you don't like this one):
quote:
Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: - cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
- cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
- any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
I'm not going to get into the deductive reasoning part, but for the first two, the fact that the vast majority of trained and knowledgeable believe that biological evolution is a reality is a legitimate argument from authority. They are experts (some more than others) in the subject and there is a consensus amongst those experts. Per the "equivocation" charge. For the experts (most biologist), there is no difference between the processes of micro-evolutionary processes and macro-evolutionary processes. The equivocation is only in the creationist mind (and apparently also in this forums rules and moderator guidelines). All macro is is a lot of micro. And the expert consensus is that a lot of micro-evolution has indeed happened - Macro-evolution is a fact. So, if you must, suspend me over my "equivocation".
quote:
'Evolution is a scientific fact more scientific than gravity' This one is huge and i never really thought about it till a few weeks ago it is 100% ipse dixit bare assertion fallacy. Ie 'The moon is made of green cheese thats a scientific fact' is in the exact same category. Both are bare assertions expecting the listener to just take the speakers word for it (ipse dixit bare assertion fallacy). And of course wherever the 'e' word is used without the evolutionist defining it it is equivocation fallacy (i wont keep mentioning this one).
I've never heard that one. I think that the mainstream scientific belief (supported by evidence) is that the existence of both biological evolution and gravity is extremely strongly supported, and are thus designated as "facts". And I point out, per Stephan Jay Gould (Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money):
quote:
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
The item that I think that you were thinking of is something along the lines of "Scientific evolutionary theory is much more substantial than scientific gravity theory". In other words, there is a lot more scientific data about how evolution happens than there is about how gravity happens. Moose
Fred Williams banning message (message 31):
quote:
quote:
OK, you start out with one that is plain dumb. What you have there are informal ways of saying "DNA evidence indicates/supports" and "Geologic evidence indicates/supports".
Setting aside what the precise percentage is, it is a fact that the vast majority of people trained and knowledgeable about biology (in other words, the experts) believe that biological evolution is a reality. Now, the "appeal to authority" or "argument from authority" part. From http://en.wikipedia...._from_authority (find your own source if you don't like this one):I'm not going to get into the deductive reasoning part, but for the first two, the fact that the vast majority of trained and knowledgeable believe that biological evolution is a reality is a legitimate argument from authority. They are experts (some more than others) in the subject and there is a consensus amongst those experts. Per the "equivocation" charge. For the experts (most biologist), there is no difference between the processes of micro-evolutionary processes and macro-evolutionary processes. The equivocation is only in the creationist mind (and apparently also in this forums rules and moderator guidelines). All macro is is a lot of micro. And the expert consensus is that a lot of micro-evolution has indeed happened - Macro-evolution is a fact. So, if you must, suspend me over my "equivocation".
It will be my pleasure. You are in blatant violation of the rules. You are not being banned for hypocritically calling Sammy dumb, given that you are being dumb on purpose (Romans 1) on multiple levels (being dumb doesn't get you banned, or else there would be a one-sided conversation on this forum). For example, the tired canard that "the vast majority" of "trained and knowledgeable" believe evolution. While there is a "majority" it is intellectually dishonest to claim it is both "vast" and qualified with "trained and knowledgeable" (translation: secular liberal scientists). See our radio show on this topic that dispels your myth: Page not found | KGOV.com. Being dumb has never caused a banishment here, but being intellectually dishonest does, especially when it's against the forum's "prime directive" (see my article on this here). Bye!
The links is Fred's reply are either missing or bad (I just did a text copy). Go to the source if you feel the need. Moose I was hesitant, especially being an admin here, to be posting a slagging of another forum. But I do believe that Evolution Fairytales deserves all the slagging it can get. By the way, they not only banned my ID, they also banned my primary IP number. Thus I have to go through a proxy server to even see what the fools are currently up to. That also totally mucks up me collecting any links to things at EFT, unless I go elsewhere to a different IP. I have more EFT slagging in mind, but that will wait for a possible later message. 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 "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 105 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2014 8:53 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied | | | Message 106 by ringo, posted 06-29-2014 3:02 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9503 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.6
|
Re: Minnemooseus banned at evolutionfairytales
I got banned there a couple of years ago. It seems that merely discussing a subject is enough to be banned. The admin is simply a bully who is determined to keep scientific opinion off his forum. He likes to preach only to the converted.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
™ Version 4.2