Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

So? I think I've already stated that it isn't treated that way, so I don't see the relevance of your point.

Sorry about misreading your post. And after I misread it I tried to cover it up by being flippant.

This topic hasn't drifted too far, but given the high post rate it seems a little volatile, so I thought I'd issue a topic reminder.The topic is what standards should the contributions of evolutionists and Creationists be held to. Should they be held to the same standards or different standards, and what should those standards be?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Gotcha. To restate my position:Anyone who wants their ideas to be considered "science" needs to meet the scientific standards; that's no more unfair to unscientific ideas than a parapalegic not meeting the rigourous standards to be a fireman.Sorry, Creationists. You came up with the standards, hundreds of years ago. I have no sympathy that you're now unable to meet thise standards.

Personally I see a double standard as being necessary.When speaking or discussing ones beliefs I do not see that firm defense is needed unless a specific, supportable claim is made. For example, if someone says that their point of view is supported by Biblical reference, it is reasonable to actually examine that reference.On the other hand, if someone says they believe in GOD, it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of how they arrived at that position but very little needs to be done beyond them giving their reasoning.When something though is tied to the physical world, whether it's evolution, creationism or anything else that is treated as a science, I believe rigorous proof can be asked for. One good example is the thread that began this. Buz tried to show that the idea of GOD was compatible with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Since the Laws of Thermodynamics are part of the world of Science, then it is perfectly reasonable to demand scientific level data and specificity and to point out that any GOD that was subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics would be continually diminished.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

For example, if someone says that their point of view is supported by Biblical reference, it is reasonable to actually examine that reference.

---

Totally agree. Whether or not a point of view is consistent with the Bible is a different question than whether or not a point of view is consistent with the physical world.

quote:

---

On the other hand, if someone says they believe in GOD, it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of how they arrived at that position but very little needs to be done beyond them giving their reasoning.

---

Again, I totally agree. If a creationist decides that the earth is young despite any evidence for or against, then there really is nothing to argue, other than if their claims are consistent with the Bible. This is where Bible interpretation becomes important, not science.

I will say this about "standards."Science measures the physical and only the physical. That's the reason it can be so precise.There is a whole area of "experience," to use Lam's turn, that is not scientifically testable--for example, "consciousness." The experience of consciousness, which presumably we all have continually---maybe even Crashfrog and Mikehager have this experience (you never know)--is private but not for that reason to be dismissed. It's not scientific but it is obviously what makes life worth living..So when you talk about the physical you need to talk about it scientifically and depend at least TO SOME EXTENT UPON THE WEIGHT OF SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY, assuming the idea we are discussing is not "cutting-edge," but thoroughly known. We can't just dismiss scientific authority. We cannot all be experts in everything. If I were a creationist (I am not), I would concede evolutionary theory upon authority and concentrate instead on abiogenesis.But when you talk about other matters, such as consciousness and deity and morals, all you can use are philosophical terms which are inexact and often slip into vagueness and about which there is no certainty. Here there is no authority.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-16-2004 07:48 PM

So your issue is so poor that you need the moderators help to expel anyone that disagrees with it?
Creationists are deffinitly held to a higher standed here than evoloutionist. I should know, as I was banished to boot camp. This was mainly my doing, but then again I have checked who has been banished in that topic, and I see only one evoloutionist that has been banned. It could be that people of my beliefes don't know how to debate them correctly and resort to threats, but I doubt that that is all. In my short time here, I have seen evoloutionists disregaurd websites just because they were Christian based, not reading the fact in them because of the fanatical sterotype that my kind has gotten.I was banished for not showing proof quick enough after too quickly responding yes to posts that I didn't think about. Mabey it is just because it is in coffee house, but no one seems to do that to evoloutionist. Now, I haven't seen all that much of this site, but I doubt (though I could be wrong) that since the ratio of evo's to creation people sent to boot camp or banned is so low, I see a very real double standered here.Just for the reference, how many admin are creationist people? Is there even one. If not, I think make the situation as I see it a whole lot more fair.

I don't understand how anything you posted has anything to do with my message. Perhaps you can clarify?As to creationist admins, certainly we have them here. I happen to be a Creationist admin for one, and there are others.Believing in Christianity or even creation has nothing to do with Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.So what should the standards be for someone like you? Should you be allowed to make factually incorrect statements without challenge? Should you, when speaking within the bounds of science be allowed to make unsupported assertions?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why does the fact that your posting privileges were temproarily restricted indicate that you were held to a higher standard ?Why doesn't it mean that you were falling short of the lower standard required of creationists ?You can't judge the fairness of the admins without considering the merits of the cases. It is a fact that creationists are often poor at arguing - look at Craig's arguments in the "Dating Corellation thread" and note that despite the fact that he's way out of his depth and basically inventing excuses he doesn't understand, he hasn't been threatened with Boot Camp yet. And that's because many creationists who come here are even worse.

Ok if your an being a creationist would explain why you have the signiture from Narnia, but then why does it say you are a member, do you have another account (which the rules say you can't have, and is why Rision Lord was banned)or is this allowed for admin.
Also, what is the ratio of Evo to Creo admin

quote:

---

I have seen evoloutionists disregaurd websites just because they were Christian based

---

Actually we do read them. We disregard them because they are based on false information. This is not the same as ignoring them. If you feel that big piece of evidence is being ignored perhaps the you could start a topic. I would even help you with edits if it fails to pass admin standards. Most of the time the opening posts are redundant or are poorly formatted, and I could help with this if you would be willing.

quote:

---

It could be that people of my beliefes don't know how to debate them correctly and resort to threats, but I doubt that that is all.

---

I think this is the real problem. A lot of us are used to arguing about topics within science. Some of us even write scientific papers. The average creationist is usually not ready for this type of scrutiny and will often resort to acting emotionally wounded because their ideas are not accepted without question. When this happens we become frustrated, and the whole topic goes into a death spiral. Just remember that you are often arguing with people with more scientific knowledge than yourself, but this should never keep you from discussing any topic.

quote:

---

I was banished for not showing proof quick enough after too quickly responding yes to posts that I didn't think about. Mabey it is just because it is in coffee house, but no one seems to do that to evoloutionist.

---

I can see how you get this perception. The problem may be that us evo's are all familiar with the same information. We tend to talk in shorthand at times, expecting creationists to understand what we are talking about. For instance, I might claim that "clades produced from fossils match clades produced from DNA". Now you may not understand this, nor feel that it has ever been shown to be true. Evo's will totally skip over it because they have already seen the evidence supporting my claim. From outward appearances this does seem unfair. The way to counter this problem is to ask pointed questions and ask people to support their assertions. It is up to you to make people support their claims. The Admins only force posters to answer the questions once they are asked (which happened to you if memory serves), and to behave in a decent manner.

quote:

---

Now, I haven't seen all that much of this site, but I doubt (though I could be wrong) that since the ratio of evo's to creation people sent to boot camp or banned is so low, I see a very real double standered here.

---

Are you saying that the justice system is unfair to criminals because only criminals are sent to jail? If you continually fail to support your arguments with evidence when asked you are sent to boot camp. Can you give me one example of an evo continually not answering the questions of a creationist at this site? I can give you plenty of creationists that dodge questions left and right.

There may well be a double standard. But you're not paying attention to who is on the hard end.The evos are held to a standard of evidence and logic that is higher than the creos here. If you look into some of the "evo" only discussions you'll see how stringent the standards can be:
Have a look at the discussions around and leading to thie post of the great hairy ones.
Message 1'It gives just a tiny hint of our bloody fussy the scientists are. Most fussy of all with their nearest collegues.The fact that you haven't been exposed to this level of rigour means you think you're being picked on. In fact, you're only being asked for the lightest, poorest most simple minded of support for your position.ABEmmmm I guess what I mean to say is just what Loudmouth was saying at the same time This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-16-2004 07:07 PM

is no way to prove anything. You use the word "evidence". Evidence involves more then your unsubstantiated opinions. As much as you want it to, your mythology simply isn't part of or on a par with science, It isn't observable, either in presence or influence.That's the whole ball of wax, and if you don't like it, that's tough. I personally get tired of being alarmingly tall and good looking but the world is what the world is.

All of the admins have two linked accounts. When I am in admin mode I use AdminJar. This is true of all of the Admins.AdminBrian = brian
AdminPhat = phatboy
AdminJazz = jazzlover
AdminNosy = nosyned
Admin = PercyI've never tried to determine the ratio and many of the creationist mods are also firm supporters of Evolution so I don't know if it is possible to get a really good breakdown.As an Admin we need two accounts. For example, when posting as jar I am speaking simply as a member. I can express an opinion or debate an issue. When posting under Admin mode I am limited to simply performing maintenancce tasks. I can point out topic drift, promote topics, close topics as they reach the 300 post mark or get totally offtopic, warn or if needed sanction members for behaviour or procedure issues. But in Admin mode I try not to take part in a debate or discussion. What does the signature have to do with being a Creationist?I hope that helps._{edited to add requisite spelling errors}This message has been edited by jar, 12-16-2004 07:13 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion