I tried to post to ABB and was unable. Are you saying you've removed the restriction?

No, looking at your permissions you appear to have access to the GD forum. I will check further.AbE: Yup, you seem to have permission to post in the GD forum. If you continue to have problems let me know and I'll have Percy look at it.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-03-2005 08:46 AM

Can someone switch my Avatar back on? I'll return to my theme of Great brits of the past - I'm sure that Robot Archie should be nice and safe

The setting is part of your profile, there are radio buttons for this below the box for the Avatar pathname. Just leave the avatar pathname field blank and set the radio buttons to "Yes" to display your avatar, then click on Update Avatar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Are you really sure? TTFN,WK

It has been more than 3 months... just checking.ABB

This is outside the scope of this thread Please do not respond to this message

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-04-2005 10:04 AM

Is there a place to find a list of all moderators with a outline of the position they hold regarding Biblical Creation versus Darwinian Evolution?

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

Nope. I don't even know if there's a list of all the mods. But where we stand on the issue has little to do with moderation. When we act in mod mode is is realated to the guidelines and paractices of the board. When we have an opinion to express we do it in plain old member mode.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks anyway!

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

That information was discussed in the thread What qualifications are required?, within the first page.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Thank You!

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

There have been some recent complaints about evolutionists who jump all over Creationists who use the term "prove" while frequently using the term themselves. The problem occurs because Creationists are misusing the word. Here are a couple examples that make the misuse clear.It can be proven that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.This is a proper usage. It only means that substantial supporting evidence can be offered to support the assertion that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. In science, when someone says they can prove something, all they mean is that they can offer a lot of supporting evidence.It cannot be proven that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.This is improper usage, and this is the usage that usually gets Creationists in trouble. Informed persons are aware of the evidence for the antiquity of the dinosaurs (whether they accept the conclusions or not), so if the evolutionist believes he's talking to an informed person then he can only conclude that the Creationist must be trying to apply a mathematical definition of proof. Otherwise the statement that one can't prove the antiquity of the dinosaurs is self-evidently false.If the evolutionist believes the Creationist is unaware of the evidence for the dinosaurs then he probably wouldn't object to use of the word "proven", and he'd hopefully begin filling in the missing information.I hope this clarifies the use and misuse of the word "prove".

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A quick question. Following this line of reasoning, with which I do agree, and accepting the referenced dictionary definitions of proof and prove, would you also agree that a christian is applying correct usage in saying that it can be proven that Jesus was indeed God in the flesh and the creator of all things?

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

I was speaking scientifically. This issue wouldn't arise in the science forums. But if you wanted to submit the question to objective scrutiny, then the usage is correct, but given what I know about the objective evidence supporting Christian theology the statement is likely wrong, and so in this case saying that it can't be proven would also be correct usage.My preference would be that people abandon use of the word prove because it is so open to misinterpretation, but after suggesting unsuccessfully for a couple years that people use "support with evidence" instead I gave up and surrendered to reality.If it helps, here's an example of correct usage while being wrong: Since the evidence is not yet sufficient to decide between WIMPS and MACHOS, it would therefore be correct usage to say: The only point I was making was that someone aware of the evidence should not be making statements that ignore it. If they don't believe the evidence warrants the conclusions they should say so and explain why.Whether or not my analysis is correct, saying "You can't prove it" has shown itself to be a good way to cause frustration and misunderstandings on both sides, and I wish people would avoid saying it. The process of science involves gathering replicatable evidence to the point of persuading a significant proportion of the relevant scientific audience. A lot of people think of this process as proving things, but science is tentative, so any finding, no matter how "proven", can be overturned, and it seems contradictory to most people that something proven could later be shown wrong. This is yet another reason for avoiding the word prove.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Not sure whether this is a moderation issue but I think it might be.A Dr. Robert T. Bakker showed up on the board earlier today and posted on the thread Is ID Scientific? (Was "Abusive Assumptions"), a very interesting post that nobody addressed substantively, although two or three posters acknowledged his presence with a certain awe. I gather that he is a well known authority on dinosaurs, and I looked him up online.I was, however, particularly interested in his views about the arrogance of Dawkins and other evolutionists toward religion, and his proposal that ID should be taught as history, and was looking forward to hearing more. Unfortunately that thread got pulled rapidly into a different discussion, which I didn't follow. Dr. Bakker didn't stay around long but he did return later. That thread was continuing along on the other discussion and he didn't post anything and left again.I don't understand why nobody responded to the substance of his post, or why moderators didn't see to it that he got a better welcome or respond to his views themselves. Jar did welcome him in one post but that was the end of it. Anyway it was odd how he simply posted that one message and nothing came of it, and now that thread is as good as dead. I wonder if he will return.