|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
godfearingathiest keeps posting something about his rejected pnt in my thread, totally off topic. i've told him a couple times to cut out, because it's completely the wrong place.
but i guess he really wants to talk about it. http://EvC Forum: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, they just suspended him. maybe he'll get the idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Hi, Arach, try Nighttrain`s Ten Ironclad Rules of Communication Rule 1. Never debate a fool or a fanatic Rules 2-10. Refer to Rule 1.:-P or, since we talk about the bible a lot,
quote: although i like the rebuttal too:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
what exactly did he do? (adminben, a link would be nice...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
oh, i see. yeah, that would do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
(no further comment)
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 09-05-2005 07:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Do we not all judge based on evidence? no, we don't. and that's essentially what makes this debate so hard. if the moderators don't make special allowances for people who do not judge based on evidence, and warn/ban for unsupported assertions, then we essentially don't have a debate. the scientific community doesn't have a debate -- they all know where the evidence stands. if we have the same standards here, we won't have very many religious posters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This probably doesn't belong here... but I'm not sure where to go. There's a time and place for logical thinking and evidence. And there's a time and place for working outside of that. The debate is not about TruthTM but a lot less than that, and a lot more than that. yes, i agree.
Your post sounds to me like you think creation vs. evolution is a debate only about scientific theory and the history of life. I don't think so. Because of that, it IS possible to have both scientists and non-scientists here, just as it is possible to have both believers and non-believers. well, i think you misunderstood what i meant. yes, there was some fundie-mocking in there, i will admit. but the point i was trying to make is exactly what you said. one said really does have nothing to do with evidence. we look at truth different ways, science has one approach, religion has another. if don't allow the religious approach, we are indirectly limiting the debate and not allowing religous fundamentalists -- the core opponents here -- to debate. and that's not FAIR. so we have to make allowances for religion, even if it allwos the crackpots and numerologists and pyramidologists too.
The purpose, in my eyes, is to find the boundaries of what kind of thinking and what kind of knowledge is applicable where and when, and to find ways to deal with each other. well, the religion has a lot to say abotu the science. who says "god's trying to trick you with evidence!" is NOT a valid argument? heck, maybe they're even right. you certainly can't prove it.
Like I said, I think this takes a really narrow view of what's going on here. I don't think this is the case. And I don't think admins have to compromise as much as you think. i think they have to compromise more. i've noticed a lack of fundamentalists and evangelicals on the board lately. haven't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
You can't get blood from a stone, no, but water's just fine:
quote: and we know god can turn water into blood:
quote: so the logical conclusion is that you CAN get blood from a stone, if only indirectly.
and apparently you can't get scientific discussion from Creationists. well, you have to remember that we're dealing with people who totally accept the miraculous. heck, maybe even i do too. science is meaningless; they know the truth.
It is very difficult for me to see any point in a scientific debate where one side is unable to keep up even a pretense of being scientific, but the alternative appears to be very little or no debate at all. i think that where you're mistaken actually. because fundamentally, that *IS* the debate. it's not "science v. science" and "religion v. religion." it's "science v. religion." one side is evidently NOT science and doesn't intend to be. like i said, there's no big debate about in the scientific community. now, the debate won't be productive, will it? we all know that. but that's the debate nonetheless. this site is "evolution v. creation" and we have to remember that we really ARE pitting the two sides against one another -- not separating them.
My stomach churns at the thought of allowing reentry of Creationists like John Paul and John Davison, or of complete loons like WillowTree, or of allowing anyone to simply ignore all central issues as is the style of TrueCreation and Tranquility Base. that's the problem. i'm really sad to say to this, but you do have to realize that the fundamentalist side does tend to include some wackos -- maybe even a lot. if you're not willing to duke it out with them, don't -- but i don't think banning people simple because they refuse to understand science is acceptable at all. it's rigging the game.
But holding Creationists to some minimal standards of scientific debate seems equivalent to greatly reduced dialog with them. i take it you've noticed that there are alot less of them now?
My thoughts on this conundrum swing like a pendulum. At present I seem to have swung to the opinion that we should, at least at present, reduce the burden on Creationists by not requiring them to discuss scientifically, even in the science forums. i might agree. sadly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sorry that I don't have a better answer. it's ok, i don't suspect there is one. either way is a compromise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
percy made a really good post in the now-closed "talk some sense into randman" thread. it's always entertaining when someone says something so outrageous that the owner of the board steps in in this manner.
i'm sure randman and co will just read this as biased, but it's a really good point:
percy writes: Faith was coddled here for a long time, and I took a lot of abuse for it from the evolution side. If I and the other moderators are not even going to be acknowledged for it by the Creationist side, i.e., by people like you, if you guys can't even tell it is happening, well, I guess I just don't know what to say. I guess I'll just say it feels to me that you must either be uninformed or irrational on this topic. you sort of have to feel bad for percy. i remember him getting all of that flack from the evolution side for being so lenient on faith. for the side he was defending to pretend like it never happened is just plain insulting. i also want to echo chiroptera's comment that i agreed with percy's stance. although i did ask a few tough questions, in the end i found myself arguing for faith to stay. also, i'm not sure i agree with moose suspending randman, but i'm sure he does need a break. {edit} ok, it looks like moose didn't actually do it, but was just thinking about it. either way, i don't really think it would help.{/edit} This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-20-2005 02:32 PM |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024