Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 10:34 AM
23 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,898 Year: 8,934/19,786 Month: 1,356/2,119 Week: 116/576 Day: 17/99 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 656 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 121 of 300 (242040)
09-10-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ben!
09-09-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her!

If this was the begining and the end, I would agree with you whole heartedly.

The problem is that Faith is a member of a group (Fundies). She may not be the best example, but she's what we've got here.

That group (maybe Faith as well, maybe not - don't know) often strive to replace science with it's theories. Theories which, frankly, are dangerous. Be it "Katrina was sent by God to kill the homosexuals" or "prayer cures cancer" or "we need to kill all the Desert bastards because they don't believe in Jesus", leaving them to their own devices could be big trouble for the entire world.

That's why we draw a line in the sand and fight.

Are we winning. No. Impossible to win. They will never change their minds.

But, that doesn't mean we should just give up and let them take over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15034
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 122 of 300 (242046)
09-10-2005 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ben!
09-09-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Another path to a correct hypothesis?
quote:

But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so."

THe problem is that she DOESN'T succeed and resorts to double standards and dishonesty.

She claims that she rejects standard geological explanatiosn because they don't make sense, but has no problems proposing "explanations" that are pure raving insanity.

Contrary evidence must NOT be considered allegedly because it is "begging the question"

Cosnidering other explanations for evidence is also ruled out on the same false grounds.

IF her methods are so good then why does she need to rely on blatant double-standards and obvious lies to shut down any reasonable examination ?

Faith can appear to be reasonable at times and that is a good reason to produce scientific evidence to refute her. If only to expose the fact that she ISN'T reasonable. But you have to recognise that she doesn;t stop at the point where her ideas are shown up as unreasonable - she keeps on going.T


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 123 of 300 (242052)
09-10-2005 5:33 AM


Topic Drift Warning
This is a great discussion, but it probably belongs in the Is It Science? forum. Please find an appropriate thread there or propose a new one, then post a link to it here.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 6:53 AM Admin has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31624
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 124 of 300 (242060)
09-10-2005 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Admin
09-10-2005 5:33 AM


Re: Topic Drift Warning
I cannot post to the Is It Science threads but Ben originally asked me to discuss this with him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Admin, posted 09-10-2005 5:33 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Admin, posted 09-10-2005 7:05 AM Faith has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 125 of 300 (242061)
09-10-2005 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
09-10-2005 6:53 AM


Re: Topic Drift Warning
I've restored your privileges in Is It Science?.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 6:53 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 7:11 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31624
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 126 of 300 (242062)
09-10-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Admin
09-10-2005 7:05 AM


Re: Topic Drift Warning
Thank you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Admin, posted 09-10-2005 7:05 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31624
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 127 of 300 (242097)
09-10-2005 2:21 PM


The same old problem revisited
Concerning the thread that asks Have any Biblical Literalists been to the American Southwest:

Without even making an issue of the abusiveness I had to endure on that thread by more than one poster, I do wonder how it serves EvC to have a thread on which I am energetically posting pulled out from under me and put into a science category where now it is languishing from lack of interest. It seems to be a form of suspending me without actually suspending me and the rudeness and unfairness are blatant.

The thread was originally specifically placed in a non-science forum in order for Biblical literalists to respond to it. As Ben pointed out, it was the scientists, not I, who turned it into a science discussion. But then it was I, not the scientists, who can no longer post on it. And they have no interest in the subject without me to call names.

Over and over what the scientists appear to object to most is the very thing a YEC does by definition, assume that they are wrong about an old earth, that the Bible is right, that the Flood actually happened. This is what a YEC assumes and tries to prove in any discussion of these things. It is ridiculous to allow this complaint from the scientists if you have any expectation of YECs posting here. The discussion must begin with the YEC assumptions or there is no discussion possible, at least on the non-science side of the board. I am called every name in the book for simply doing what a YEC does. This is absolutely absurd.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-10-2005 02:25 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2005 2:33 PM Faith has responded
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 09-10-2005 2:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 130 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 3:03 PM Faith has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 300 (242098)
09-10-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
09-10-2005 2:21 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
It is ridiculous to allow this complaint from the scientists if you have any expectation of YECs posting here.

It's not my understanding that EvC exists to allow YEC's a soapbox from which to promulgate their views; Percy has on many occasions specified that the purpose of this forum is to examine the claim of many creationists that their models can be supported and investigated scientifically.

It's contradictory to that mission, therefore, to allow YEC's to promulgate their models and conclusions portected from scientific challenge; people who come here to post from a YEC perspective need to understand either that their participation implies a claim that creationism can withstand proper scientific inquiry, or that this isn't the forum for them.

If the YEC position is not one that you feel can be supported scientifically without arbitrary assumptions of biblical inerrancy, then it's not clear to me why you choose to post here. Above all this is a forum where we examine creationist claims via science, not where Biblical literalists are allowed to promulgate their beliefs beyond challenge.

To the extent that YEC's are welcome here, they're welcome only because they bring beliefs for us to examine. If an examination of their beliefs is not something they're going to allow, then I don't see why they should be welcomed.

The discussion must begin with the YEC assumptions or there is no discussion possible, at least on the non-science side of the board.

I'm not interested in discussing with you or with any other YEC if that discussion means that their arbitrary assumptions and the conclusions from them are set off-limits. And according to Percy's explicit mission for the forum, I don't understand why you believe such a person as yourself, who would set their model beyond scientific challenge, would be welcome here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 2:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 3:04 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 129 of 300 (242099)
09-10-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
09-10-2005 2:21 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
I agree with Faith on this. In my opinion, the thread should not have been moved.

Perhaps the thread had run its course and could have simply been locked. Or perhaps it should have been left open a little longer if Faith wished to continue responding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 2:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 3:14 PM nwr has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 656 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 130 of 300 (242106)
09-10-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
09-10-2005 2:21 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
Without even making an issue of the abusiveness I had to endure on that thread

So good of you not to make an issue of the abusiveness you had to endure. Of course, just as good that you didn't make an issue of the abusiveness you dealt out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 2:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 3:05 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31624
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 131 of 300 (242108)
09-10-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by crashfrog
09-10-2005 2:33 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
I'm not interested in discussing with you or with any other YEC if that discussion means that their arbitrary assumptions and the conclusions from them are set off-limits. And according to Percy's explicit mission for the forum, I don't understand why you believe such a person as yourself, who would set their model beyond scientific challenge, would be welcome here.

If I am not welcome here, I will leave, but you will only encounter the same old same old with any YEC who shows up. If EvC doesn't mind sending them all away, that's up to EvC, but on the face of it EvC appears to want YECs to fit in here. IDers usually stick around a little longer because they are willing to let go of some Biblical premises that YECs aren't, but YECs are the quintessential opponents of evolutionism so it makes no sense to keep the place as unfriendly as it is to YECs. Any site that seriously expects to discuss these questions is going to have to make room for YEC assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2005 2:33 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31624
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 132 of 300 (242109)
09-10-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 3:03 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
So good of you not to make an issue of the abusiveness you had to endure. Of course, just as good that you didn't make an issue of the abusiveness you dealt out.

You want to go toe-to-toe on that one? Post your links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 3:03 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 3:44 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31624
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 133 of 300 (242110)
09-10-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by nwr
09-10-2005 2:35 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
I agree with Faith on this. In my opinion, the thread should not have been moved.
Perhaps the thread had run its course and could have simply been locked. Or perhaps it should have been left open a little longer if Faith wished to continue responding.

I was away for a while but intended to come back and answer the many posts to me that are still there unanswered. In my absence Nosy moved the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 09-10-2005 2:35 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 656 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 134 of 300 (242112)
09-10-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
09-10-2005 3:05 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
For the record - My point is not that you didn't take abuse, but that you gave it.

Here's some examples -

I've been here a lot longer than you have, Nuggin... when you are challenged you don't have to bother to really think about it either, just ride along on the EvC wagon, just shout along with the crowd.

I mean seriously, not Nuggin's idiotic caricatures.

Sometimes someone like Nuggin will create total confusion by making up an absurd caricature that has nothing to do with anything.

Fine, then your prejudice factor is so rigid and closed-minded you really should not be involved in any discussions about it.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that anyone who could come up with such silly caricatures should be logic challenged as well.

What part of the argument...can't you follow? Interesting that you don't address the substance of the argument, but continue to blow hot air.

Why don't you actually THINK about the argument?

It is your rank prejudice that calls it "unscientific."

I couldn't possibly have forgotten that conversation. You consistently refused to address the main point I was making, never even seemed to grasp it, and your argument was therefore completely irrelevant.

Now, was I particularly offended by these? No. But, since this thread we are currently in started because you tried to get me banned for suggesting people stop trying to change your mind, I'm not about to simply walk away and let you pretend you're some sort of embattled Saint.

When you sling mud and expect it slinged back.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 3:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 6:07 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 09-11-2005 9:59 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 135 of 300 (242114)
09-10-2005 3:55 PM


Lets stay on on topic
It would be nice if this thread could stay on topic, that is, discussion of moderation. Can we skip the bickering.
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019