Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 300 (250746)
10-11-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Admin
10-11-2005 10:18 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Admin, posted 10-11-2005 10:18 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 10-11-2005 3:16 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 199 by AdminNosy, posted 10-11-2005 6:40 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 204 by Admin, posted 10-12-2005 11:11 AM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 300 (250850)
10-11-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by robinrohan
10-11-2005 10:20 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate?
The ToE is in fact not falsifiable or reproducible. It is strictly an interpretation, which in principle is not falsifiable or reproducible. But in fact since they THINK it is falsifiable or reproducible -- confusing the daily scientific work that is done in the name of the ToE with the ToE itself it seems to me, just as RAZD and company seem unable to separate the mere fact of the existence of life from the naturalistic theory about how it arose -- practically speaking I think you are right: only believers in the ToE need apply.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-11-2005 04:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 10-11-2005 10:20 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by AdminNosy, posted 10-11-2005 6:41 PM Faith has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 198 of 300 (250914)
10-11-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Admin
10-11-2005 9:09 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
Hi, Percy. I think the basic rule for discussing ANY subject, is that you should have a rudimentary knowledge of it. Otherwise, read up or lurk till you can contribute. Far too often do we see members give of their time and expertise only to be told they`re deluded or wrongly interpreting the facts. If these challengers insist on dropping back to kindergarten level, buzz them off. If they have a genuine challenge, lay it out upfront, and not waste everyone`s time debating a half-assed hypothesis. I keep my posts short because I can`t be bothered laying out a lengthy discourse, only to see it dismissed by someone who never got past the first few lines. Too many people here with good information to impart to waste time on agenda-driven twerps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 10-11-2005 9:09 AM Admin has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 199 of 300 (250935)
10-11-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by robinrohan
10-11-2005 10:20 AM


Requirements for scientific discussion
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate?
No, I'd say not. What is requied is to voice ones objections to it clearly, to explain those further when asked, to build your objections on reasoning that starts from verifiable evidence and logic.
These are, I agree, pretty stringent requirements. If it was actually possible to manage such then YEC'ers etc would be doing it a lot and even making progress in having the science changed.
However, when asked to do this those objecting don't seem to manage these things and a lot of them don't even understand the requirements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 10-11-2005 10:20 AM robinrohan has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 200 of 300 (250936)
10-11-2005 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
10-11-2005 3:16 PM


Off topic
That post is out of place. This is not the place to discuss such issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 10-11-2005 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 201 of 300 (250939)
10-11-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Admin
10-11-2005 9:09 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
I disagree with you on this.
I think the division into to classes of debate is a reasonable compromise. It is really only a reduction in the threads where the guidelines are enforced.
We have been giving all comers a reasonable chance to participate in the scientific debates. By being clear about the need for some discipline in part of the site it saves those debating in good faith from wasting too much time.
Once it is clear that an individual is uninterested or unable to carry on a fact based, reasoned discussion it isn't useful to waste the time they can easily consume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Admin, posted 10-11-2005 9:09 AM Admin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 300 (251096)
10-12-2005 10:27 AM


thread reopen request
In Message 104 I broke the rules and did some name calling and Phat shut the thread down. I guess I'm being a little too idealistic but I would still like to see Faith substantiate a, I mean any, claim she has made. In my attempts to do this I have quoted the Bible, to which she dodged, and then I tried to mirror her tactics, which was too inneffective at showing how full-o-crap she is. Now I finally think we are getting to the crux of her position and all of my efforts will be in vain if the thread remains closed (or if she doesn't reply). Leaving the thread closed not only lets her get away with murder, it perpetuated the problem that people have with her. My final tactic was indeed name calling, but I'm just trying to fire her up a bit so maybe she'll throw a post out there that actually says something. I'll go edit the name calling out of my message to make it presentable.
ABE: I guess I can't edit it because it is closed.
This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 10-12-2005 09:29 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 10-12-2005 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 205 by AdminBen, posted 10-12-2005 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 203 of 300 (251105)
10-12-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by New Cat's Eye
10-12-2005 10:27 AM


Re: thread reopen request
The thread is only closed for 24 hours. Besides, I have substantiated everything I have said including answering the post you claim I didn't answer. I have been doing little but repeating myself in the face of complete misunderstanding or disregard of the simple points I have been making, which is typical for threads here. It should simply be left that Catholics and Reformation Protestants have different views about Mary and that both have been amply stated, but for some reason that is not sufficient for the Catholics on this thread. In any case, I don't see any reason to continue beating what was long ago a dead horse.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-12-2005 10:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2005 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by AdminBen, posted 10-12-2005 11:28 AM Faith has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 204 of 300 (251113)
10-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by robinrohan
10-11-2005 10:20 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
robinrohan writes:
Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate?
No, this isn't accurate.
It means that in the science forums one must argue scientifically. This doesn't mean that you must accept the TOE, but only that objections raised to the TOE must be scientifically well founded.
Objections to the traditional definition of science and issues concerning the nature of scientific inquiry can be raised in the [forum=-11] forum.
This message has been edited by Admin, 10-12-2005 11:13 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 10-11-2005 10:20 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by robinrohan, posted 10-12-2005 12:18 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 223 by iano, posted 10-13-2005 12:11 PM Admin has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 300 (251117)
10-12-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by New Cat's Eye
10-12-2005 10:27 AM


Re: thread reopen request
Catholic Scientist,
Requests for thread reopenings should go to the "Thread Reopen Requests" thread. At first I thought you were complaining about how AdminPhat handled the situation. After reading the thread subtitle (somehow the last thing I read) I'm pretty sure you're just asking for the thread to be reopened.
Is that right?
Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2005 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2005 12:32 PM AdminBen has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 206 of 300 (251119)
    10-12-2005 11:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
    10-12-2005 10:47 AM


    Re: thread reopen request
    Faith,
    Next time just let this request go; I think the admins can handle a simple reopen request. Whether you realize it or not, you basically used this response as a reason to discuss the topic in this thread. Just leave it to the admins next time; we'll take care of it.
    By the way, should I take your interest in admin processes to mean you're interested in becoming an admin? We definitely have room for a newbie to sift through PNTs... and restock the beer. Where are the AdminIRH's of yesteryear?
    Thanks.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 203 by Faith, posted 10-12-2005 10:47 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 207 by Faith, posted 10-12-2005 11:50 AM AdminBen has replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 207 of 300 (251128)
    10-12-2005 11:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 206 by AdminBen
    10-12-2005 11:28 AM


    Re: thread reopen request
    By the way, should I take your interest in admin processes to mean you're interested in becoming an admin? We definitely have room for a newbie to sift through PNTs... and restock the beer. Where are the AdminIRH's of yesteryear?
    I don't think I'd make a very good admin, I'd be way too strict and always be second-guessing myself. But what sort of training does a new admin get?
    P.S., I have absolutely no head for internet abbreviations like IRH. What does it mean?
    This message has been edited by Faith, 10-12-2005 11:51 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 206 by AdminBen, posted 10-12-2005 11:28 AM AdminBen has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 208 by AdminBen, posted 10-12-2005 12:08 PM Faith has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 208 of 300 (251134)
    10-12-2005 12:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
    10-12-2005 11:50 AM


    Re: thread reopen request
    I don't think I'd make a very good admin, I'd be way too strict and always be second-guessing myself.
    Sounds familiar. PB is the only admin I know who maybe genuinely doesn't have a "strict" side--and he makes up for that with double-doses of second-guesses. But otherwise, I'm pretty sure everybody else knows how to truly be an ass. It's a gift, really.
    But what sort of training does a new admin get?
    I can barely even make sense out of this question. Training? Huh?
    I have absolutely no head for internet abbreviations like IRH. What does it mean?
    IrishRockHound. I believe AdminIRH is the one responsible for the empty fridge. Well... ignoring the fact that Jar and Nosy are the ones who raided it in the first place.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 207 by Faith, posted 10-12-2005 11:50 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 210 by Faith, posted 10-12-2005 12:18 PM AdminBen has replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 209 of 300 (251137)
    10-12-2005 12:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 204 by Admin
    10-12-2005 11:11 AM


    Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
    This doesn't mean that you must accept the TOE, but only that objections raised to the TOE must be scientifically well founded.
    No such animal.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 204 by Admin, posted 10-12-2005 11:11 AM Admin has not replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 210 of 300 (251138)
    10-12-2005 12:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 208 by AdminBen
    10-12-2005 12:08 PM


    Re: thread reopen request
    I can barely even make sense out of this question. Training? Huh?
    No guidelines? No page of instructions?
    (By the way, my post about the thread reopen request was basically a thread-don't-reopen request that got out of hand.)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 208 by AdminBen, posted 10-12-2005 12:08 PM AdminBen has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 211 by AdminBen, posted 10-12-2005 12:23 PM Faith has replied
     Message 216 by Admin, posted 10-12-2005 1:39 PM Faith has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024