General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

Being neutral while moderating a debate does not require adopting a stance of feigned ignorance. This is not the Humpty-Dumpty Forum where words can be defined any way you like, and when you decide on your own to argue incorrect definitions, such as that the requirement of peer review is satisfied by publishing for the lay public, then moderator intervention is needed in order to discourage nonsense discussions.I can give you a couple suggestions. One is to inform yourself of the way practicing scientists view the qualities and methodologies of science, then contrast this with the way creationists view the qualities and methodologies of science. Then you could follow with examples of how well or poorly these differing views contributed to research that advanced the state of the art. Vague unsupported statements claiming there are creationists out there gathering and analyzing evidence and doing legitimate science does not suffice. Perpetual motion machine advocates frequently have pages and pages of equations in addition to working prototypes, so their claims of doing legitimate science are far stronger than anything you've offered so far, yet they are hopelessly out in left field. If you can't offer evidence of doing legitimate science that is stronger than the hopeless perpetual motion people, then you so far have less than nothing.And I'm not saying this to take sides in the debate. The above is just an assessment of your evidence and argument thus far. The evolutionist side has been almost equally poor in offering evidence and argument for their own point of view, though there have been a few very strong posts, at least one each from Straggler and RAZD. You seem to have trouble remembering that I've been critical of both sides. You might take a lesson from the evolutionists in the discussion: don't complain about the criticism, just try to do better.My other suggestion is to focus on the topic. You're investing much more effort complaining about posts and moderators than actually discussing the topic. I think this might be because you are focusing on the non-technical parts of posts, and this tendency is unnecessarily pulling you off-topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That leaves me with nothing to add to the thread, and for that matter any science forum. You might as well ban me along with any other bonafide IDists from science, now that you have made your position clear as to the direction you intend for EvC to go. When practicing highly qualified scientists are not considered as doing your definition and application of science you are narrowing EvC's tolerance of debate to EvE. This is why so few EDists care come or stay at this site. I thought you were heading toward a fair and balance board, but I see I was sadly mistaken.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I have to say that it is really unclear what you are objecting to.I would add that if you actually have a case you should be able to answer my latest post to the thread (#143). And without invoking your intepretation of the Bible (which is clearly not science at all).

In Message 98, AdminJar writes: I agree. However, wonder if the one week suspension isn't a bit excessive.

Could be. I did talk to him in chat and asked him to give me a reason to reduce the length. I am certainly open to suggestions and if you would like to reduce it as appropriate, please fell free to do so.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar has contended:

quote:

---

Sorry but calling nwr dishonest was uncalled for.

---

The big question for Jar is:Was I calling NWR dishonest or was I simply saying that that certain sentence of his was?Nwr is not a "This".Nwr said:

quote:

---

People have been answering your question. You just don't like the answers they are giving.

---

I replied:

quote:

---

This is incorrect, dishonest and unsupported.

---

I was not demeaning the person; I dismissed the sentence.And just a note for NWR. My other remark was purely in jest. I have to remember that can't be seen through a monitor.The only reason I posted this easy rebuttal was because I don't need a scolding. But since it pleased Jar I accepted the situation.

A sentence can be incorrect, but it cannot be dishonest. "Dishonest" is a statement about intentions, so it had to be referring to the intentions of the person who uttered the sentence.However, I thought your comment was relatively mild, and the tone was not particularly offensive. That's why I suggested that the 1 week suspension seemed excessive.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Yeah, ok

{edited-nonrelevant} Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

Re Admin PD's action here.Yes, PD, the OP of that thread does want to consider misconceptions that could account for religious belief. But is this a debate forum or not? If a person can't answer that theories about misconceptions are wrongheaded and give an alternative explanation, including explaining how the theories about the misconceptions themselves are misconceptions, all you are going to get is a crony thread with all the anti-religionists listing their pet scenarios and patting each other on the back for them.

But you didn't address the fallacies or misconceptions in the OP. You blasted evolution and other science theories and said that the OP is fallacious silliness.In the Trinity thread, I squashed those who are anti-Trinity because that was not what the originator wanted to discuss. The anti-Trinity group had the potential to overrun the thread because the Trinity folks were spending their time defending it. It would shut out the discussion of what the Trinity is.In the thread in question, you are the anti with the potential to drag the topic into the same old argument concerning the Bible and the stories within, which is exactly what happened and Iceage picked up the bate and ran with it. That's not what this thread is about.The originator also voiced that he didn't want to go that direction but to stick with the OP. This topic isn't automatically about the Christian religion. It is religion in general and you've already made it very clear from your first answer that you don't feel that religious beliefs develop from misconceptions or fallacies.Even in your response to crash you didn't give any alternative explanation for the conditions he presented. You just crabbed because he didn't provide evidence and your subsequent responses get defensive and then it falls into the same old battle.I would have no problem if you were actually providing alternative explanations to what the OP presented, but I don't feel that you are.Take notice that there is a nice debate going on and it isn't everyone patting each other on the back.

if my first post in that thread is off-topic, shouldn't faith's also be?she wrote: in message 15 of that thread.my response, message 16, was explaining the objection. granted, the last part, in parenthesis, was off-topic, but I stated that in the ramble.the reason I think you put the flag on my post was due to the same flag on iano's follow up, message 17, which was a counter to my separation of evolution and evolutionism (not a good one, but . . .).can you give some explanation?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Yeah, I saw your post and ianos. I did not try to follow it back up thread.Let's just stick to the logos.

---

i still don't see what's wrong with responding to faith's objection, though, especially as it is a major part of the title.I guess I'm looking more for explanation in that area, and should have made that clearer in the post you responded to.(that is, if that's why the off-topic flag was put on my message 16)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Because you are getting into debating Evolution, Creationism, Evolutionism, Creation and NOT the logos. Your post was leading us OT as evidenced by ianos response.