Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 302 (359481)
10-28-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Admin
10-27-2006 9:19 AM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Well, Percy, I just have to comment that your post shows your bias to perfection. Why on earth would you think we needed to hear that yet again? By now we know it upside down and backwards. You absolutely cannot see the situation from the other point of view. You have a blind eye to the foolishness that is expressed on the supposed science side of this debate.
Whatever. I have agreed to stay away from the science threads because of your objection to my way of posting there. The idea, as I understood it, is that if my voluminous level of posting is cut back, maybe you will attract more scientifically knowledgeable creationists.
I wish you well in that objective. Perhaps you should have a policy of absolute ruthlessness when it comes to keeping the scientifically deficient off those threads for the indefinite future, in order to find out if it is possible to draw participants who can debate on the terms you would find acceptable.
Edited by AdminFaith, : Reorganized paragraphing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Admin, posted 10-27-2006 9:19 AM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 302 (359543)
10-28-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Admin
10-27-2006 9:19 AM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
First off just before the Is It Science thread closed, having returned home from out of town business I clicked in on page eleven, noting a message, I believe from Kerusa to which I responded before going back to page 10 to read your instructions for all who wished to make an ending sumary. The thread was closed shortly after so I didn't get in my sumary and a chance to apologize for not seeing your instructions not to respond to another poster.
Had I had time to make a sumary I would have done so. One of my points would have been that your rejection of ID/creo Dr. Baumgardner's flood geology science research paper as non-science while accepting his credentials, including peer review papers pertaining to secularist research shows that no matter how competent a scientist is as to status, qualifications, peer review et al, your narrow definition of science would bar even him from coming into your science forum and debating ID ww flood hypothesis. You suggested I try to recruit Chris Miller to do this when in fact these IDist creo scientists would present some some of the same arguments as mine, refined and articulated in more scientific language. Dr Baumgardner questioned the accuracy of evo dating methods as I did also. Though our reasons varied somewhat, you reject both his and my arguments that this would be a factor in the research data to be considered. I'm sure he would take issue on your claim that his WW flood geology sience research paper was not science as per your message 144 of that thread. Are you implying that you are more qualified and capable of defining what is science than he?
You highly criticized my 10 pages of work to the point of being nonsense and buligerancy with no apology whatsoever for handicapping me with your board nono manner of debating thread points in admin status for a significant segment of the thread so as to render me unable to respond.
At one point in the thread you assessed my complaint regarding the inability of ID and creo thought to be debated in science as rational. Now in your diatribe here you snatch back even that bone you threw to me, depicting me as a chronic complainer.
Those complaints, my friend were intended to be constructive to the site so as to address the ongoing problem you have in acquiring and retaining competent IDist and/or creo input for the evo folks here to debate.
Schraf opens a thread recently obviously expecting some creo input/debate on the credibility of evolution (forgot the name of thread). Some evos came on early to coax Faith into the debate. She wisely declined for the reasons he gave including the scaling back of heavy input by herself. How in the world can Schraf or anyone else expect to have debate on science matters like this when even Chris Miller or Dr Baumgardner's arguments on this topic would not be considered as viable science debate as per your stringent and exclusive definition of what science is? If I emailed you one email I received from Chris Miller regarding his assessment of TOE or if you sat in on one of his seminar sessions you would reject those arguments as non-science as well, unfit to be used in your so called evo/creo science debate forums, yet you want me to get him in as proxy to me to do science debate. LOL!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Admin, posted 10-27-2006 9:19 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 10-28-2006 8:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 63 of 302 (359552)
10-28-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
10-28-2006 7:03 PM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Hi Buz,
I'd like to thank both you and Faith for responding to my Message 57 regarding the recently concluded What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? thread. If either of you would like to continue to discuss or debate the nature and practice of science then please propose a new thread.
Buzsaw writes:
Those complaints, my friend were intended to be constructive to the site so as to address the ongoing problem you have in acquiring and retaining competent IDist and/or creo input for the evo folks here to debate.
I appreciate your concern, but I characterize the problem differently. What I usually say is that bad debate pushes out good debate. Off-topic complaints should be made in this thread, not in the thread in which the debate is taking place. The debate threads should remain focused as much as is possible on the topic.
Buzsaw writes:
If I emailed you one email I received from Chris Miller regarding his assessment of TOE or if you sat in on one of his seminar sessions you would reject those arguments as non-science as well, unfit to be used in your so called evo/creo science debate forums...
No, Buz, I wouldn't. I didn't do this with you, and I wouldn't do it with Chris Miller. I would do for Chris Miller precisely what I did for you, which is to explain the qualities and practice of science, and assess the offered creation science examples against those criteria while explaining in detail why they do or do not meet them. It makes no sense to respond, "The rules of science are unfair to creationism." What's being taught in science classrooms today follows those rules, and if creationism wants to be called science then it must follow the same set of rules. If it follows a different set of rules then it isn't science.
You mentioned Baumgardner again, so let me explain to you why your arguments in favor of his science are so far off the mark. I told you that the Baumgardner paper we briefly considered wasn't science because he was not hypothesizing about an observed natural phenomenon. Though you've written many, many words, you've never addressed that point, the essential point. Constructive discussion means identifying and addressing the key issues, and when you're not able to do this then you should avoid digging in your heels and posting copiously to the bitter end anyway. It is yours and Faith's tendency to do this that causes me to encourage you both to skirt carefully around the science forums. I know you both have good intentions, but as we all know, those are the paving stones for a well-trod road. My suggestion to both of you, indeed to everyone, is to inform yourself first, then discuss.
Creationist input is important to EvC Forum. That's why we have creationist moderators such as you and Faith. But the value of your contributions is hindered by irrational claims. It makes no more sense for you to dispute the focus of science on the natural then it would be for me to dispute the central role of Jesus Christ in Christianity. Both positions are perfectly valid for discussion, but only in threads designated to consider them. We won't be allowing such views to form the basis of anyone's position in other threads because they are both foundational, one to science and the other to Christianity, and so would completely derail on-topic discussion in any thread.
I'm not saying anything new. I've said these things many times before. I am not making this up as I go along. The framework within which discussion at EvC Forum takes place is the product of much thought and and reflection by a number of people over a number of years, you and Faith included, and I serve as the final arbiter.
Uppermost in importance here at EvC is constructively contributing to discussion. As we have seen any number of times, a thread can be hindered or stonewalled though a wide variety of means, and it is the responsibility of moderator's to ensure that this is kept to a minimum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2006 7:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM Admin has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 302 (359570)
10-28-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Admin
10-28-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Admin writes:
It is yours and Faith's tendency to do this that causes me to encourage you both to skirt carefully around the science forums.
"Skirting carefuly around." Mmm, that sounds like even more exclusive than tiptoeing among the tulips. We might better stay the heck out of the tulip patch which you evos have so nicely cultivated and got up for yourselves in the science dept. That seems to be the way Faith sees it and it appears she's right.
I'm going to have another good look at Baumgardner's flood paper and see if I can ascertain your problem with it relative to your message 144 as to what you see as science. I'm not comprehending a valid argument on your part as to why that paper fails your test, since it's physical, observable, and testable data that he's hypothesising about in his paper. Perhaps that would be something to open a thread on if I see enough there to debate. I'm not sure I can do so without crumpling a few of your tulips though and I'm not into making this place an unpleasant experience for either of us.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 10-28-2006 8:18 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Admin, posted 10-29-2006 6:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 65 of 302 (359598)
10-29-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Buzsaw
10-28-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Buzsaw writes:
I'm going to have another good look at Baumgardner's flood paper and see if I can ascertain your problem with it relative to your message 144 as to what you see as science. I'm not comprehending a valid argument on your part as to why that paper fails your test, since it's physical, observable, and testable data that he's hypothesising about in his paper. Perhaps that would be something to open a thread on if I see enough there to debate. I'm not sure I can do so without crumpling a few of your tulips though and I'm not into making this place an unpleasant experience for either of us.
One significant factor hindering constructive discussion is your tendency to reply to substantive arguments with nebulous and unsupported characterizations. I called science's focus on the natural as foundational and likened it to Jesus Christ being foundational to Christianity, but you ignored this and replied by likening science to fragile tulips.
The key point on the table is that focusing on the natural is foundational to science. Unless you reply to that point it isn't possible for constructive discussion to continue. It is replies such as the one you just made that leads me to characterize you and Faith as unable to constructively contribute in the science forums.
As I made extremely clear in my prior message, constructive discussion is a primary goal of EvC Forum, and your inability to contribute constructively to the science forums is why I encouraged you and Faith to skirt carefully around them, and not because science is a fragile tulip. I am acting within the moderator guidelines to protect and encourage constructive discussion here at EvC Forum, not to protect science from being fully examined and explored.
You characterize Baumgardner's creationist work as "physical, observable, and testable data that he's hypothesising about in his paper..." As was explained to you several times in the What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? thread, Baumgardner is just dressing up his ideas in scientific-looking clothing. What he's doing is necessary but not sufficient to be science. Making observations and analyzing data is not by itself what makes something science. Science studies the natural world, and step one of the scientific method is observing a phenomenon of the natural world.
Since Baumgardner is not beginning with any observations of phenomena which would indicate a world wide flood or catastrophic plate tectonics, he is not doing science. All he is doing is speculating about how certain events described in the Bible might not really be impossible.
I am responding about Baumgardner in this thread only as an adjunct to making clear my position on moderating the science forums. This is not the thread for a discussion of Baumgardner's views. I am explaining why what he is doing is not science here in this thread where is not on-topic only to make clear to you why this is a moderation issue, not bias, which is what you and Faith are claiming. In other words, if you choose to respond, please keep the focus on moderation issues.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2006 8:41 AM Admin has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 302 (359608)
10-29-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Admin
10-29-2006 6:09 AM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
It appears that "skirting around" means "stay out" of science. If that's what you mean why not just say it? You know if we go in there we're going in as IDists to debate as such. Right?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Admin, posted 10-29-2006 6:09 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 10-29-2006 9:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 302 (359613)
10-29-2006 8:57 AM


Re: Bible Word Of God Thread
Hi AdminPD. In the Word of God thread on whether the Bible is the word of God my key point was that of fulfilled Bible prophecy for evidence that the Bible is the word of God. In message 31, Straggler challenged me to respond with evidence. You tagged it as off topic. I wish to back up my claim but to do so would need for you to lift the OT tag. Please have a look. Thanks. http://EvC Forum: Bible: Word of God or Not -->EvC Forum: Bible: Word of God or Not

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 10-29-2006 9:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 70 by AdminPD, posted 10-29-2006 10:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 68 of 302 (359624)
10-29-2006 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
10-29-2006 8:41 AM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Buzsaw writes:
It appears that "skirting around" means "stay out" of science. If that's what you mean why not just say it? You know if we go in there we're going in as IDists to debate as such. Right?
I have not been pussyfooting around. I have not been ambiguous. I have not been speaking euphemistically. When I declared that you and Faith have demonstrated your incapability of contributing constructively in the science forums, describing you as digging in your heels while continuing to post copiously to the end, I don't think I was leaving anything to the imagination.
So when I said "skirting around" I did not mean "stay out". The "skirting around" phrase was intended to be interpreted in the context of the rest of my message, not just pulled out and examined in a vacuum. Since you can't seem to understand plain English, let me spell things out for you absolutely incredibly plainly so there can be no doubt about my meaning.
Please do not contribute to the science forums unless you do so while taking the following into account:
  • Make sure you understand the topic before attempting to contribute.
  • Alternatively, ask questions about things you don't understand.
  • If you don't understand or are not familiar with a topic but wish to contribute anyway then state your opinion while staying focused on the topic, but do not go beyond that to the point where you're obstructing or interfering with discussion. Follow moderator requests. Take complaints to the proper forum.
  • If you wish to contribute in any significant way then make very certain that you are contributing constructively by studying up on the topic. Become adept at taking into account all evidence instead of just the portion that you understand or that fits your views. If there are parts of a discussion you don't understand then stay away from them. Avoid putting yourself in positions where you have to ask your opponents to find your evidence or make your arguments for you.
  • In your rebuttals, address what people actually say instead of just inventing your own interpretation, as you did here by interpreting "skirting around" as meaning "keep out". I can back this up with a very long list of points from the What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? thread that you failed to respond to if you think it would help you better understand what maintaining the thread of a discussion and carrying on a meaningful debate entails.
Along the lines of that last point, I wish you would give some thought to my chess player analogy. I likened your poor performance in the science forums to that of a beginning chess player whose poor performance against an experienced player was due to the fact that he was a beginner, and not because the experienced player was engaged in any dishonorable activity. One of the significant reasons for your poor performance in the science forums is that you rarely address any of the significant points from other people's messages, and here once again you provide a prime example. Defending yourself against the charge that you are too much a neophyte in science to contribute constructively means challenging my chess player analogy. I keep telling you the reason I don't want you in the science forums is because you don't know what you're talking about, but instead of defending yourself against that charge you keep charging me with biased and dishonest behavior. When are you going to respond to my stated reasons for not wanting you in the science forums, namely that you don't have any idea what you're talking about but post copiously anyway?
Hope this is clear enough for you. Remember, you're the one that keeps replying in ways that require responding with increasingly explicit details.
If you decide to reply then please respond to something I actually said while being careful to make sure you've arrived at an interpretation at least somewhat close to what I actually meant.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2006 8:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2006 2:41 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2006 10:00 AM Admin has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 302 (359627)
10-29-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
10-29-2006 8:57 AM


Re: Bible Word Of God Thread
IMHO the Off Topic notice should stand. If you think that you can support a Biblical Prophecy as having been fulfilled, then please just start yet another thread on it. Let's not clutter up a thread that is pretty much on topic with prophecy stuff.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2006 8:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 70 of 302 (359632)
10-29-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
10-29-2006 8:57 AM


Re: Bible Word Of God Thread
You know as well as I do what happens when we start proving or not proving that a prophecy has come about. Major snowball effect.
That thread isn't about proving the evidence that convinces you that the Bible is the Word of God.
Since you have probably made the prophecy point in another thread at another time, maybe you could link to someplace you have supported your prophecy position before.
I have no problem with you responding to Straggler in that manner (even with the OT tag on it), by referring him to past arguments, but don't try to convince him in the "Bible: Word of God or Not" thread.
Refer him and let it go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2006 8:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2006 9:51 AM AdminPD has not replied

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 71 of 302 (359671)
10-29-2006 1:51 PM


evc may be dying
My posts are rarely off topic however,
I've noticed that the moderation of topics is really getting out of hand. Posts are scanned and hit with off-topic signs too often, constantly.
When does a fruitful discussion strictly stay on topic? Let it go if a conversation strays a bit; let people keep themselves in check a bit.
I feel all of the current moderators should be banned with the exception of Admin Modulous and Percy of course.
I do not want to discuss this with anyone here. The evidence is in the moderator's actions.
This motion should be seriously considered.
Try to think a little better of ppl.
Edited by -messenjah of one, : typo

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 72 of 302 (359676)
10-29-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Admin
10-29-2006 9:26 AM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
I think that it's worse even than you suggest.
Buz couldn't bother to research his own examples adequately. Buz and Faith simply assume that they are right - and expect everyone else to simply go along with that. Indeed refusing to simply accept their opinion as fact is EXACTLY what they mean by "bias".
And because people here DO bother to check the facts both of them are frequently shown to be wrong. And they complain about that.
It's not that they are simply novices it is that they DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 10-29-2006 9:26 AM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 302 (359807)
10-30-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by AdminPD
10-29-2006 10:18 AM


Re: Bible Word Of God Thread
Hi AdminsPD and Jar. I hear you both, but you know what happens when I don't support on topic claims. BUZ MAKES UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATIONS. I'll certainly honor your action with compliance. I thought about that topic problem. However my point regarding prophecy was spot on topic so had I not addressed the challenge to document my point, most likely I would've been chastised for it later in the thread as failing to support my position as I'm often criticized for. Had I responded, I'm aware enough about topic concern that I would have seen to it myself as an admin that topic adherance was followed.
I'll leave it at that. You're right in that any comprehensive discussion on fulfilled prophecy would not have been good for the thread so I don't fault either of you for being concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AdminPD, posted 10-29-2006 10:18 AM AdminPD has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 302 (359812)
10-30-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Admin
10-29-2006 9:26 AM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Thanks Admin. You've spelled out what is expected in such a manner that helps to know exactly what you expect. I'll work at keeping the peace without compromising my position in the debates. It gets to be somewhat of a tightrope walk at times for debating the minority viewpoint. I'm sure this is often the case with evos in creo forums.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 10-29-2006 9:26 AM Admin has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 75 of 302 (360120)
10-31-2006 12:31 PM


Admin PD in Free will but how free really?
You give me a warning, and this is what you warn me about.
Legend and RiverRat,
Please don't continue an old argument here. It doesn't belong.
It is not an old arguement, it is extremely relevent to our discussion. We arenot repeating anything, just applying what we learned to this discussion.
Message 1 asks: What is the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that leads you to conclude that the bible is or is not the "word of god".
I had answered that question, and my answer was not an absolute "is or is not". I am attempting to explain why. Legend is using the results of our previous discussion to show why it is not the word of God. I am explaining to him why his thoughts do not apply to what I am saying, because he keeps mis-interpreting what I say, then puts words in my mouth.
It is not about showing or proving that our personal reasons and evidences are valid. Please respect each individuals choice and do not put them on trial.
My last statement, I clearly state that I cannot prove anything, so obviously I am not trying to prove anything, so I don't feel I need to be warned about that.
I also do not feel like I am on trial, and I hope legend does not feel like he is on trial. I feel the conversation is going well, and staying on topic.
Ask questions, disagree, but don't hound or ridicule.
and I will also respond to people who mis-quote me, and defend how I feel, and what I say. People cannot just put words in your mouth whenever it suites the discussion. I do not see how anyone was ridiculed or hounded.
I think it is over admining again. Sorry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminPD, posted 10-31-2006 1:00 PM riVeRraT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024