Moderation Procedures to level the playing field

When support is presented and it is unsatisfactory that is most often explained. There are a large number of cases where there is no support offered whatsoever. In fact I'd say that "most" is wrong. Only a very few support their assertions with anything other than more assertions. And when they do they get the facts wrong but at least those few do offer some support.I will continue to suspend IaJ when he makes assertions about speech but refuses to begin to support those assertions with his definition of what he is talking about. That is an example of the kind of "debate" that is not of any value to either party.

Really?I don't think I mentioned any particular side but since you bring up creationists, do you think a repeated assertion like or does not need additional support?When the poster is repeatedly asked specific questions like and should the poster actually supply the evidence in support of his assertions?Or should we simply assume that the poster is just making a Type 1 defense, a special pleading and that the person really has no support other than the special pleading and continue to allow repeated unsupported assertions?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

With all due respect to Percy, this is true. He has set up a science fora in which he controls the agenda to suit his ideology. The majority of the members share his ideology. They all share a secularist mindset which follows the ideology which is programmed into most children and young adults all the way up from preschool through doctorate or however up the ladder they go. Unlike the early American education system, anything supernatural is totally dismissed, rejected and in fact forbidden.Faith, like Percy has set up her site which she controls relative to her ideology. I haven't lurked enough there to know much about how restrictive she is so I can't comment on that. This is their priviledge to do whatever they choose to do with their respective sites. I'm pleased that Percy is at least objectively assessing the problem so as to make the site more conducive to lively debate, doing the best with what we have and working to expand our base of knowledgeable debaters on both sides of the isle.There are the variety of creationists who tend towards the secularist interpretation of creationism and those of us who tend towards the literal Biblical record. Imo, there needs to be some venue of debate for both varieties of creationists in science if topics like the Biblical flood and canopy (for explanation of the preflood atmosphere) are to be debated in the science fora. Topics like the Genesis flood, canopy and such cannot be sensibly addressed void of the supernatural factor which most of our counterparts consider to be irrelavent for debate.

I'm sorry, but do you actually have any support for your assertion that the supernatural is being forbidden?Is there a single case you can link us to where it was forbidden for you or any other Biblical Christian to present evidence in support of the supernatural?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes thankfully the US has moved past such backwards practices like slavery, lack of recognition of womens rights and religion in the classroom.

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

They all share a secularist mindset which follows the ideology which is programmed into most children and young adults all the way up from preschool through doctorate or however up the ladder they go.

---

Here you go again, Buz. Repeating this false statement even though it has been corrected many, many times.Science has to do with methodology, not ideology.That's how it is that scientists from all over the world with a multitude of differing personal ideologies can contribute to the scientific consensus, since to do science one simply adheres to the scientific method.What you are suggesting is that allowing the supernatural to be considered in science would somehow aid inquiry.Please start a thread if you would like to enumerate the ways in which allowing "godidit" as an explanation of natural phenomena would add to our understanding.Otherwise, stop falsely claiming that the scientific method has anything to do with secular ideology.

Hi Buz,Could you give me your definition of science please?

I think that what Buz means is that the supernatural is not given any reverence or serious consideration by mainstream education. Methodology leaves little room for ideology to flourish unexamined.Faith and Belief can often contain a lot of unsupported assertions.

Jar, My comments out of context make sense only when put back in context. There were scientific implications given by me in context as to why I said your out of context mined quote of mine. My reasoning was that perhaps an ecosystem which I described with global stable ideal temperatures and likely having less CO2 and an abundance of O would be conducive to long life as per the Biblical claims. After all, this topic is a Biblical topic pertaining to that flood and pre-flood record.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

I think that extremism on either side is ..well...too extreme. People need a balance between superstition and acknowledgment of actual reality.IMHO, there is a spiritual war of sorts...sort of a battle of perspectives.Unlike the fundamentalists, I would never waste my time preaching or ranting against it for I believe that it is meant to happen.Fundamentalism will, in my opinion, be attacked and dismissed as an archaic and irrelevant belief system.The question that is posed is this: Does humanity have a reason for desiring the mysterious and unexplainable? Is there anything at all behind it?

Except you NEVER support those assertions. I even included the questions asked which STILL have not been answered.The question is:Should such behavior be tolerated?Personally, I believe it should since the facts are, those positions simply cannot be supported.While I believe you should be allowed to avoid supporting your position, I also believe it is reasonable for those on the otherside to point out that fact.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry but that is NOT what he said. Only a weak and bankrupt ideology cannot withstand being examined. Then let's see what can be supported and what cannot be supported.BUT the fact is the supernatural is NOT being forbidden. Many want it to be accepted as fact but sorry charley, that cannot be done without support.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion