Thread Reopen Requests

From message 88, of the topic in question (posted earlier today):buzsaw said:

quote:

---

Yes, the flood indicates the supernatural factor, but after all, this is the EvC discussion board, is it not? Isn't this board suppose to be about debate between those who believe in the supernatural (creationists) and those who don't? So to disqualify statements in scientific discussion on the basis of it not being scientific seems to defeat the whole idea of this board. Your title itself suggests the supernatural on the part of your ideological counterparts. If you would recognize that here in these threads, maybe you'd get more participation from creationists here. I find it unusual on a board this size that I have practically no support in this discussion on the problems with dating methods, especially on that of C14 in relation to the pre-flood atmosphere.

​

I'll be outa town today, and company for a couple of days so will get back when I can.

---

The final sentence was influential in my decision to TEMPORARILY close the top. The rest of the above quoted, however, is also of interest.After reconsideration, I'm going to stand with my decision. Everyone, take a break from this topic. As I currently see things, I'll reopen it Sunday night or Monday morning.Adminnemooseus

Well, I stand by my decision, but apparently one of the other admins have reopened the topic. So be it. I may have been wrong.Adminnemooseus

Somehow, seeing the preceeding message from Admin had eluded me until 6/28.In case those concerned hadn't caught the info elsewhere, my closing of the topic was intended as a temporary cooling down period. Buz had indicated that he was going to be occupied elsewhere for a few days, and, in the meantime, I didn't see any value in others piling on to him.Please see my message upstream also, which includes a quotation of Buz.Now, let's try to be a little nicer to the creationists. If they all leave, the evo side will be stuck having to argue amongst themselves.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threadsps: I'm inclined to start closing thread a little faster than before. They can always be reopened. I'd rather have that situation than see, days later, that I wished I had closed the topic.Also, there could very well be better self-moderation of the various topics, by the participents. The non-admin members can also see when things are going off-topic, or otherwise bad. You shouldn't need a moderator to be on top of all the topics constantly.By the way, we had a 24 hour record number of messages a few days back. As I recall, there were 214 messages. We average about 80 messages a day, and over the past 2 months, there has been an average of 100 messages a day.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-28-2003]

Oops - Nevermind - Content deleted.AM[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-28-2003]

quote:

---

Now, let's try to be a little nicer to the creationists. If they all leave, the evo side will be stuck having to argue amongst themselves.

---

LOL... we'd get better arguments that way at least. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Moose,
What happened to the Nature of Mutations thread in the Evolution forum? though off topic a bit, salty was playing nice and participating and now all of the posts are gone except the last few and the thread is closed. You indicated a broken thread...will it be restored?cheers,
M

I closed the thread to (possibly?) prevent further damage. When I checked yesterday, much of the early part was intact.Repairs are beyond anything I can do. I e-mailed Admin about the problem yesterday. Only Admin can work with the truly inner workings of the forum. Hopefully he can restore all or most of the topic. The question may be, how often does he back things up.I did save 2 of the damaged pages from my temporary internet cache. Unfortunately I had cleaned out the thing recently, and didn't have more. Perhaps other can recover pages the same way. But you have to try to load the pages while being off-line, or your cache will be overwritten by the damaged versions of the pages.Adminnemooseus

Thanks for the clarification Moose...it is a bit of a pity as the original part of the thread had some really good posts....and I missed the last few interactions because I did not log in over the weekend...on the other hand, the open threads move on...
cheers,
M

The topic in question is intact up to the middle of page 14.In case anyone wants to try it, Google has intact versions of most (but not all) of the damaged pages in its cache.Go to Google.com
In the to be searched for box enter {"The Nature of Mutations" + } (everthing beween the brackets), and click on the search button.They will indicate that some of the simular pages were not included, and ask if you want to include them. Tell them you want all the pages.Results: 5 pages of hits.Go ahead, give it a try.I've e-mailed Admin the 2 good pages (21 and 22) I pulled from my internet cache, and the Google cache versions of 6 more pages (14 thru 19). If he can work with that, maybe 8 pages can be restored. Which is most of the damaged pages. I couldn't track down a version of pages 20 and 23.Cheers,
AM

quote:

---

If Buzsaw departs then I'll feel sad because he leaves without ever understanding almost everything that was explained to him. On the other hand, as I've said many times, it is very rare that anyone is ever convinced by discussions at discussion boards, so the likelihood that we'd ever make progress with Buzsaw is tiny, no matter how long we argued.

---

I am not one to be easily provoked to the point of running off sore. My spring and summer have been very busy with my business and trying to do some major reorganization around my home as well as my business to get things more functional. So my participation here is sporadic. I may get in a post or two and need to run off. My apologies for this, but it's the best I can do and hopefully you folks will allow me to operate this way. This is why I tend to focus on one or two threads.As I stated before a lot of the problems in debate between those whose mindset is totally secularistic and those who believe in the supernatural is that the supernatural involves just that -- over riding the laws of science so as to effect an unscientific condition, or explanation of what is observed. An example of this is the flood and what ever caused men to live for hundreds of years before the flood. A canopy is implied with the reading of Genesis. We can't prove it happened, but we naturally do our best to explain how we interpret what is observed on that premise. We do have other reasons to rely on scripture, such as fulfilled prophecy and the good things it brings to our lives so it's going to be hard for us to be convinced it's a bogus book. Our arguments are going to necessarily irritate secularists on that count unless they can understand that debating us must needs involve the supernatural on occasions.

I think you've been asked before but:Why bother with any scientific evidence if you have to invoke the supernatural to make any of your speculations work?No one (well almost ) is interested in attacking religion per se. What most of us object to is this so-called creation "science" nonsense that many of it's proponents are trying to get into school science classes.If you're not in that camp then then isn't really any direct argument to be had. You say things were done my some sort of magic. We say "don't deal with magic, don't see any need for it". End of discussion.Why then do you bother with all sorts of postings that seem to be talking about actual physical evidence?

I think that Buz was vaguely on topic, but didn't need a reply here.This is a topic to discuss moderation procedured.Don't make me close the "too fast closure of threads" topic.Adminnemooseus

Hi Moose, Thanks..gave it a shot but could not find what I was looking for (i.e. the posts from last weekend that I missed)...no problem..Admin started a new thread on the same topic and it is moving along.cheers,
M

Closing the Frozen Tropical Animals thread seems too easy a copy out for someone who makes assertions but refuses to provide any supporting evidence when challenged. He could now plead that he was just about to provide his evidence but the thread is closed and he is too busy to ask for it to be reopened.BTW, as initiator of the thread, I thought I might have had some input into a decision to close the thread or not rather than basing it on Buzsaw's behaviour.

Those are good points, but if Buzz isn't going to post to the thread there seems little point in keeping it open.Not to take a position on whether Buzz is right or wrong, but whether Buzz admits it or not, whether he recognizes it himself or not, Buzz's lack of knowledge on scientific topics reveals itself in almost every post.Neither Buzz nor anyone else is required to agree with the information contained in science books and at science websites, but the determination with which he maintains ignorance of this information combined with a matching determination to discuss these topics despite his ignorance is, in the view of this administrator, regrettable.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator