Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report discussion problems here: No.2
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 468 (491733)
12-20-2008 12:47 PM


Troll sighting
Byron Marchant in the Bart Ehrman thread. subthread starts here

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 17 of 468 (493086)
01-05-2009 10:24 PM


Although the future course of a forum member named seekingfirstthekingdom, lies mostly within his own hands; I would very much like to see a further great bending of the accepted standards of conduct on this board exercised in relation to these initial posts of his. First of all, his post number 227 on the thread titled: "What i can't understand about evolution...." Shows to me quite clearly the only thing of substance or value he has stated to date. Next, it shows quite clearly that he has an honorable purpose here on these excellent pages. I see a genuine interest in that post despite all of his previous drivel.
I would very much like the chance to see real growth on his part. Growth that is, besides the excellent company here, one of the greater joys I garner from this forum. Besides it's damn boring without a Creationist. I've come light-years, in my own search, responding to Creationists.
He's gone to the library and checked out Dawkin's latest and best book. I want to see how he comes to understand the stuff in it.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : In the link, changed the "m=201#227" part to "m=227#227". Since not all member page setups have messages 201 and 227 on the same page, things work best when those two numbers are the same.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 01-06-2009 9:07 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13013
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 468 (493125)
01-06-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by CosmicChimp
01-05-2009 10:24 PM


I'd like Seeking to stick around, too, and you're right that there's no debate without creationists, but EvC Forum will offer no member relief from the requirements of science nor of constructive debate as outlined in the Forum Guidelines.
For Seeking it is as you said, it is in his hands.
More generally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the defeat of intelligent design at Dover has left both it specifically and creationism in general in such disarray that creationists, at least the ones who show up here, no longer know what to think. I have witnessed the creation/evolution debate's primary emphasis evolve from YEC issues to OEC issues to ID issues. Creationists here used to be very informed about the particular viewpoint they were advocating if not of science. Now we seem only to get the very ignorant, of both science *and*, alarmingly and surprisingly, their own position.
I don't believe the fix for this is to relax our standards.
The current creationist position, including ID, is "teach the controversy." This advocates no specific position, and since there's no scientific controversy it doesn't carry any weight in a science discussion, which is why you never see "teach the controversy" threads here.
It only carries weight in school board meetings and casual discussions, and in presentations to state legislatures, where the accuracy of the claim of a controversy is least likely to be questioned.
Sorry I can't offer any relief for Seeking.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by CosmicChimp, posted 01-05-2009 10:24 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-06-2009 9:18 AM Admin has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3119 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 19 of 468 (493127)
01-06-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Admin
01-06-2009 9:07 AM


Would it make more sense to just ban people who cannot provide scientifically contructed arguments from the science side of the forum but have them retain their posting ability on the social and religious issues side until they can prove their ability to produce constructive arguments.
I am not trying to water down the site but also do not want to discourage those few creationists, IDers who really are trying to make an attempt to scientifically back up their ideas.
Just a suggestion.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 01-06-2009 9:07 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 01-06-2009 10:14 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 01-06-2009 1:34 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13013
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 468 (493136)
01-06-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate
01-06-2009 9:18 AM


DevilsAdvocate writes:
Would it make more sense to just ban people who cannot provide scientifically contructed arguments from the science side of the forum but have them retain their posting ability on the social and religious issues side until they can prove their ability to produce constructive arguments.
I don't think there's too much to worry about in this regard. Seeking got a 24-hour suspension for ignoring multiple moderator requests, not for a lack of scientific temperament, and lacking such temperament is not unique to creationists.
Anyway, he was originally asked to please begin engaging the topic from two moderators, and he ignored the request. He was then asked to stop posting to the thread by two moderators, and he ignored that request, too. He could have resumed participation at the thread set up for him by RAZD, but he didn't, he just kept posting to the thread he'd been requested not to post to. That's why he was suspended for one day.
You have to be persistently obnoxious (or clueless to a degree that is indistinguishable from obnoxiousness) to get banned permanently. You have to work at it, but by ignoring moderators so blatantly Seeking has put himself on the fast track.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-06-2009 9:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 468 (493152)
01-06-2009 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate
01-06-2009 9:18 AM


Banning or....
It was better than that, Seeking was only asked to not post to one specific thread until he/she could demonstrate that he/she was able to understand the discussion. It wasn't the whole science side and it wasn't even a complete prohibition on that thread.
Seeking ignored that request.
It is good to have foils to focus discussion but that does not mean that someone will be allowed to debate in bad faith or ignore other posters efforts.
Seeking has an opportunity in the great debate thread with the ever patient and very clear RAZD and if he/she elects to take that opportunity can continue posting anywhere.
The general result of this is that the creationist runs for cover. Discussing the issues with RAZD exposes them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-06-2009 9:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 468 (493464)
01-08-2009 11:45 PM


WESTERNJOE
A new poster, westernjoe, on Speciation + Evolution = More Diversity is off-topic and seems to think it is funny, even though a link to the appropriate thread has been provided 3 times.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2313 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 23 of 468 (493513)
01-09-2009 8:44 AM


Spam
Cavediver already pointed this one out in the thread itself, but it kinda got pushed back by annafan's response.
http://EvC Forum: Common Sense -->EvC Forum: Common Sense

I hunt for the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by AdminNosy, posted 01-09-2009 9:29 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 25 by Admin, posted 01-09-2009 9:33 AM Huntard has not replied

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


Message 24 of 468 (493526)
01-09-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Huntard
01-09-2009 8:44 AM


NYK007 Spam
Thank you. It is exorcised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 01-09-2009 8:44 AM Huntard has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13013
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 468 (493528)
01-09-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Huntard
01-09-2009 8:44 AM


Re: Spam
Hi, guys, thanks for bringing this to our attention. NYK007 is a signature spammer.
One way to increase a website's rating by search engines like Google is by placing links to the website at as many other websites as possible. Discussion boards are one easy place to do this through signature spamming. After registering they post just one or a few fairly vanilla and inoffensive messages that include a link to the website in their signature. They try to make the messages appear to be part of the discussion so they don't get deleted. They check back in a week or so to make sure the messages are still there, since they try to keep count of how many website references they've been able to place so they know when they've reached their goal.
Our policy for signature spammers is to permanently suspend the account, then modify the signature link to be something bogus while not changing the visible part of the link. This will hopefully lead the signature spammer to believe they've successfully spammed us when they haven't, and will hopefully contribute to the eventual demise of this type of spamming.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 01-09-2009 8:44 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2313 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 26 of 468 (493643)
01-10-2009 3:23 AM


Same spammer!

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 468 (493949)
01-11-2009 11:02 PM


Faith Thread Issue
Hi Admin. My apologies for discussing these issues in the thread. In my mind I justified it since it was a response to you, the debating member. I should have known better.
Percy said:
Someone will reply that they have evidence that the Bible is true. You'll say they don't. You'll settle on an example, perhaps the Exodus, and start discussing the evidence for it. This has been done to death, which is fine, nothing wrong with repeats because the participants and audience are ever-changing, but I'd like to wait a while before starting the equivalent of another Exodus thread.
1. You understand that some of us here cite evidence to under-gird our faith in the Bible at large.
2. You remind that the Exodus topic has been debated enough and that you don't want this thread to become a debate on the Exodus.
In one of my responses I briefly cited some examples of evidences which we use to bolster our faith in the Biblical record. I knew what you said here and if anyone proceeded to debate any one of the specific evidences I cited in debth, especially the Exodus which you specifically warned about, I would have declined to get into it.
My take on the warning was that the thread was not to become an Exodus debate thread. I didn't consider one brief citing of it along with other evidences as turning this into an Exodus debate.
Reality Man says:
....what it is about faith that makes people so determined that what they believe in is as real as the keyboard I'm typing on.
As a guy with no faith whatsoever, I want someone to baby spoon feed me the rational (the key word here is 'rational') reasoning behind the strong belief people have for things that as of yet have no substance, physical or theoretical, or have such an abstract application to reality.
This is a question of curiosity, I simply want to discuss the science behind faith, and one's absolute certainty that something incredible, such as God or a virgin giving birth or miracles, exists.
The virgin birth as well as the Exodus are both examples of abstract applications to reality. However there is some evidence supportive of both of these miracles. With the virgin birth, it's the prophecies relative to it in the OT. With the Exodus it is the photographed research etc. With Israel's phenomenal return as a nation, it's the modern news etc. There are others. These are the things which corroborate with many other evidences which under-gird the faith of us who are Biblically astute.
With all due respect to John 10:10 (abe: and ICANT), Reality Man obviously does not want to get preached at by John 10:10 (and ICANT) in this thread. He wants us Biblical creationists to explain to him how we could possibly have faith in something like the virgin birth, (abe: and so much more like phenomina in the Biblical record). If it weren't for the many evidences which bolster faith in the Biblical record, I would have to say that I have blind faith in the virgin birth. As I said, it's the corroborated evidences, i.e. the knowns which is the science, if you will, Reality Man that bolsters my faith in the Biblical record to the point that I'm able to believe in the virgin birth, etc, etc.
How do you expect me, Iano, ICANT, Berlot and others to respond to Reality Man in answer to his question. He and the rest of the board will most certainly despise and criticize us soundly if we do as you suggested and preach to him feely nonsense which does nothing to address Reality Man's sincere request for reasons.
I hope you will reconsider your action but if not, so be it. I'm not going back there to make a fool out of myself, (abe: fellow Christians, Christianity and the Biblical record by responding to Reality man with foolish feely reasons for exercising faith.) I don't think anyone else cares to either. Imo, you've essentially either killed the thread or turned an otherwise interesting thread into yada about nothing of substance.
My suggestion to you as Admin is to ride heard on the thread to make sure it doesn't get derailed into debating specific evidence issues, but to allow the participants to briefly cite evidences j(abe: which bolster our faith) as one of the reasons we have for adamantly exercising faith in abstract applications to reality relative to the Biblical record.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 01-12-2009 8:40 AM Buzsaw has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22472
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 28 of 468 (493979)
01-12-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
01-11-2009 11:02 PM


Re: Faith Thread Issue
See my reply to Bertot, Message 101.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 01-11-2009 11:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2009 10:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 468 (493987)
01-12-2009 12:11 PM


looks like spam

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AdminNosy, posted 01-12-2009 12:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 30 of 468 (494000)
01-12-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
01-12-2009 12:11 PM


Re: looks like spam
I think it is not spam RAZD. I think it is someone who actually thinks they have some mystical arithmetical revaluation. We don't automatically ban loons until they become a nuisance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2009 12:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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