If you will make all posts on this forum subject to fact-checking and peer-review, then I for my part will treat it as a technical journal. If, on the other hand, you are willing to let people post lies unchecked, then I may occasionally point out their errors.
As I said in Message 635, when you provide derision instead of information then uninformed observers cannot distinguish any difference in merit between your arguments. They'll see he's calling you names, you're calling him names, so science and nonsense look about evenly matched.
The participants in the discussion are the fact checkers, not the moderators. Once facts have been presented and arguments made (hopefully by people who don't get sucked in to SO's tendency to reply to every sentence and who end up following suit) then moderators can step in if some participants seem to be ignoring this. I have done so many times, though not recently, much as I would like to. It seems like no one on the evolutionist side is willing to pick some particular aspect and pursue it to a conclusion.
It feels to me like EvC Forum is about 3 or 4 years past its prime. We used to be inhabited by people on both sides who would offer detailed evidence and arguments, like Skylar, Mammuthus, Peter Borger, Tranquility Base and TrueCreation, but now no one on the creationist side seems to actually know anything about anything, and those on the evolutionist side too often seem uninterested in sharing what they know.
It feels to me like EvC Forum is about 3 or 4 years past its prime. We used to be inhabited by people on both sides who would offer detailed evidence and arguments, like Skylar, Mammuthus, Peter Borger, Tranquility Base and TrueCreation,
Curious, I looked up Mammuthus to read a few of his posts and what do I find?
Brian in 2005 writes:
These were good old days. These threads were where scientific ignoramuses such as myself could learn something from people like you and Joe.
hopefully by people who don't get sucked in to SO's tendency to reply to every sentence and who end up following suit
I don't really see how this can be done successfully, not for every sentence but in terms of general structure. If one doesn't respond in kind then the chances are that the specific points you are rebutting may not be clear enough since SO usually makes about a dozen assertions in each posts.
When I tried to make a normal unbroken post his reply was just the same piecemeal as always, restating his inital contentions and not answering any of my questions.
It seems like no one on the evolutionist side is willing to pick some particular aspect and pursue it to a conclusion.
I would also dispute this. How can this be a fruitful approach when SO simply ignores any counterargument and just restates his initial premises?
Are you saying everyone should only ever reply once to SO with a substantive coherent post outlining their counterargument and then just give up? Because you know that SO is just going to restate his inital position and totally ignore the actual counterargument.
I can't count the number of times he has reverted to his 'if you just keep randomly mutating a protein's structure it will lose its function' argument, no matter how many times it has been clearly pointed out to him, with appropriate facts, that this is totally irrelevent since it has nothing to do with how evolution works and certainly doesn't tell us anything about the specific effects of a given mutation on function.
If the way SO responds is so bad that you don't want others to do it, and I would agree that it is detrimental to thought out coherent arguments, then why do you let him do it? Is he actually incapable of replying in any other format?
I was wrong to say that no one on the evolutionist side is sticking with a focused argument, because obviously you'e been doing that, but here's my quandary. SO has made changes - he's no longer posting a series of one liners. But he's still slicing people's posts into tiny fragments and replying to each one. Then those people are doing the same thing. As a moderator I can't martial the time to make sense of this chaos, and I can't caution SO further about his approach because except for you and PaulK (and maybe I've forgotten someone else, if so, sorry), everyone else is doing it, too.
The weekend's coming up. If I find a slot of time I'll try to get a firmer grasp on properly moderating the thread.
Th moderators appear to be banning me from the forums one forum at a time.
Apparently what has aroused their wrath is that I wish to debate the actual topics being raised, rather than the dumb paranoid fantasies and outright lies that creationists weave about their opponents.
If this is really how they want the forums to work, then I suggest that they change the name of this board from EvC to AdHvE.
I just want you know I'm the Dr. Adequate fan phenotype. Try not to get ban, but not at the costs of your soul. I was this →||← far away from a POM nomination for Message 393.You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
I actually had a simpler point than you were making of it. If you want to argue that God is the creator of matter and energy in a science forum then that's fine as long as you support your arguments with scientific evidence.
But if you instead want to argue philosophical issues about what it's possible to really know, then since that issue can be raised in literally any thread we normally restrict discussion of such viewpoints to threads in the Is It Science? forum. Discussion of Max Planck's views on this topic in particular belong there.
Hi Percy. I understand your point and intend to abide within the perameters which you have set.
As to the thread question of where the matter comes from, the Biblical answer is from whom all things came and in whom all things exist, referring to the Biblical intelligent designer, Jehovah.
Thus for the Biblical creation IDist like myself, that the universe has forever been managed and designed by the Biblical ID and all living on planet earth has been relatively suddenly created, my only answer to the thread question is goddidit. Thus, the only scientific evidence I can cite is archeological, historical, experiential, socialogical, and the goddidit interpretation of all scientific data observed.
This, however has not been MatterWave's driving impetus, perse relative to your response above, his being more blind assertion that goddidit, in place of itdidit. If goddidit, data relative to the god must become the driving impetus of the pro-god debate but there appears to be no venue for debating such data.
Perhaps a topic in Is It Science would afford a venue for this data, though it has been my understanding that such debate would not be deemed suitable in that segment of EvCs science fora.
The dilema for creationists appears to be that what we consider science does not meet the standards established for science debate.
Theology forums or Coffee House appears to be the only place for airing our views, but then we cannot respond to objections in the science forums regarding alternative views of what is aired by our counterpart ideologists. Thus their claim that we have no evidence and thus no legitimate goddidit responses to their claims.
Perhaps a unique forum for alternative science views would serve for a venue of this nature.
Reasons for keeping religion out of the mainstream science fora is well taken as it becomes difficult to keep the debates withing reasonable perameters and the tendency for Biblicalists to get preachy and theological. Thus perhaps a unique forum for alternative science views would be and answer for consideration.
Thanks, Admin. I read your message but wasn't sure what the perameters were as to references to the Biblical record in Is It Science forum. I will assume from this that I've been mistaken as to what those perameters are, but will take care not to over-reach them.