Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 10:38 PM
26 online now:
Meddle, Tanypteryx (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
34Next
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 391 of 502 (621908)
06-29-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by jar
06-29-2011 9:52 AM


Re: the Theism thread
jar writes:

Good God, please tell me you didn't think I was talking about Buz's crap.

Of course I did. I'd forgotten we had a member named Granpa, so when you said the proposal was "utterly filled with fallacies" and "deserves not just promotion but maybe even an award for most fallacies in a single PNT" I naturally thought you were talking about Buzsaw's new proposal.

But I understand now: Buzsaw, crap; Granpa, fallacies. Got it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by jar, posted 06-29-2011 9:52 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 392 of 502 (622890)
07-07-2011 8:57 AM


Is anyone planning on looking at Straggler's Topic anytime soon? It's been languishing for days.
Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Admin, posted 07-07-2011 10:38 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 393 of 502 (622897)
07-07-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Dr Jack
07-07-2011 8:57 AM


I think AdminPD is stretched a bit thin over in the religious threads. I'm a poor judge of thread worthiness in the religious arena, so I'll just promote it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Dr Jack, posted 07-07-2011 8:57 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 394 of 502 (625508)
07-23-2011 2:37 PM


The "Quantum Physics" PNT
Quantum Physics

Message 1:

Son Goku writes:

Hello!,

A while ago I derailed a thread about Dark Matter and started explaining quantum mechanics. I really enjoyed the thread, but became busy and slacked off. I'd really like to do it again as there were some great questions and I'm now free to devote time to the thread for a good long period.

I realise this is a debate forum so I was conscious of disrupting a debate thread (I still did it though), so would there be any place where such a thread is appropriate? Possibly coffee house, but maybe there are others?

Message 2:

Admin writes:

These kinds of topics generally go in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, but if there's no tie-in to the creation/evolution debate then Coffee House would be a better place. I'd really rather have this in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum - can you recall any of the creation/evolution issues that prompted the departure into quantum physics?

My perspective is that such a topic should go into a science forum even if an evolution/creationism conflict isn't presented in the opening message. Just a matter of topic theme organization, if nothing else. Besides, there is a good chance an evo/creo aspect will develop.

A problem with message 1, is that there is no specific debate theme there - There is no discussion launching point and it is not really properly promotable out of the "Proposed New Topics" forum. What Son Goku needs to do, is to bring one or two of those "great questions" into the topic starter message, and present a bit of his perspective about those questions.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit - Son Goku posted a message 3 while I was preparing this message.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.
Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Admin, posted 07-23-2011 2:51 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 395 of 502 (625509)
07-23-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Adminnemooseus
07-23-2011 2:37 PM


Re: The "Quantum Physics" PNT
I think that's a good set of criteria. Son Goku just replied a few minutes ago, maybe you could take a look and decide whether it should be promoted.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-23-2011 2:37 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 396 of 502 (625514)
07-23-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by jar
06-29-2011 9:52 AM


Re: the Theism thread
jar writes:

I was talking about Buz's crap.

Jar, that's what debates are; ideologies debating one another's crap. Your crap stinks worse than mine, Your crap wins scarce few debates attempting to refute my crap.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. Buz gets the last word on this little dubious sub-theme. Unless Jar is looking for a suspension.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by jar, posted 06-29-2011 9:52 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 397 of 502 (626744)
07-31-2011 6:35 AM


Can someone get on this, please? It's the sort of thing that interests me. Thanks.
Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 9:01 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 398 of 502 (626758)
07-31-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2011 6:35 AM


He seems pretty confused to me. I was hoping AdminPD would take a look at it to see if it was appropriate for the religious threads. Is your interest to resolve his confusion or poke fun at it?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2011 6:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2011 9:28 AM Admin has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 399 of 502 (626764)
07-31-2011 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Admin
07-31-2011 9:01 AM


He seems pretty confused to me.

It seemed clear enough to me; though I can entertain the possibility that I am completely misunderstanding someone with no coherent point in such a way that I think I understand him as having a coherent point. But what are the odds?

I think his point is that if physicists came to a fundamental understanding of the laws underlying our universe, then anyone asking the question "why" about this understanding itself would get no answer from the physicists; they'd just have to say: "Because that's the way it is".

At that point, he suggests, we should turn to theological explanations. This is what I should like to take issue with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 9:01 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2011 1:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 401 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 1:18 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 400 of 502 (626809)
07-31-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2011 9:28 AM


Oh, and it turns out from his further explanation of his point that I'm right. Whoda thought it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2011 9:28 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 401 of 502 (626810)
07-31-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2011 9:28 AM


Hi Dr Adequate,

I think that's an excellent summary of the main point he was trying to make, at least in his OP. He seems to make a clearer statement in his reply to AdminPD. My concern is that members might just poke fun at the other things he says, to mention just a couple, that scientists reject the idea that God commands them to act, or his comments about a mechanistic universe.

I think AdminPD's suggestion that he participate in existing threads is a good one, I'm inclined to wait a day or two.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2011 9:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2011 1:49 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 402 of 502 (626818)
07-31-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Admin
07-31-2011 1:18 PM


Well, you could ask if if he's so sensitive that he can't stand criticism, and if his answer is "yes" you could always direct him to another forum.

I've already written my answer, it is perfectly tactful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 1:18 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2503 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 403 of 502 (628048)
08-06-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:26 PM


Improve the new topic proposal guidelines
I have been banned from proposing new threads. Perhaps indefinitely?

As far as I can tell, I have broken no rules.

If there are rules that you want to punish people for breaking, how about writing them.

Include a section where you advise that threads can be denied.

Also include a section that warns that bannings from proposing new topics can occur.

Maybe even include a section that advises that warnings will be given before a banning results.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:26 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-06-2011 3:41 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


(2)
Message 404 of 502 (628079)
08-06-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Butterflytyrant
08-06-2011 12:35 PM


Re: Improve the new topic proposal guidelines
Your topic starting permissions have been restored.

There has been a discussion of this situation at the "General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')" topic - The current most recent relevant message is here. I don't offhand have much to add to what was said there. What I do have to say is, a relatively new member showing up and doing 7 new PNTs directed at a particular member is rather troll like behavior. Thou had succeeded in irritating the moose. Or something like that.

Adminnemooseus


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-06-2011 12:35 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 405 of 502 (630145)
08-22-2011 6:04 PM


Unconnected
Ordinary Ignoramuses
Message 1

I am having problems with John 10:10's claim that "the Jeremy's of this world" reject a divine creator.
The linked review of an autobiography of 2 scientists makes no mention of how Jeremy thinks the universe was created.

No, the problem with the Jeremys of this world is that they will allow themselves to consider mutation as the reason why life could evolve from the first life form to where we are today, but totally reject the truth that only a Divine Creator could create the universe and all life therein, and only a Divine Redeemer can sustain His creation.

This seems completely unfounded - Jeremy has not made any statement regarding his belief in a creator.
And there is no intrinsic problem with believing in evolution and not believing in a god.

Perhaps a request could be made to clarify what John 10:10's assertion is based on and how it is problematic to believe in evolution but not in god?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019