Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,938 Year: 20,974/19,786 Month: 1,371/2,023 Week: 322/557 Day: 15/47 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 196 of 1043 (629904)
08-20-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
08-20-2011 9:17 PM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
It is unlikely either of the above will ever admit to evidence such as what was researched by scientist Moller.

I was referring to your evidence that Barack Obama is engaged in a socialist takeover of the US by means of monetary devaluation, blah blah blah. Not to Moller. Isn't it at all significant that even the people who agree with you on a subject - any subject - don't find your evidence credible?

Again, I'm simply pointing out that the issue here has nothing to do with the ideological motivation of your audience, and everything to do with the fact that, conservative or liberal, atheist or Christian, evolutionist or creationist, everyone agrees that you don't seem to understand why or how propositions are supported by evidence (or not supported.) Or seems to agree. How is it that you don't seem to notice that, despite several prominent creationists here, despite several prominent conservatives who are themselves convinced that Obama is a socialist, when it comes to evidence every single other person at EvC is arguing that you haven't presented any? That you've presented speculation and innuendos as fact?

Don't you think that Coyote and Jon would be receptive to the position that Obama is playing monetary tricks to impoverish the US? Or that he forced Seal Team Six members onto a certain kind of helicopter so that it would crash and weaken the military, thereby opposing US military hegemony (which we all know lie-bruls oppose)? How then do you explain their utter incredulity at your "evidence" that these things are true? How do you explain that, when it comes to your problem with evidence, Jon and Coyote and other conservatives are in four-square agreement with us liberals?

I ask you, Crashfrog; do you really think any of your kind will ever admit to any supernatural evidence?

Yeah! Because "my kind" certainly includes a large number of people who believe in the supernatural: Jar, Percy, CS (I think), many others. Just because they tell you you've not presented real evidence, doesn't mean that they're saying that in bad faith. A lot of us find you significantly interesting that we would like to see you present and defend your views in the best way possible. Fighting stuffed dummies isn't any fun; we come here to do battle and we want opponents who can challenge us. I do, anyway.

So I ask you: who's opinion at EvC do you take seriously enough that if they told you you had an "evidence problem", where you exhibit zero skepticism of any source if it agrees with what you already believe, you would believe them? Please, name the person.

Can you cite an example in the past years when any secularist minded members have ever acknowledged evidence related to the supernatural?

Do aliens count as "supernatural"? I've admitted to evidence of communication by extraterrestrials.

Maybe that doesn't count, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2011 9:17 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:02 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 1043 (629924)
08-21-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by crashfrog
08-20-2011 10:29 PM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
crashfrog writes:

Yeah! Because "my kind" certainly includes a large number of people who believe in the supernatural: Jar, Percy, CS (I think), many others.

A c r e a t i o n i s t god, actively working in and managing the Universe, to the degree that they would ever admit to evidence of that? Uh uh! No-nee!


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 196 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2011 10:29 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Nuggin, posted 08-21-2011 7:45 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Admin, posted 08-21-2011 7:59 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 200 by jar, posted 08-21-2011 8:43 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-21-2011 10:08 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2011 11:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 198 of 1043 (629927)
08-21-2011 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
A c r e a t i o n i s t god, actively working in and managing the Universe, to the degree that they would ever admit to evidence of that? Uh uh! No-nee!

Every single one of us would admit to that if you presented evidence.

Since that's NEVER gonna happen, we won't have to worry about keeping up our end of the bargain


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:02 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12647
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 199 of 1043 (629929)
08-21-2011 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
Hi Buz,

The first three paragraphs of Crash's Message 196 pose the key question: Why is it that even people who share your position on a matter do not believe you're presenting any evidence?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:02 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:41 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31674
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 200 of 1043 (629932)
08-21-2011 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
Buz, if you presented any such evidence there would be no choice except to accept it.

That is one of the big difference in positions.

A reasonable person says "If the evidence refutes my belief then I must abandon that belief."

If you actually presented evidence that the Exodus happened, then I and others would say "Yup, it appears that it did."

However, even if the Exodus was a real historical fact, that still provides no support for any supernatural critter.

Evidence does not support anything beyond the facts in question.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:02 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 1043 (629940)
08-21-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
Hey Buz,

I tried to explain to you before how you misunderstand what evidence is and how to use it, but it didn't sink in. I don't care about any of the stuff you're calling the reasons that people are against you. You're just plain ol' wrong about what consititutes evidence and how it is supposed to be used. I'm just gonna repost what I said before, let me know what you're not getting:

quote:
how about refuting the corroborative evidence that I have cited rather than incessantly demanding more? If you can't empirically falsify what I have given, you can't truthfully say that I've supplied no supportive evidence for the Exodus.

You're doing it wrong, Buz.

Providing evidence for an event is not taking a story from the Bible, and then looking for pieces of evidence that would fit within that story if it were true.

You have to start with the evidence, and then show how it leads to a conclusion of the event happening.

Finding a chariot wheel in the sea isn't really corroborative evidence of the story from the Bible if it simply doesn't contadict it and happens to be lying in the spot you'd expect it to. You need to eliminate the possibility of coincidence for it to be evidence pointing to the event.Message 279


quote:
Reading the Exodus, interpreting the story, guessing at the location, and then finding a wheel...

The wheel is not supportive evidence that the Exodus happened. Its a post-hoc rationalization of something neat that you found.

If you're not eliminating other possibilities for the wheel then you're not supporting anything.


quote:
This, corroborated by so much other evidence descriptive of the flood account is significant supportive scientific evidence of the Exodus event as described in the Biblical record.

No, this is where you're wrong. Its a common misunderstanding. You're assuming causation from the correlation. You have not eliminated any other possibilities. It is a post hoc rationalization of something neat that you've found.

It is not scientific.

For example:
I thought I could control the weather with my dancing. I did a rain dance yesterday, and today it rained.

According to you, that would be supportive evidence of the legitimacy of my Rain Dance.

It is not.

I have not ruled out other possibilities as the cause of the rain.


Do you think that rain dancer would have corrobotive evidence that his Rain Dance works if it rains after he does the dance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:02 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 202 of 1043 (629948)
08-21-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:02 AM


Please answer at least the question at the end
A c r e a t i o n i s t god, actively working in and managing the Universe

Buz, the subject here isn't why your cohorts won't accept your evidence for a supernatural God actively working in the universe; the subject here is why your cohorts won't accept your evidence for anything at all, including propositions that they themselves support such as the apparent-to-conservatives proposition that Obama is a Kenyan socialist with a fake birth certificate, or whatever. Or that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed to cover up some kind of Whitewater shenanigans. (Remember how none of your fellow conservatives believe that?) Or that Obama is sending Seal Team Six members on broken helicopters to weaken the US military. Or that Obama has caused sky-high inflation during his term of office.

Surely conservatives who oppose liberal Democrats should find these propositions attractive, provided that they can be supported by evidence. So how do you explain the failure of your "evidence" to convince any of your fellow conservatives?

And you never answered my question. I don't expect you to take my word for the fact that you have this profound evidence problem. But please, do answer this - whose word would you take? Surely there must be someone at EvC you respect enough that if they said "uh, yeah, Buz; maybe there's something to what they're saying" that would be cause for self-examination?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:02 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 1043 (629990)
08-21-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Admin
08-21-2011 7:59 AM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
Admin writes:

Hi Buz,
The first three paragraphs of Crash's Message 196 pose the key question: Why is it that even people who share your position on a matter do not believe you're presenting any evidence?

I've been thinking about some of these things. Some reasons have come to mind which may shed some light on your question.

Hint: It has a lot to do with how much these whoevers share regarding which positions.

I've decided to submit a PNT regarding evidence when I find time.


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 199 by Admin, posted 08-21-2011 7:59 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2011 10:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Buzsaw, posted 08-25-2011 9:45 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 204 of 1043 (629998)
08-21-2011 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
Hint: It has a lot to do with how much these whoevers share regarding which positions.

Right, no, we know your secret theory already, Buz, because you've told us. You believe that everyone who says they don't find your evidence convincing is lying, because they really are convinced but can't bear to admit it to you.

But my question to you is the same: how do you square that with the fact that even the people who agree with you, who are completely on your side about things, are telling you you have this problem with evidence?

I wish you'd answer my other question, too. Is there really no one else whose opinion you respect enough that you would consider believing them when they tell you you have an evidence problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 1043 (630507)
08-25-2011 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Buzsaw
08-21-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Buzsaw Banned From Biblically Related Threads
I've had way too much on my plate, business wise to engage in a new thread. I plan to OP a proposal for an evidence thread when I get caught up. It may be a while yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2011 7:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5005
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 206 of 1043 (630751)
08-27-2011 3:46 PM


On or Off Topic? That is the Question.
You posted in the thread "Do Christians worship Different Gods" you suggested that we were going off topic.

The questions asked were:

1/ Am I as a Christian worshiping a different God than the God as worshipped by a fundamentalist Christian?

2/ What effect do these two different views of the Christian God have on our world view as individuals today?

I think that it has stayed right on topic. In the discussion with iano I think that we have come to the conclusion that the first answer is yes and we are talking about exactly what is asked in question 2.

Even in the discussion with Granny Magda where he claims that he and logically me as well have gone off topic. I actually see the rationale for my view of the Christian God is relevant and on topic to both question 1 and 2. If I just say that I believe in a loving God that wouldn't sanction things attributed to the god of the OT without a rationale for my conclusions, the discussion wouldn't go far.

What say you?

Cheers
GDR


  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(9)
Message 207 of 1043 (631588)
09-01-2011 8:46 PM


Moderation problems
Moose, your moderation is getting increasingly erratic.

This is becoming a serious problem for this forum, and for me. I have some idea what I'm talking about as I've been a mod on another forum for over three years.

I don't believe my posts in the Potential Evidence for a Global Flood thread warranted removal from that entire topic, especially as that is one area I, as an archaeologist, have direct experience with. My own research disproves the claim of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. That is why it is necessary to pin down the approximate time of the claimed flood, else there can be no productive discussion.


Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 8:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 209 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 10:59 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 217 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-02-2011 10:14 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 208 of 1043 (631590)
09-01-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Coyote
09-01-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Moderation problems

Your reply to Just being real's message was not a reply to the content of that message. Things downthread are also problematic.

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 207 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2011 8:46 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 209 of 1043 (631605)
09-01-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Coyote
09-01-2011 8:46 PM


Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
Just Being Real has been under pressure to supply evidence in support of "the great flood". In message 134 he did a rather noble effort at such.

Then both Jar and you came in with messages 135 and 138. Neither were replies to the content of message 134. Instead you both launched off on giving your personal anti-flood sermons. Disaster was imminent, and IamJoseph stepped in (no surprise) to further thrash the topic. Much of what he got suspended for (and I did give a "-" to Admin's suspension message) was building on Jar's and your messages. You and Jar were parties in the crime.

Yes, I too believe that anything having to do with young Earth creationism can be shot down with some variation of a "but the Earth isn't young" argument. But for the sake of having a debate on some aspect of "floodism" and/or "flood geology", we need to set such a thing aside.

As I see it, the Biblical "one year flood" is a consideration in that debate. That it Biblically supposedly happened somewhere in the last 5000 years is not a relevant issue.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2011 8:46 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Coyote, posted 09-02-2011 1:23 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 2:28 AM Adminnemooseus has responded
 Message 214 by Admin, posted 09-02-2011 8:15 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 210 of 1043 (631616)
09-02-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Adminnemooseus
09-01-2011 10:59 PM


Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
But for the sake of having a debate on some aspect of "floodism" and/or "flood geology", we need to set such a thing aside.

As I see it, the Biblical "one year flood" is a consideration in that debate. That it Biblically supposedly happened somewhere in the last 5000 years is not a relevant issue.

Here is where we disagree.

"Flood geology" is an incorrect term as well as an unsupported claim.

This is what I have been trying to point out -- if the flood occurred during historic times, at the times given by biblical scholars, we are not dealing with geology! We are dealing with soils and both sedimentology and archaeology. The Cambrian explosion, K-T boundary and all the rest of those ancient claims are out, and recent archaeological deposits are in. Archaeological deposits are what I deal with on a daily basis. We deal with bones, not fossils, and sediments, not geological layers.

This makes a vast difference in the debate, and the evidence presented. If we have a free-floating time period for the global flood, we have a non-productive debate. Anything can be brought in as a justification for a global flood, even events separated by 500 million years! To have a productive debate we need to agree upon a time period and deal with the evidence pertaining to just that time period.

The biblical scholars whom I cited agree on something close to 4,350 years ago. That is a relevant issue, and indeed a critical issue. That time period eliminates fossils and a lot of other issues brought up by YEC creationists. It requires archaeological data, which I am able to cite--some coming from my own excavations and research.

So far I have not seen YEC arguments which refute my arguments, probably because the main creationists websites have yet to address those arguments. But the time period during which the purported global flood occurred is absolutely critical to this entire line of debate. If you disallow evidence for a recent global flood, all of archaeology is disallowed, even though this is clearly the most pertinent evidence. And then the date of the global flood can span 500 million to a billion years, with the usual pick and choose snippets passed off as evidence.

So again, I disagree with your decision to disallow discussion of a recent time period for the purported global flood. I think this issue is absolutely critical to any productive discussion, as it brings necessary focus to the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 10:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019