Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

AdminPhat writes:The goal here is understanding through discussion. Evidence is not required, nor is winning the argument the goal.Please refrain from trying to frame the argument for the mere sake of winning it....if you have any faith and belief in support of it, please make your point. If you are simply against the concept of faith and belief, you have no purpose participating.

AdminPhat writes:What I did was pull all of Pandas replies from 3 threads...and examined his arguments....not just in Faith & Belief.

AdminPhat writes:Also, in a Faith & Belief forum, arguments need only the support of prior writings on the subject of that particular faith/belief. Evidence is not required.

AdminPhat writes:If someone wishes to argue contrarily, they need to lay out their own faith and/or belief rather than simply tearing logical holes in another ones beliefs.

Trixie writes:That's exactly what dwise1 was saying and what you've just amply demonstrated. Unless otherwise stated, just about every reference to evolution made on this board is talking about biological evolution, the Theory of Evolution, Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species".
If you choose to conflate all of your examples with what we're saying, that's up to you, but unless we're all using the same definition, discusson is impossible. Changing definitions mid-conversation is a recipe for confusion. It's also a tactic used with boring regularity by those who wish to deny biological evolution, who don't accept the mechanism of descent with modification.Can you tell me how the Theory of Evolution is affected by, or deals with the evolution of galaxies, of stars? In a thread entitled "Evolution is not Abiogenesis" it's pretty darned obvious that we're talking about biological evolution and a particular idea of the origin of life. This thread is asking if the ToE is affected by the method by which life originated. You seem to be broadening it to take in just about everything that changes.

Portillo writes:Yes, this thread is about biological evolution. The post mentioned that when talking about evolution, it ONLY means biological evolution. Not just in this thread but any context, which isnt true.

dwise1 writes:I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion.

Percy writes:To the rest of us this looks like a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate. It looks like, having perhaps decided that the battle in this thread can't be won, that you've decided to destroy any focus and clarity the thread might have.It is rare that people act out of base motives, so I have to believe that you have a clear conscience and do not believe you're doing any such thing, but I have to wonder what the heck you're thinking. You really believe that Dwise1 is saying that we evolutionists only accept one definition of evolution, no matter the context? Really? Even if you really and truly believe this in your heart of hearts, wouldn't it be a better strategy to hide this fact so that people don't think you're, uh, comprehensionally challenged, or worse, lying?