|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,780 Year: 1,102/6,935 Month: 383/719 Week: 25/146 Day: 6/19 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6490 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
Why are "Theological Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" bunched together on the same thread title?
Actually, that was about a forum where these kinds of topics could be discussed without the evidence requirements of the science forums.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3655 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Ok, I see, like Theological Creationists can discuss evidence from Intelligent Design theory that supports their beliefs. I get it.
However, to say:
nwr writes: is the same question-begging as I thought the title was, and just as biased toward the Darwinian camp. ...these kinds of topics could be discussed without the evidence requirements of the science forums. It implies that NEITHER 'Theological Creationism' NOR 'Intelligent Design' are supported by scientific fact, and that's just not true of ID. (nor for that matter properly understood Theological Creationism, but that's another topic)cheers Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6490 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
However, to say:
nwr writes: is the same question-begging as I thought the title was, and just as biased toward the Darwinian camp. ...these kinds of topics could be discussed without the evidence requirements of the science forums. This is just nonsense. It has to do with the forum rules, not with question begging. There has long been tension that the evidence requirements for the science forums are hard for creationists and ID proponents to meet. So the particular forum was created within the "Social and Religious Issues" group, where different standards are used. You can still propose a topic in one of the science forums. It's just that there is also an alternate forum you can use with different evidence requirements.
It implies that NEITHER 'Theological Creationism' NOR 'Intelligent Design' are supported by scientific fact, and that's just not true of ID.
Nonsense. You can still propose topics in Intelligent Design, which is one of the science forums.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3655 days) Posts: 159 Joined:
|
Ok I completely understand you this time. That forum is for discussing non-scientific implications of ID theory. I apologize for speaking out in my ignorance, I can only say that my protest was made in good faith, although misguided by my assumptions.
Lesson learned (again lol)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3655 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
The personal abuse on the Intelligent Design threads is getting out of hand. If it doesn't stop, I will have to recommend disciplinary actions, or leave this board. There has been no meaningful discussion for the last couple days, and lots of personal harassment and insults. I'm talking about these threads :
'Is there a legitimate argument for design?' and 'The Semiotic argument for design' For instance, the latest thread in 'Legitimate argument' is this:
Capt Stormfield writes: You are throwing useless RED HERRINGS into the discussion in an attempt to harass me. Any more of this an I will be reporting this to the administrators.Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you report that I've invited you to kiss my ass, you unresponsive troll. Now, if that is the opinion of all of you Darwinists on this forum, just let me know and I'll take my leave. There's no understanding to be found under these conditions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Whiny troll whines some more. Try responding to questions. Or leave. Please.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: This message resulted in a suspension. - Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined:
|
Without having carefully reviewed every single sentence of the back and forth with you I can say that you should give up and leave. You ignore responses, do not answer issues raised with your assertions and are more insulting than most here.
Since you don't seem to want to actually carry on an honest debate you can either stop whining and take what you engender or get all sulky and leave.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3987 Joined: |
is the same question-begging as I thought the title was, and just as biased toward the Darwinian camp. In the beginning, evcforum.net was set up as a site for science discussion. If a creationist believed that science supported his/her creationist beliefs, then this was the place to discuss it. The "Science Forums" forums. Things have since diversified from that beginning, resulting in general discussions ("Coffee House") and more purely theological discussions (the various "Social and Religious Issues" forums. Of course, things that belong in one area tend to also slop over into another area. AdminnemooseusOr something like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8716 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Ed,
There are a number of religious folks and creationists here that get on just, well, Ok to fine I suppose is the operative range. There is even one lady here, the love of my life, my dearest headache and maddeningly defiant YEC, who not just withstands the withering assault upon her (absolutely zany and off-the-wall inane) ideas, she argues right back, giving no quarter, taking no prisoners and actually being semi-reasonable about it some of the time. And her ideas make yours look (almost) sane. Does she have a bigger set of balls than you? Stop whining and get on with the show.
There's no understanding to be found under these conditions. There is no understanding to be had, period. We have all been here before. You present nothing new. You are not going to convince anyone and, despite our best efforts, you are not here to learn. "We" do not have a problem. You may, but that is up to you, not us. Stop bitching like a heart-broke little girl, continue the fight, maybe a bit calmer (that's for me, not you) or take your IDiotic ball and find someplace else to shill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3655 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Well, as an administrator, it's your responsibility to enforce the rules that are intended to keep this forum civil.
If it's your choice not to take corrective action, then I'll have to declare this forum a sham. I was promised "understanding through Discussion" not harassment by dog piling. You all know what you are doing. You can't refute my argument for design so you act dumb and start asking pre-high school level questions, nit picking and finally personal attacks. A little in the spirit of humour is entertainment. In these quantities, however, it's harassment and abuse. So you've ceased to entertain me. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 201 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
Ed writes: So you've ceased to entertain me. Is this where you declare victory and leave? I predicted that; it's scientific! Do you know how many times we've seen this? You arrive, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth; from there it's nothing but repetitive bare assertions and high school taunts; then, when you've provoked someone into immoderate indignation, you declare yourself the winner by a technical knockout due to civil superiority. Nice job. Who cares? Go away. Prissy little pissant."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18062 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The personal abuse on the Intelligent Design threads is getting out of hand. If it doesn't stop, I will have to recommend disciplinary actions, or leave this board. There has been no meaningful discussion for the last couple days, and lots of personal harassment and insults. I'm talking about these threads : 'Is there a legitimate argument for design?' Example: Message 262 ... there are more, gander. oh the irony ![]() 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13143 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Ed,
As I said in my reply to your email, you appear to be giving as good as you get. Since none of the other moderators saw that reply I'll note that I suggested that you attempt to nudge discussion onto a more productive path over the next couple days, and if that doesn't work to then post a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0. But instead of a couple days you waited a couple of hours. One other comment. A quick review of the Semiotic argument for ID thread reveals that most of your posts are very short, so one suggestion I can make is that discussion boards work best when a position is explained in some detail a number of times, and then defended a number of times. That's the only way its various aspects become understood. Your participation in that thread became very brief very quickly. I didn't see the more lengthy and repeated explanations that are usually associated with success. By lengthy I don't necessarily mean long, but certainly much longer than one to three sentences. One other suggestion I can make is that if you want to keep discussion civil that you avoid posts like this in Message 84:
Ed67 writes: Taq writes:
Oh, boy, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and chose to deny it. No, I am explaining what it would look like if it did happen. That is not faith.![]() Get real. You and the gang have a BELIEF that abiogenesis occurred. You demonstrated that by your post. A little honesty would go a long way here...but it's good entertainment value for a rainy day off, watching you squirm ![]() Independent of whether you're right or wrong about Taq's claim, responses like this are usually the harbingers of a breakdown in civility. I'm not saying you were the first or that you're to blame, but you *did* contribute to where the thread is now. Moderators are not here to untie the Gordian knot of who is to blame when a discussion goes bad. Rather, we're here to make discussion as productive as possible by enforcing the Forum Guidelines. But we're not magicians or clairvoyant, and moderating discussion boards can be like herding cats. Good moderation can help some discussions and not others, and the outcome usually depends more upon the participants than anything moderators can do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Capt Stormfield's suspension is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025