Can I suggest that Porkncheese's new proposed thread - Exposing the theory of evolution Part 2 - is not promoted until he has responded properly to the criticisms in his first thread - Exposing the theory of evolution Part 1?
It's looking more like a blog than a discussion.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Can I suggest that Porkncheese's new proposed thread - Exposing the theory of evolution Part 2 - is not promoted until he has responded properly to the criticisms in his first thread - Exposing the theory of evolution Part 1?
It's looking more like a blog than a discussion.
I thought this was his way of admitting that his first attempt had been comprehensively refuted, so it was time to try a new tack.
I thought this was his way of admitting that his first attempt had been comprehensively refuted, so it was time to try a new tack.
Possible, but more like he thinks ignoring the comments means he won, and wan't to move on ... with a new non-sequitur illustration not from modern evolution texts followed by "intelligent design" of the gaps ...
No, I vote that he at least make a summary of his position in the first part and how he has answered the evidence provided there, before moving on.
What I have decided to do is temporarily close his first topic and deal with the arguments in the ID Forum. I ask that all of you not try and overwhelm him or any viewer with your plethora of information, but, rather...take it slow and address the arguments being made by the ID proponents. You can start with the two researchers whom I referenced in my Admin reply to him. Make brief replies to specific arguments...don't attempt to teach a class. The ball is also in Pork n Cheeses corner to try and respond to your arguments perhaps by asking questions as he learns more about what ID is and how it differs from the science which you learned from in your professions.
A lot of times you guys engage in light banter with each other in these topics and throw the whole thing off course.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
A lot of times you guys engage in light banter with each other in these topics and throw the whole thing off course.
Light banter while we are waiting for Porkncheese to defend or explain what he posted is not what drove anything off course.
There are more than 25 unanswered questions that Porky ignored in the first drive-by and now you're helping him drive-by again.
This guy just wants to slime atheists and evolution, not engage in debate.
Wanting creationists to participate on the forum so badly that you will let them shit all over the furniture is not worthy of "Understanding through discussion."
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Would you prefer to have no creationist, Intelligent Design, or otherwise opponents at all to debate with? Faith certainly doesn't qualify---she knows her own beliefs, but has no evidence-based argument with which to respond. MikeTheWiz never comes around much anymore. I saw an opportunity to promote an Intelligent Design Topic and I ran with it. Keep in mind that a lot of people read these topics who we never see. My only expectation is for you, JonF, RAZD, Tangle, Caffeine, dWise1, and others to conduct yourselves professionally, politely, and briefly..addressing the argument at an entry level pace that the rest of we readers can understand. If pork n cheese never replies or is again rude, this will be his last topic. That's all I have to say regarding my actions.
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Thuggee Admin: I still say that nobody could possibly be as utterly clueless and unaware as Faith pretends to be. She's putting on an act like a typical creationist troll.
And I still maintain that she does not worship the Christian God but rather an evil god whom she serves through lies. Given her pretend theological bend, I would identify her god as the Lord of Lies, the Prince of Darkness. All the evidence points in that direction.
And I still ask that somebody explain to her those extremely simple facts that she willfully refuses to understand.
I just was a bit aghast as to how you could have let this woman push your buttons to the point that you wanted to choke her! I rarely moderate most of our exchanges unless it gets into cuss words and/or blatant defamation of character.
Here is the post in question which I moderated. I will reproduce it in full, for the peanut gallery to see: **************************************************************************
Faith writes:
I read it! What I'd said wasn't intended to be anything more than an attempt to say materialism and naturalism are basically the same words.
Dwise1 writes:
No you did not!!! As is blatantly obvious to all observers! You forking lying ####!
Those are not basically the same words. You read nothing! You lying ####!
As I stated in such clear terms that even a lying deceptive c##t such as yourself could not fail to comprehend:
quote:What science uses is Methodological Naturalism. That takes no philosophical position concern the existence of the supernatural nor of any supernatural entities. Rather, it is the very practical realization that science cannot work with the supernatural. Period! That also means that supernaturalistic explanations cannot be used in science because there is no way to even begin to observe or test them.
AdminPhat writes:
Stop with these types of verbal reactions or face suspension.
************************************************************* Seems to me that you reproduced the quote that you made and are accusing her of ignoring the point of the quote. Am I correct so far? OK, lets go back.
Msg 1140--
Dwise1 writes:
Uh, still completely off the mark. You should have read what I had written! What ID calls "the Gospel of materialism" is Philosophical Materialism/Naturalism. That is a philosophical position that the natural universe is all that there is, that the supernatural does not exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with the naturalistic methods of science!
What science uses is Methodological Naturalism. That takes no philosophical position concern the existence of the supernatural nor of any supernatural entities. Rather, it is the very practical realization that science cannot work with the supernatural. Period! That also means that supernaturalistic explanations cannot be used in science because there is no way to even begin to observe or test them.
Now since you are going to continue to be willfully stoopid and refuse to read any more than one or two words, could somebody else please explain these very simple facts to this willfully stoopid ####?
Msg 1141--
Faith writes:
I read it! What I'd said wasn't intended to be anything more than an attempt to say materialism and naturalism are basically the same words.
My basic gripe was that you were letting Faith push your buttons. Perhaps she sees this in a different perspective than you do. Feel free to rant more and fully explain your case here. Faith is also free to defend her side of it.
As a third party, perhaps I should start by asking the question: Are Materialism and Naturalism the same thing? I've no time to research, but I would assume that if anyone made such a claim they would know the answer.
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Add comment about what this post is a response to.
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
Well just more evidence that the ****** Faith and Dredge, are moderated differently than the non-fundies. Typical.
Typical of what? If you are suggesting bias, you would be wrong. Go hug a tree or save a whale or something.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
well i dont see the bias. I answered dWise1 and offered to review my comment to him. Percy usually keeps Faith in check so I don't bother censoring her...she is way over the top anyway. and I censored Dredge recently as well. So I don't understand your offhanded (and in my opinion strongly bleeding heart liberal) comment regarding my moderation. If anything, I am a very easy going moderator...I rarely need to say anything around here anyway. As for my being what you call "an asshole" I think you are just trigger happy regarding any bias that I might show towards our conservative fundies. I feel that I am very even handed since I am a political moderate anyway...I have no special fondness for Trump and I liked Obama better.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
That you would come to this conclusion from my comment and state this shows your inherent bias. That you would tell me to hug a tree also shows the bias you as a moderator have against people that disagree with you. I have made it clear in the past and I still maintain you are a very poor and biased moderator.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
I don’t know, Theo. Hugging trees is not a good thing. You get dirt, grime, insects, sap all over your shirt and pants.
And before you hug a tree do you even ask first? You just go slobber your skin grease, germs and dead skin cells all over them?
Besides, around here if you try to hug a tree their spikes stick you and make you bleed. Saguaro don’t like being hugged. They take to bleeding a liberal heart seriously.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
