Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:34 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,173 Year: 9,209/19,786 Month: 1,631/2,119 Week: 391/576 Day: 66/128 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 211 of 304 (412894)
07-26-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by kuresu
07-26-2007 5:14 PM


Not the place for continued discussion of the issue
This is not the thread to continue the discussion. You may open a thread to discuss the etymology of words if you actually think you can teach Ray anything but do not carry it on here.

You may instead rile at me for suspending him from that forum. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kuresu, posted 07-26-2007 5:14 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by kuresu, posted 07-27-2007 12:34 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4015 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 212 of 304 (412900)
07-26-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by kuresu
07-26-2007 5:14 PM


Re: Nosy over extending his nose....
I will not argue with you about it here. I did my best to put it into my own words, but you don't like that even though you'
ve asked me in the past to do just that.

Would you like an atheistic/agnostic scientists view on the matter? Because you always gloss right over that. It's been mentioned before and simply ignored. This is where I originally discovered the connection.

It doesn't mean evolution is not true Kuresu, it only means it has yet to be proven; that it is thus far only 'theo'. You really must relax.

Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology:

Davies on the question: ‘Does the monotheistic tradition of an intelligible universe have any impact on modern science?’

“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.

Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.

But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ‘theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.

That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”

Ok Nosy, he did his job again on cue... now get the axe. Or is there a Judas among us who will do the deed in exchange for acceptance within the united body of EVC. It would look so much better if a creo admin did the deed you know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kuresu, posted 07-26-2007 5:14 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by kuresu, posted 07-27-2007 12:48 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 213 of 304 (412921)
07-26-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by MartinV
07-26-2007 3:31 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison
MartinV writes:

quote:

You get banned everywhere because you refuse to follow the rules everywhere.


I am not sure this is the case.

This is me in Message 203:

Admin writes:

Nothing has changed here regarding the Forum Guidelines. Follow the Forum Guidelines and you'll keep your permissions. Become a moderator headache by committing constant Forum Guidelines violations and you won't.

This is John Davison responding in Message 204:

John Davison writes:

I will continue to hold forth in my usual forthright manner,...If that is unsatisfactory to the moderators here at EvC, feel free to ban me again right now...

John Davison's schtick is to behave outrageously until banned, then claim he was banned because his views outraged his opponents who had no answer for them. He can believe and espouse anything he likes as long as he follows the Forum Guidelines. He has a long history here, so there's so need to wait to find out what he means by his "usual forthright manner." He is welcome back at any time that he commits to follow the Forum Guidelines and for as long as he continues to follow them. No one is asked to be perfect in their adherence to the guidelines. Just as with traffic laws where you're usually fine if you stay within 10 mph of the speed limit and don't blow through stop signs, approximate adherence to the Forum Guidelines most of the time is all we ask. But just as doing 120 mph on the interstate or driving on the sidewalks downtown will get you in trouble, so as here if you abuse all and sundry then thumb your nose at moderators.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by MartinV, posted 07-26-2007 3:31 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by MartinV, posted 07-27-2007 4:41 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 304 (412933)
07-26-2007 9:24 PM


IamJoseph's Suspension Lifted
I have decided to shorten the suspension of IamJoseph. Welcome back IamJoseph

Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Change to admin account

Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Change author ID


For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 07-27-2007 2:43 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 215 of 304 (412961)
07-27-2007 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by AdminNosy
07-26-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Not the place for continued discussion of the issue
I'm not sure if you're confusing Ray with Rob (hey, it can happen), but it's Rob who's not getting the argument.

Granted, Ray wouldn't get it either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by AdminNosy, posted 07-26-2007 5:31 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Rob, posted 04-02-2003 5:25 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 216 of 304 (412964)
07-27-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rob
07-26-2007 5:52 PM


Re: Nosy over extending his nose....
Rob, I asked for your evidence that theo is the root for theory. Instead you bring up a barely related argument of "is science a religion?".

You cannot bandy the term 'theo'rizing or 'theo'ry or 'theo'retical, with the scare quotes implying that theo is the root or that the words have a connection to theo. Why? I've clearly given evidence that they do not.

Your quote (which you quote many times, mainly off-topic and irrelevant when you do) is about a different argument. I believe this is what jar calls "palming the pea".

I don't give a damn what topic you bring it up in (that theo is the root for theory), I will counter it because your argument is false and you continue to use it.

And all he's saying is that the history of the worldview is important. However, how it's currently thought of has greater relevance.

Oh, and theory, current scientific usage (hell, even in common usage) has no connection with theo.

Your problem is that in scientific usage, theory is an explanation for a broad body of evidence in a coherent manner that has few or no refutations(not the best definition, I'll grant you). In other words, a theory explains facts A and B and C and D and so on and there are no or few facts (like Z) that refute or undermine its explanatory power.

Implying that the root of theory is theo only serves to undermine what theory actually is, and is dishonest when you know that such is not the case.

And technically, no theory in science is ever "proven".

{Text given "hide" treatment. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Text "hidden". This is not the place for such - Stop it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 07-26-2007 5:52 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4075 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 217 of 304 (412978)
07-27-2007 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rob
07-26-2007 4:01 PM


Re: Nosy over extending his nose....
Rob writes:

I guess molbiogirl, Doddy, Matt P, and Kuresu are not strong enough in the mind of Nosy to keep me under control. Do you four concur?


It is my thread. Personally, I think you do go off on tangents that belong in the 'Is it science?' area etc, but when you do actually stick to the topic (like discussing the possible precursors to nucleotide triphosphates as energy transport molecules), it's not bad.

Thus, don't talk about empiricism, materialism, etymology etc in my thread. However, I don't think banning you from that area is the best option, though perhaps easier than the alternative. I would prefer either that you stayed on topic, or that the moderators simply hid/removed all the irrelevant stuff.

Edited by Doddy, : grama!!1


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rob, posted 07-26-2007 4:01 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30986
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 218 of 304 (413066)
07-27-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by AdminBuzsaw
07-26-2007 9:24 PM


Re: IamJoseph's Suspension Lifted
Why? His posts have never contained anything except nonsense and he has consistently refused to support his assertions?

I think it's good to have folk like Buz and IamJoseph here posting just so folk can see how bankrupt their ideas are, but I do think some explanation of why you decided to shorten his suspension is in order.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 07-26-2007 9:24 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 07-27-2007 3:03 PM jar has responded

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 304 (413074)
07-27-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by jar
07-27-2007 2:43 PM


Re: IamJoseph's Suspension Lifted
You have no doubt been aware where others have been shortened from time to time as well. Actually I had intended to lower it to one full day but I got up in Board Central and couldn't figure out how to shorten. While in the process I reinstated him to see if that would help to get a new field to work with. After I logged off board central other things came up in my schedule at home and when I got back I saw that he was still unsuspended so I dedided to leave it as it was since I messed up.

The reason I suspended him in the first place was for mouthing off to AdminNosy. After discussion in PAF, Admin and I both agreed that it might be best to shorten a tad. We do need creationists on the board as we all know. As Admin says, some folks can be wrong on some things but when conclusively shown so, the main problem is if they continue promoting a fully substantiated (I say fully substantiated/falsified) -- make that empirically falsified argument.

Jar, I've had enough to do with you to be assured that just because you alledge something to be falsified that it's not always necessarily so. So you should climb down off your arrogant highhorse and act more civil toward your counterparts in debate. That makes the board a much more pleasant place to hang out for us all.


For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 07-27-2007 2:43 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 07-27-2007 3:26 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30986
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 220 of 304 (413086)
07-27-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by AdminBuzsaw
07-27-2007 3:03 PM


Re: IamJoseph's Suspension Lifted
The reason I suspended him in the first place was for mouthing off to AdminNosy. After discussion in PAF, Admin and I both agreed that it might be best to shorten a tad. We do need creationists on the board as we all know. As Admin says, some folks can be wrong on some things but when conclusively shown so, the main problem is if they continue promoting a fully substantiated (I say fully substantiated/falsified) -- make that empirically falsified argument.

Okay. So the reason is affirmative action because we know that Biblical Creationists really are unable to support their positions or follow the rules.

That's fine.

I happen to agree that is needed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 07-27-2007 3:03 PM AdminBuzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 07-27-2007 4:24 PM jar has not yet responded

AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 304 (413101)
07-27-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
07-27-2007 3:26 PM


Re: IamJoseph's Suspension Lifted
As I've already stated, it is not exclusively creos who's penalties are shortened. It happens regularly for both members of sides of the isle. IamJoseph, imo deserves no less or no more consideration than anyone else so far as my moderation goes. I don't see it as any more significant than the recent evolutionists who's penalties where shortened.


For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 07-27-2007 3:26 PM jar has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 222 of 304 (413103)
07-27-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Admin
07-26-2007 8:14 PM


Re: Readmitting of John Davison

John Davison's schtick is to behave outrageously until banned, then claim he was banned because his views outraged his opponents who had no answer for them.

Judging from Pharyngula and AtBC folks there behave sometimes very despicably.
But it was only John Davison who was banned there (and me too).
I suppose he is right - it his opinions that outraged his opponents.

Anyway EvC is on higher level and I haven't seen here so much abusive posts as at those forums.

You banned John Davison again:


He has a long history here, so there's so need to wait to find out what he means by his "usual forthright manner."

It's your right to ban anyone. But a far as I can judge John Davison latest post didn't break any rule here. You banned John because he wrote he would continue using his "usual forthright manner". But he hasn't done it yet. You probably only suppose that it will happen. But nobody can see it has happened. I would say judging from ISCID that professor John Davison is very patient dealing with abusive adversaries sometimes, you would be surprised.

With best regards.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Admin, posted 07-26-2007 8:14 PM Admin has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4015 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 223 of 304 (36120)
04-02-2003 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by kuresu
07-27-2007 12:34 AM


Re: Not the place for continued discussion of the issue
Let's repectfully take our debate somewhere else...

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=3061&m=1&sst=true#1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=3061&m=1&sst=true#1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=3061&m=1&sst=true#1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by kuresu, posted 07-27-2007 12:34 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 224 of 304 (413168)
07-29-2007 3:10 PM


Bringing this thread back to the present...
Enjoy!


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 225 of 304 (413730)
08-01-2007 3:15 AM


IamJoseph
suspended here. i'm not sure that's totally fair.

AdminNosy writes:

You seem to have a struggle with English (among other things). Rather than letting you continue to waste others time I'm going to give you 2 days to try to write what you have to say. Then take it to a friend or 3 to get help making it comprehensible.

Make good use of your time off.

to be honest, it's sort of insulting. and i was trying to help him, or at least get him to explain his point (while struggling to stay on-topic). it's also quite possible that english is not his native language -- he got insulted enough when i tried to decipher his grammar.

do we suspend people around here simply because we think they're crackpots, or speak poorly? i could understand if it was for being off-topic.

Edited by arachnophilia, : accidentally condescending, again.


אָרַח

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2007 3:33 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 227 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 11:40 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 231 by Taz, posted 08-01-2007 3:47 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019