|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy message 276 in Change Of Moderation thread:
Most of the complaints at EvC Forum are from Creationists claiming biased treatment. We try to compensate by holding evolutionists to higher standards. If Percy could wear the shoes of a creationist, especially the ID variety, he would find that his statement here just isn't the way it is here. The ID creationist is often held to an impossible standard, that of debating strictly on secularist terms and under the secularist application of the scientific laws. The precious few ID creationists (three who are presently active, I believe, now that Mike the Whiz is back to ID) in this town are not allowed the courtesy of debating and discussing the scientific laws based on the ID interpretation of what is observed unless that interpretation accomodates secularistic ideology. Now Percy will likely go on another of his usual diatribes about my alleged incomprehensiveness and that yada. Imo, that's his way of dodging direct dialog about the specifics of my posts. He rarely ever gets specific as to my statements in question, in his insultive and belittling accusations about my ability and conduct. Why, because he is unable to back up his charges by doing so. EvC is deceptive in that it's really not essentially an EvC forum It's for the most part an EvE forum where ID creationists who wish to participate must do so severely handicapped and evolutionists run the whole show, serving themselves with all the advantages. Perhaps if admin. would admit to this problem and make EvC a less hostile forum for bonafide ID creationists, some parity of ideological views would occur. Or could it be that admin is comfortable with this advantage to themselves so as to limit intelligent counterpart competition? It's certainly not going to come from professing Christian evolutionists, who's interpretation of origins of species and such, essentially accomodates that of athiests and other secularists.
Releasing from Proposed New Topics to Suggestions and Questions. --Admin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: But hold on - is that's the whole POINT of the ID movement? Something that they can point towards and say "hey this is scientific!". The real problem is the the scientific standard is too high for it to reach.
quote: That just rubbish. The sad truth is that you have absolutely no idea what you are on about. That thread about the 3 laws was quite laughable. I don't think that anyone can be bothered anymore to work up the effort to explain to you why you are so wrong - it's just too much work. Your grasp of the basics is so weak and you have never indicated any indication of grasping what people are saying to you. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-16-2004 01:05 PM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-16-2004 01:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
In order for a debate or a discussion to be productive, certain standards of definition MUST be established. Where are such parameters established? Common agreement of definitions would lead to possible clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Not sterotyping posters before you ever know their general views might help a little.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
So basically what you object to is people poinitng out that you don't understand the subject you are talking about. Even when it is absolutely obvious that you don't.
So what do you want ? People to lie for you, solely to support your ego ? How does that help the aims of this forum ? Instead of behaving badly and then whining when people criticise you for it, you could learn a little humility. Your biggest problem here is you. Nobody else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Not sterotyping posters before you ever know their general views might help a little. We could probably all read that and leave the word "posters" out. Good general advice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Phatboy writes: In order for a debate or a discussion to be productive, certain standards of definition MUST be established. Where are such parameters established? Common agreement of definitions would lead to possible clarification. I agree this is the crux. If ID is science, then the standards to which it should be held are the same as any other field of science. The key facets of legitimate science are:
ID fails on all counts, and here's why:
ID's qualifications as science are less than pathetic. And I can't agree that Creationist ideas like ID should be given some special consideration, as if they had a dispensation from a papal authority to please grant them scientific status, just as a courtesy. Only when ID begins to try to satisfy the requirements of science will it begin to be taken seriously. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
quote: Too high AND MIGHTY methinks. Science is but a flawed expression of reality. Does not the constant revising and scrapping of methods and theories tell us this? My opinion is that experience is a reasonable barometer in conjunction with science. Experience tells us there is a Creator, and science confirms it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Of course they are, what other standard are they supposed to be held to? The ID creationists are the ones proclaiming that what they are doing is science, therefore they are to be held to the standards of science. If ID creationism, or plain old OEC/YEC creationism, is worthy to be taught in a secular science classroom, shouldn't they be held to the standards of secular science? Secondly, science is secular by definition. There is no such thing as "christian science" or "theist science". If your theories do not make sense in the absence of religion then you are not doing science. The fact that you think ID qualifies for special pleading illustrates the very weaknesses that ID has. ID, outside of religion, has no foundation and therefore is not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It seems, sigh, I am getting a reputation for being a topic hawk but...
This looks dangerously we are heading to an actual discussing that belongs in the "Is it Science" forum and in the"ID" forum. Please contain yourselfs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
Macro-evolution is Falsifiable and Replicatable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
When everyone has a chance to consider the forum and topic we can reopen this.
I sugest an opening post in "Is it Science" for Maestro to discuss the nature of macro evolution. I suggest that anyone interested can open an ID thread in Is it Science if that is the bent of the topic. Or in the ID forum if it is more on the details of ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Let's stick to the standard's issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Maestro writes:
How do you explain the fact that experience used to tell people that the Earth was flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth? How do you explain the fact that experience used to tell people that whether an object floats in wather or not is dictated by shape rather than density? Actually, how do you explain the fact that experience used to tell people that women are inferior to men? My opinion is that experience is a reasonable barometer in conjunction with science. I believe this is on topic because it deals directly with people who use the scientific method and people who base their beliefs on common sense and everyday experience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Nosy has a legitimate topic concern. Even though my post attempted to address the question of whether standards are being applied equally and fairly, it's also a strong attack on ID. It also introduces the extraneous issue of what should legitimately be the standards of science.
Keeping this thread too narrowly on-topic would kill it, which makes Nosy's quick closure look particularly astute. The reasoning is that if you took my Message 7 as a definition of the standards, then to keep this thread on-topic you could only talk about whether the standards are being applied equally to both IDist and non-IDist alike. Obviously, they are, so this becomes a non-debate. So the more important question becomes, "What standards should be applied in order to be fair to both Creationists and evolutionists." And we'll leave ID, macroevolution and all the rest of the specific topic areas out of the discussion, execept perhaps as useful examples when appropriate. To clearly define the topic again: What standards should be applied? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024