Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 314 (168914)
12-16-2004 12:59 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 1:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2004 1:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2004 1:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 12-16-2004 3:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 3:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 194 by PecosGeorge, posted 12-17-2004 3:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 2 of 314 (168917)
12-16-2004 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
12-16-2004 12:59 PM


quote:
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
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:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 12-16-2004 12:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-16-2004 1:14 PM CK has not replied
 Message 8 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 1:56 PM CK has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 314 (168922)
12-16-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by CK
12-16-2004 1:04 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 1:04 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2004 1:34 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 12-16-2004 1:55 PM Phat has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 314 (168928)
12-16-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
12-16-2004 1:14 PM


Not sterotyping posters before you ever know their general views might help a little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-16-2004 1:14 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2004 1:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 314 (168930)
12-16-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
12-16-2004 12:59 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 12-16-2004 12:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 314 (168936)
12-16-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
12-16-2004 1:34 PM


StereoTyping
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2004 1:34 PM robinrohan has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 314 (168941)
12-16-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
12-16-2004 1:14 PM


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:
  • Natural.
  • Supported by evidence.
  • Falsifiable.
  • Replicable.
ID fails on all counts, and here's why:
  • Natural.
    This is the problem of ultimate origins. ID dvances the premise that it is impossible for life to arise naturally, that it must have been created by an intelligence. In order to avoid association with religion, they further posit that that intelligence was natural. Therefore, if life on earth arose through intelligent intervention, then how did that earlier life arise? The answer must be that it, too, arose through intelligent intervention, so you ask how did that yet earlier life arise. This must be given the same answer, and so you advance backward in time to the beginning of time and the first intelligence, which could only have arisen supernaturally.
    Therefore, ID isn't natural.
  • Supported by evidence.
    IDists say, "The evidence for ID is all around us." This is silly and not evidence at all, and evolutionists could equally reply, "The evidence for evolution is all around us," thereby matching in one fell swoop all the evidence currently available for ID, and they can add to this all the research data of the past couple hundred years, swamping ID in a sea of evidence.
  • Falsifiable.
    Since ID offers no evidence, there's nothing to be falsified.
  • Replicable.
    Again, since ID offers no experiments confirming it's legitimacy, there are no experiments to replicate.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-16-2004 1:14 PM Phat has not replied

Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 314 (168942)
12-16-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by CK
12-16-2004 1:04 PM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 1:04 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by coffee_addict, posted 12-16-2004 2:35 PM Maestro232 has not replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 3:49 PM Maestro232 has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 314 (168943)
12-16-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
12-16-2004 12:59 PM


quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 12-16-2004 12:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 10 of 314 (168944)
12-16-2004 1:58 PM


T o p i c !
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


Message 11 of 314 (168945)
12-16-2004 1:58 PM


Macro-evolution is Falsifiable and Replicatable?

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 12 of 314 (168946)
12-16-2004 2:01 PM


Closing for a hour or two
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 12-16-2004 2:32 PM AdminNosy has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 13 of 314 (168962)
12-16-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AdminNosy
12-16-2004 2:01 PM


Open again
Let's stick to the standard's issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AdminNosy, posted 12-16-2004 2:01 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 12-16-2004 2:49 PM AdminNosy has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 314 (168965)
12-16-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 1:56 PM


Maestro writes:
My opinion is that experience is a reasonable barometer in conjunction with science.
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 1:56 PM Maestro232 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2004 2:54 PM coffee_addict has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 314 (168976)
12-16-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AdminNosy
12-16-2004 2:32 PM


Re: Open again
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 12-16-2004 2:32 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2004 3:35 PM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024