Shutting down the debate

Buzsaw recently raised a point: For full context, you can start around here.The basic argument is that ID/Creationism has been ruled as being wrong and thus, invalid for debate. If true, what's the point of being here, right?I propose to collate information regarding the number of threads in the science fora that have creationist/ID that were promoted. From there we can discuss whether discussion was shut down or debate ensued.It's not a perfect system, but I'll list the top ten threads in some of the science fora. A green background is a creationist OP that got promoted for debate:

quote:

---

Starlight Within a Young Universe

​

Problems with the Big Bang theory

​

Before the Big Bang

​

No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper

​

Hawking's Information Paradox solution

​

Expanding photons.

​

Sun-Earth-Moon Gravity

​

A Big Bang Misconception

​

Black Holes, Singularities, Confusion

​

Statistical impossibility??

---

Now for a little bit of Biological Evolution:

quote:

---

Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'

​

Is death a product of evolution (half)

​

Mimicry and neodarwinism

​

Asexual to bisexual reproduction? How?

​

morality, charity according to evolution (creation position in OP, being refuted)

​

Evolution Simplified

​

OMG!! Humans are more closely related to chimps than to other humans!!!

​

Evolution of the Brain

​

Are human tails an example of macroevolution?

​

How is Evolution a fact?

​

---

Finally, and pertinent to Buz's point, the Flood forum:

quote:

---

REAL Flood Geology

​

How the geo strata are identified as time period
Heat Calculations for Post-Flood Plate Movements

​

Coastal dominance & catastrophic geology

​

Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

​

YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?

​

The cream of flood geology research

​

Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.

​

Uniformitarianism

​

Commonalities Of Accounts Of A Universal Flood?

---

Granted - the forum is not used much, but there are a fair amount of YECs proposing evidence or models for their hypothesis which are then discussed.

---

It is my opinion that the Admins here are more than happy to promote YEC-centric posts. As long as they are well constructed. The debate is only shut down when it stalls. It stalls when one party is simply repeating the same position, and the opposition are repeating the same refutations.

---

I feel the Coffee house is best for this because it should be a discussion for feedback with regards to unfair treatment of YEC/IDers. To discuss the concept that they are effectively barred from entering a discussion of the evidence to see if it leads to their conclusions.For the purpose of this discussion, it does not matter whether or not ID or YEC is science. The evidence for YEC etc is not under discussion. The only evidence to be presented is for or against the proposition that there is some barring of YEC debate because of some kind of bias/prejudice on behalf of the consensus here (reflected in moderator decisions etc).The secret purpose of this thread is to allow this discussion to take place away from the AdminNosy->NWR/Percy fallout thread.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

just to be fair, and yes, it's very technical (or do you use the word pedantical in this case?), i would separate nosy from .Otherwise, it sounds like he was a part of the fallout, which he came back to say only that he wasn't involved in that, and his decision to leave (hopefully temporary, but . . .) has nothing to do with NWR and Percy.I find it funny that my thread (morality, charity . . .) is in the top ten on the biology forum. It's almost a half-year old. but then, there's the one started by shannonmay (?) from 5 years back, so . . .

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Good point.And the other stuff - we've seen a bunch of old posts getting bumped by new members recently. Possibly moreso than in the past - hopefully one of my posts will be at the top of the forum in five years.

you can make it so . . .if you're hear in five years.as to further evidence . . .didn't we tell Buz to show us papers he thought showed science being done by ID and/or creationist people? And he did.Can't remember for the life of me what that thread was called, but it had the (now) infamous bumgaurdner paper.Do we not constantly ask them to define kind? We don't reject those definitions out of hand. There was a thread, started my mjfloresta, where faith, mjfloresta, and myself got about the closest I've ever seen to a good definition of kind.If we are shutting them out automatically, then why do we constantly ask for evidence from them for their positions?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? Another good point. I think some people get upset when we point out evidence that renders their conclusion invalid. Perhaps they think that our subsequent rejection of their conclusion means we are shutting them out.

I hate to repeat myself again, but for the purpose of addressing your statement here from the OP, when the site owner and chief declares that there is no ID science, implying that there are no ID scientists doing science anywhere, the barring of ID creationist hypotheses in science fora is emphatically implied and for all practical purposes essentially barred, especially now that the line has been clearly drawn as to what is considered science by this establishment.It became evident as the "What is Science and What is Not" thread progressed that I was going to be honed in on by Admin somewhat like NWR was when he expressed some doubts about some sacred cows here. Admin began subtilly and ended up not so subtilly sending me the clear message that I was out of order throughout that thread. That's what I mean by essentially barred, so I've determined that the best thing for me to do since then is to stay out of science. It then sometimes gets one up tight as to how much you can say in any of the forums since the discussion sometimes involves some aspects of science.The layman, when discussing science obviously must apply more logic to debate than the scientifically studied, thus limiting considerably how deeply into a given subject this person can go. The more scientifically apprised then deals with the logic as to whether or to what extent he/she considers it to be viable. I guess it then becomes questionable as to how much logic can be applied to any given subject -- imo, more in ID topics like flood, and such than cosmology, et al.For example some things like flood geology, the Exodus, Genesis creation may come up in Biblical Accuracy threads in which aspects of science become in play during the discussion/debate relative to the ID/science issue. Thus if you debate ID in any thread it becomes a tight rope walk to remain within Forum Guidelines as it appears they will be applied.I hope I'm within the perameters you intended for this thread in what I've said. If not, just say so.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

the problem isn't so much that the site owner says there is no ID science, but that there really is no ID science being done.time and time again, id-ers have been asked to demonstrate something, anything scientific being done to research id, and we've come up empty-handed every single time. there have been scientific grants open for id research -- without a single applicant.we can say it's not science because it's not. it doesn't follow the scientific method, it doesn't have any legitimate research being done, and it's been repeatedly legally ruled to be religion in disguise. show us one. in some cases, i agree with you buz. creationists freely and haphazardly mix faith and something akin to science. they think it's scientific, even if it's not. and we cannot have an evolution v. creation debate is creationism and science are relegated to separate fora.but seriously, your point is completely shot down by the fact that these discussion do in fact happen. it's just that in the science fora, we are restricted to discussing things scientifically. which, admittedly, puts unscientific ideas like ID at a considerable disadvantage.

---

Let us be fair, the Behe and Snoke paper was pretty scientific and that was clearly research in line with IDist theories, it just didn't actually provide any evidence for ID in the end.IDists can do proper science, but when they do the results fail to support ID. That is presumably why they prefer publishing pop-'science' books, abstruse mathmatics a la Dembski and theoretical position pieces like Stephen Meyer's or John Davison's which perform what equate to a very slanted form of literature review.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

I hate to repeat myself again, but for the purpose of addressing your statement here from the OP, when the site owner and chief declares that there is no ID science, implying that there are no ID scientists doing science anywhere, the barring of ID creationist hypotheses in science fora is emphatically implied and for all practical purposes essentially barred, especially now that the line has been clearly drawn as to what is considered science by this establishment.

---

In other words you demand that the claim that there IS valid science supporting creationis and ID is uncritically accepted. You wish to close that aspect of debate down, ruling in your favour - despite the fact that you lost the actual argument.

quote:

---

It became evident as the "What is Science and What is Not" thread progressed that I was going to be honed in on by Admin somewhat like NWR was when he expressed some doubts about some sacred cows here.

---

That would be the thread where you cited an "experiment" THAT WASN'T EVEN BEING PERFORMED as evidence of valid science. The debate you lost - and lost badly - because you didn't know what you were talking about - and because you decided to cite the products of your imagination as facts.And yes, you were out of order in the entire thread. But not for the reason you claim. Early on in the thread you falsely accused others of "narrowing" the definition of science to excludde your claims. An assertion you never provided any reasonable support for. In other words you were employing the same tactic you are now - making groundless and false accusations in an attempt to get the rules rigged in your favour.

Buz, this argument has arisen in countless threads. When challenged neither you or anyone else has been able to point to any ID "science" that withstands close scrutiny. Furthermore, virtually all of this "science" takes the form of little more than Evolution criticism informed by scripture.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

The site owner is permitted to have a position on the debate. That does not mean the debate is for all practical purposes barred. The evidence is that actually, the debate continues.It might be a bit of a tightrope act to debate ID or creationism while staying within the Forum Guidelines as they are enforced, but that may just as easily be because ID or creationism are vapid points that cannot be defended without evasion and repetition. One of the positions in this debate surely has that dilemma.I was rather hoping however, for some examples to be presented. There is not compulsion on you to do this - but I think that if you have a valid complaint it would make it easier for everyone to see if we could see an example.Nor is there any compulsion for you to repeat yourself. Consider this a catchall public thread for anyone who feels the debate is being shutdown by the moderators. There is no time limit, you can return here later when you have more motivation or some indisputable rock solid evidence. If there is a problem with the debate I, for one, want to know about it.

sure, and for a very good reason. the actual position of intelligent design cannot be tested. no tests will ever reveal the existance of god, because it's out of the realm of naturalism.

---