Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID Failing--at Christian Institutions
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 38 (269165)
12-14-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
12-12-2005 5:49 PM


On being off topic
randman writes:
Mangy, no, because it would seriously take this thread off-topic.
OK randman, let's clarify.
randman, post 21?, 23? writes:
schraf, post 20 writes:
(Of course, the ToE makes no predictions at all about how many fossils there will be, only that they exist at all)
Wrong ToE predicts a process occurred. One can look at the fossil record to see if the fossil record indicates ToE occurred as evos claim, or did not. For example, evos claim the reason 99.9% of transitional forms are not seen is due to fossil rarity, but that is an unsubstantiated claim because it does not explain why, if fossilization is so rare, it is also so common for many species.
schraf makes a fairly off-topic side remark (based on a tidbit in your original post that was off-topic)... and randman, by responding, makes it an issue in the thread.
randman writes:
If you want to appeal to a moderator on this, please do so but quit taking this thread more off-topic than it is.
The deal is, if you don't want to go off-topic, don't take the thread in that direction. Don't respond to schraf's remark. If you wanted to respond to that, you should have said her remark was off topic, and that you'll respond somewhere else.
To respond to schraf, then get called to evidence your remarks (a completely valid move) and hide behind "it's off-topic" is absolutely bad form. The problem is not that "further substantiation is off-topic"; your remarks were off topic. If you knew it was off topic, you shouldn't have made the remarks. "Further substantiation" becomes off-topic only if that substantiation takes more than 2 or 3 posts to present it and come to an agreement.
That said, if you're really interested in addressing the questions, point MangyTiger to appropriate threads where it was discussed; simply mentioning that they "exist" is not very helpful. You know where the threads are, you made the comment, grab some links and post 'em up. We're here to discuss, we should be happy to link to discussions we've had and to get new people thinking about these ideas.
We each have a responsibility to stay on topic and keep the discussion flowing. Instead of pointing fingers, let's do it by looking at our own actions and how they contribute to the problem.
Any comments, please take them to the appropriate thread below.
Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 5:49 PM randman has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 12-14-2005 8:33 PM AdminBen 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