Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 12:32 PM
45 online now:
AZPaul3, candle2, DrJones*, JonF, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (7 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,600 Year: 9,636/19,786 Month: 2,058/2,119 Week: 94/724 Day: 26/68 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 285 (354069)
10-04-2006 2:05 AM


Faith's Participation in EvCForum

A few days ago in the private forum Admin (Percy) posted:

Admin writes:

Quality Debate is our Goal
Every so often I have to remind myself of the dictum that bad debate pushes out good debate. I have never been disappointed when I've followed it.

I do not have the time these days to make sure that my observations have a sufficient sample size, but it appears to me that Faith has a very high participation rate and that much of it is unconstructive. Her participation rate is so high and the quality so poor that I fear we're becoming Faith's Nonsense Forum.

It appears to me that Faith is keeping her baser instincts, so often on display in the past, in check, but what has replaced it recently is just as bad. My instincts tell me that I have to suspend or showcase Faith, just as I did Randman a while back. She seems to be doing a good job as an admin, though.

The most recent example of what concerns me about Faith's approach to discussion is the Faith Science - Logically Indefensible thread. See Message 16, Message 19 and Message 23.

What do people, from both sides, think?

--Percy

This post was answered by a number of admins. With some variation all the responses wanted to keep Faith around. These are representative of the posts:

AdminJar writes:

I strongly advocate letting Faith continue as she is.
I say let Faith continue, do not try to stop her from trying to make her very best case for her position. While you and others might find her messages silly, I believe she honestly thinks that they make valid points.

The FACT is that Faith is in an absolutely impossible position. Her point of view on science and theology is simply indefensible in all senses of the word. She needs to be given as much latitude as possible to present her case, even where that might exceed restrictions we might place on others.

I believe that Faith is as strong and capabable representative of a large and actually growing segment of the population world wide as we are likely to find.

AdminModulous writes:


Can our science do without Faith?

Percy writes:

Unless someone can help me see how participation by Faith can be consistent with constructive discussion, by late tonight I will put her under permanent suspension.

I'm not sure what is being constructed in a constructive discussion in the EvC debate. In this debate there is rarely going to be any give.

Faith does us favour here at EvC. She puts forward her position well a good amount of the time. Without Faith at these forums the debate would be limited and the strength of argument that is mustered would slip. When Faith is in a debate some absolutely stellar posts are made, wonderfully presented and filled with material that I find educational and engaging.

It's like a comparison between AiG and drdino.com - with Faith around here we are debating at an AiG type level, without Faith the tone will slip closer to drdino.com level of debate. "Bananas are an athiests worst nightmare! Evolution is just a theory! *gallop gallop*"

Even if the slip is only slight I still think that Faith provides a valid service by being here. If one was to be uncharitable one could say that Faith doesn't present any compelling cases - but what she does do is make sure the scientists (amateur and pro) are on their toes and presenting their best argued case. If there is a hidden assumption being made, or a logical error - and Faith gets a sniff of it, she will pounce.

She might take her 'appointed' task a little too far, and that can make discussion get bogged down in trying to make a tiny point over and over again, but I think that ultimately it is worth it.

While there was also some forms of agreement with Admin, for example:

AdminSchraf writes:

Me too.

And some responses more strongly supported Faith such as:

AdminQuetzal writes:

I have to weigh in on the side of jar, omni, mod, et al. I strongly oppose any restriction on Faith, and stongly disagree with the characterization that she "is in broad manner compromising the quality of the discussion at this board". She is smart, articulate, and presents a superb example of the higher-end of creationist poster. She can at the same time be intensly frustrating -
I still can't wrap my mind around the stance of someone who refuses to read something provided for her and in the same breath insists that the article doesn't say what we claim it says. However, nonetheless, the articles and argument ARE presented. If "constructive debate" means your expectation is that Faith will ever acknowledge anyone's point or admit she was wrong, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I very strongly feel that EvCForum would be the ultimate losers if Faith, or anyone like her, is permanently suspended. At the very least, as omni points out, we have shown our "inability to refute her", and hence were forced to ban her. As a secondary consideration - she is the best of the best of the creationist posters who frequent this burg. Who else are we going to talk to? S1WC, MartinV, Murky Waters? Talk about lowest common denominator...

And on a final note, you haven't banned Brad who is probably highly intelligent and utterly incomprehensible. I certainly can't see where he contributes anything but gibberish to any conversation or thread he participates in. I certainly wouldn't consider Brads participation increasing the quality of discussion. Why would you ban Faith, and retain Brad? At least we can understand what she writes...

An early response of Admin's was:

Admin writes:

Phat writes:

I would not see any cause to suspend her.

Admin Responds:

--Percy

I'll follow this up with a post that attempts to show some examples of what I think Admin (Percy) is talking about.

I think that each person with an opinion can take a post to express their opinion AND support it with specific examples.

Edited by AdminFaith, : to correct some misattributions of quotes


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 2:33 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 2:43 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 6 by RickJB, posted 10-04-2006 4:02 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-04-2006 7:22 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 10-04-2006 11:29 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 22 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 1:01 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 1:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 31 by ReverendDG, posted 10-04-2006 8:29 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Sonne, posted 10-05-2006 1:05 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 10-05-2006 11:40 PM NosyNed has responded
 Message 127 by randman, posted 10-06-2006 2:38 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 2 of 285 (354072)
10-04-2006 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-04-2006 2:05 AM


is the public forum really the place for this?
this sounds to me highly, highly unorthodox; essentially calling out a member of the board and bringing administration matters to the masses.

i will continue to make the same point i make everytime this sort of issue comes up. YES the fundamentalists really, honestly debate the basic interpretation of truth and factuality. they see things differently than the rest of us in a very fundamental way... and that is the debate. if we start suspending and banning members for disagreeing with facts and data and evidence, the debate goes with them. because among the scientific community, there simply is no debate at all about the matters creationists bring up.

further, faith and i disagree quite regularly, often heatedly in very public (and often childish) ways. but she is still my sister in christ, and i think she has every right to be here. she's grown a lot in her time here -- she's debating much more sharply, civilly, and making better points, even if only in phrasing. and she does very accurately represent a major segment of contemporary creationism. and we have very few creationists to go around here. if anything, we should cut them a little slack, because they have to deal with so very many of us "evolutionists." and she's done nothing wrong, that i can tell, beyond simply being a creationist. when that's a suspendable offense, i promise you debate will go down.

and nobody ever said this debate -- evolution v. creation -- was constructive. it's not. it doesn't decide anything in any places that matter, it doesn't affect schools or congree or churches. it rarely changes anybody's mind.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-04-2006 2:05 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminNWR, posted 10-04-2006 2:39 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 24 by AdminOmni, posted 10-04-2006 1:30 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 9:16 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 285 (354075)
10-04-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by arachnophilia
10-04-2006 2:33 AM


is the public forum really the place for this?

Faith asked that this be brought to a public forum.

For the record, your position is about what I have argued in the private forum - except that you express it better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 2:33 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 2:40 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-04-2006 4:32 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 285 (354076)
10-04-2006 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminNWR
10-04-2006 2:39 AM


Faith asked that this be brought to a public forum.

oh, ok then. nevermind!

For the record, your position is about what I have argued in the private forum - except that you express it better.

thank you. :)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminNWR, posted 10-04-2006 2:39 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 285 (354077)
10-04-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-04-2006 2:05 AM


The main question is how much of the fundy side is left after faith is gone? She represents about a quarter of her side of the debate while each evo represent about one one thousandth of his side.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-04-2006 2:05 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3161 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 6 of 285 (354080)
10-04-2006 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-04-2006 2:05 AM


Don't ban Faith - she's a star!

To do so would make a mockery of the supposed purpose of this forum.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-04-2006 2:05 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 285 (354082)
10-04-2006 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminNWR
10-04-2006 2:39 AM


Faith asked that this be brought to a public forum.

To be a little more accurate, Nosy said he would start a thread explaining what he understood Percy's reasoning to be, and wondered if it should be made public. I thought if he was going to lay out one side of the discussion on the public board, then the whole discussion ought to be made public. Some parts were left out but the gist of it has been posted.

I am looking forward to Nosy's explanation myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminNWR, posted 10-04-2006 2:39 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 285 (354083)
10-04-2006 4:33 AM


An attempt to show what Percy means: 1
One person's view of the problem with Faith's posts:

Unlike the posts referenced by Percy my example refers to Faith's behavior in science threads.

Message 223

In this thread Ringo makes clear that the sorting of layers as it settle from water can not produce what we see. Faith doesn't answer this at all. Her answer seems to be (from other posts) something like:

We have no way of knowing what a flood will do. The fact that we CAN say what water does is ignored.

Again in
Message 232

In this post the actual FACTS of the geology is described in simple terms. Faith offers an insulting non-response and NEVER has understood that the picture she has of the geology is wrong even though it has
been pointed out over and over. Not that her interpretation is right or wrong but that the actual, factual nature of the geology is NOT what she says it is.

In:

Message 253

Faith offers the best she can manage. An empty non-answer that can NOT possibly explain the actual evidence. Evidence which she chooses to ignore or decide that it is "too technical".

This is a small fraction of what demonstrates the kind of "bad debate" that Admin/Percy is concerned about.

One of the general problems is making statments based on a lack of knowledge of the actual facts. When the incorrect nature of her understanding is pointed out there hasn't been a single case I can remember where she has noted the correction and retracted the statments based on it.

Edited by NosyNed, : Clean up line breaks


Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 4:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 285 (354088)
10-04-2006 6:25 AM


You have to keep Faith here.

Her poor grasp of just about every subject she posts about is the best weapon an atheist has here at EvC!

I have to question Percy's decision to make her a mod though. Someone who is as disruptive as Faith, and by Percy's own admission she should probably be showcased, surely hasn't earned that privilege.

If you were to ban her it should have been done long ago.

Since she has been tolerated here for so long, and not only has her bad behaviour been largely ignored, you have rewarded her with an adminship!

Percy has essentially rewarded her for the behaviour he has condemned.

Her behaviour has also been rewarded by the leniency shown to her, so you really cannot blame her for thinking she has been doing nothing wrong since she joined.

I know it is just an Internet forum, but the rewarding of bad behaviour irritates me, there is far too much of it going on, while the honest, hardworker get's bugger all for doing what is expected all along.

Given the past decisions regarding Faith, I cannot see how a ban or showcasing can be justified.

Brian.


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 10-04-2006 11:02 AM Brian has responded
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 5:01 PM Brian has responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1768 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 10 of 285 (354092)
10-04-2006 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-04-2006 2:05 AM


Interacting with Faith is like interacting with a brick wall.

Which is a waste of time if you're looking fora good game of tennis. But it has its uses in racquetball.

Faith fails at debate because she doesn't do it. She preaches unto you The Gospel According to Faith and deep-sixes every fact she finds inconvenient. By her own account this amounts to almost any data she didn't acquire from her Sunday School teacher.

But for that reason Faith makes a fine Exhibit A. You always know what she will say, what she will deny, and how martyred she will act while doing both.

And she'll be there. She might have egg all over her face from yesterday's rout of her super-genome hypothesis. Still, you know when you tune in to EvC today she'll be back on those boards, looking for another omelette. She's like Wile E Coyote: one fatal plunge after another--yet always back for another self-inflicted beating, thinking this time the Road Runner will finally get his. She's like the Timex watch that takes its licking and keeps on ticking--except that her clock doesn't tick because it's frozen at midnight YEC Standard Time.

The mistake is trying to have a conversation with something so static. You can't. A conversation involves listening. A wall dares not do this. It might soften, and then it wouldn't be like a wall anymore. It would be more like a mobile, pliable, flesh-and-blood normal person. Walls don't have time to be human. They have contents to protect, boundaries to define. 'Fallible' is not something a wall can afford to be.

I understand the wish for more open human interactions. But I think it's asking for more than Faith can give you.

My advice is to enjoy your conversations with the people who really are here for a conversation. View the wall as a backdrop--part of the furniture--and continue your discussion. Or treat it as an opportunity. Bounce a few ideas off of it, let others do the same. Try different angles, watch the spins, perfect your game.

The wall doesn't move. It's perfect for the job.

_

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity, typo repair.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-04-2006 2:05 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 9:25 AM Archer Opteryx has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 11 of 285 (354105)
10-04-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Archer Opteryx
10-04-2006 7:22 AM


Ugh..which stone did you crawl out from under?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-04-2006 7:22 AM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 10-04-2006 11:06 AM iano has responded
 Message 114 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-05-2006 11:52 PM iano has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4819
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 12 of 285 (354115)
10-04-2006 10:27 AM


This forum is called "Evolution vs CREATIONISM". Why would you want to ban one of the very few on this board that will actually stand up and argue the creationist position.

The EvC name for this forum presumably acknowledges both the Bible (creationism) and science (evolution). Faith just sees the Bible as trumping science. There are those on the other side of the fence who totally reject the Bible and mock the Christian faith whenever possible. Why aren't they suspended?

All Christians regard the Bible as having some degree of revelation. We are all trying to sort out how to understand the Bible. Even Faith doesn't take it all literally but she takes it more literally than most of us.

I think that Faith shows amazing amount of faith, courage and persistence in the way that she defends her position.

Greg

PS. I disagree with the suspension of randman for similar reasons, but I very much appreciate the fact that the board is moderated as well as it is.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 10-04-2006 10:35 AM GDR has responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 13 of 285 (354117)
10-04-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
10-04-2006 10:27 AM


I think that Faith shows amazing amount of faith, courage and persistence in the way that the way she defends her position.

I think what Percy is getting at is he wants to have the Science topics discussed in a scientific manner, using scientific methodologies. I think that faith has difficulty understanding that she needs to support her 'scientific' claims with scientifically supported evidence. her claims need to be supported in the same way that any scientific claim is. To begin with the premise that the accuracy of an ancient book of faith is completely factual and then look at the evidence is contrary to the scientific method.

The way Faith defends her position in the science threads is not actually 'science', and is therefore incompatible with a science discussion.

There are those on the other side of the fence who totally reject the Bible and mock the Christian faith whenever possible. Why aren't they suspended?

I think that it is because, even though it would be seen as mocking, their arguments are supported in a scientific manner. For example, to say that the Flood is a myth and then give scientific evidence to support that may insult Christians, but the construction of the post is in line with the scientific approach.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 10-04-2006 10:27 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 10-04-2006 10:57 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4819
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 14 of 285 (354125)
10-04-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
10-04-2006 10:35 AM


Brian writes:

The way Faith defends her position in the science threads is not actually 'science', and is therefore incompatible with a science discussion.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm not a scientist but I think what's happening is that Faith sometimes uses bad science in order to support her view of how the Bible should be read. If one accepts the Bible as being literally true then you have to believe that science is wrong and that if science were to work hard enough it would eventually be congruent with the Bible. She does the best she can with the knowledge that she has. There is a logic to what it is she is doing.

Brian writes:

I think that it is because, even though it would be seen as mocking, their arguments are supported in a scientific manner. For example, to say that the Flood is a myth and then give scientific evidence to support that may insult Christians, but the construction of the post is in line with the scientific approach.

Using science to refute the claims of Christians is not mockery, nor is it insulting. Things like comparing a belief in Christ to believing in the tooth fairy is.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 10-04-2006 10:35 AM Brian has not yet responded

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


Message 15 of 285 (354128)
10-04-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brian
10-04-2006 6:25 AM


Brian writes:

Since she has been tolerated here for so long, and not only has her bad behaviour been largely ignored, you have rewarded her with an adminship!

Adminship isn't a privilege but a curse. Faith got what she deserved when I made her an admin. :D

Seriously, she seems to be doing a very good job as admin, though I wish she were more active. Which reminds me, our next moderator meeting will take up the issue of relatively inactive admins.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 10-04-2006 6:25 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Brian, posted 10-05-2006 6:50 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019