Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,987 Year: 19,023/19,786 Month: 1,443/1,705 Week: 249/446 Day: 47/98 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15461
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 196 of 285 (354809)
10-06-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by iano
10-06-2006 2:10 PM


No, that's just an example of the problem - confusing religious apologetics with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:10 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:32 PM PaulK has responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 197 of 285 (354810)
10-06-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
10-06-2006 2:05 PM


Holy Moly! 9686 posts in 19 months.

I did a survey some months back and figured there were about 90,000 posts submitted per annum. With you doing about 6100 per year and me doing about 3600 that makes 9700 posts per year between the two of us. Thats nearly 11% of the total. Typically we'd generate at least a post per post in response. Often more which cannot be responded to. Say 1.2 posts reply per post of ours. Thats 21,000 odd posts. Nearly 24% of the total!

EvC needs life blood and we're a not insignificant part of it. Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy. Power to the people!!

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 2:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Brian, posted 10-06-2006 2:27 PM iano has responded
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:01 PM iano has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3250 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 198 of 285 (354811)
10-06-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
10-06-2006 2:19 PM


Re: One thing that may help
Hi Faith.
I am going to be serious for a minute.

Why do you spread yourself so thinly around the forum?

Don't you think it would be more productive for you if you stuck to just a couple of forums.

Personally, I stick to what I know, the faith based forums, and I very seldom go anywhere near science. This isn't because I am totally ignorant of the subject, it is just that I don't feel qualified to argue on the science threads. I have been known to ask a question or two just for clarification, but there is no point in me discussing evolution for example because I am not familiar enough with the material.

I think you should stick to the faith forums, you wouldn't have so many posts to answer and wouldn't feel ganged up on.

Just a suggestion.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 2:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 2:59 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3250 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 199 of 285 (354812)
10-06-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by iano
10-06-2006 2:21 PM


Thats nearly 11% of the total.

And it's 99.9% of the nonsensical posts! :p

Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy.

Me too.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:21 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:34 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 200 of 285 (354814)
10-06-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
10-06-2006 2:21 PM


No, that's just an example of the problem - confusing religious apologetics with science.

Which is exactly the sort of handwaving Faith is supposed to respond to day after day. Where Newton et al confusing religious apologetics with science when they developed scientific methodology? Deciding that an Enlightement-inspired backdrop is a preferable one is your entitlement. Deciding it is not is an entitlement too. You pays your money and you choses your philosophy/belief


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 2:21 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 2:49 PM iano has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 201 of 285 (354815)
10-06-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Brian
10-06-2006 2:27 PM


Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy.

Me too.

We got ourselves an highly unlikely convoy :)

I'm all for improving EvC even if it means some of the tosh I throw up from time to time is prevented. But let the fine tuning apply across the board.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Brian, posted 10-06-2006 2:27 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4206 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 202 of 285 (354816)
10-06-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by iano
10-06-2006 2:10 PM


Bye Bye All
This is my last post. May the admin ban me life. I have found my short time here frustrating and largely a waste of time.

How can any two or more people have a fruitful discussion (especially in a science forum) if they cannot even agree on simple english words or even try to agree?! Here is an example...

faith writes:

My statement stands. If GOD states something, it is FACT. It is not human thoughts in a mere book, it is not the opinion of a made-up god, it is fact.

faith writes:

The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact.

faith writes:

It's about faith and I'm arguing in rebuttal basically that faith in the Bible's statement of facts is as good as having facts, which is perfectly scientific.

faith writes:

There are plenty of options for you to refute whatever theories creationists come up with about HOW it happened. But nobody in their right mind would say a known fact should be open to refutation.

Is it just me or is the term "fact" being misused above. In a forum recently faith makes this arrogant comment:

faith writes:

You, like so many others here, are simply wrong about what a fact is, what an interpretation is, what logic is, what a fallacy is, what faith is, what science is.

But when pressed politely to define those term she condescendly refuses.Message 25

Wiki defines 'fact' as: is an objective and verifiable observation.

Further more, I sure her definition of "fact" stems from the implied assumption (My God is True. My God wrote the Bible, My God said it in the bible - it is fact and it is as good as any scientific fact). Great for theology, devastating for a science discussion.

Found this little jewel in the wiki on "premise"

Wiki on Premise writes:

In discourse, a premise is a statement presumed true within the context of the discourse for the purposes of arguing to a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse. The accuracy or truth of the conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.

Faith contends her faith-baed premise is valid with any statement of proof. I ask repeatedly if she can acknowledge other faith-based premises - she replies... oh thats off topic - not wanting to place christian creation science on the same shelf with hindu creation science where it belongs. She prefer to elevate christian science on the same level as traditional science which, in my humble opinion does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:10 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:17 PM iceage has responded
 Message 221 by DorfMan, posted 10-06-2006 4:21 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15461
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 203 of 285 (354817)
10-06-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by iano
10-06-2006 2:32 PM


quote:

Which is exactly the sort of handwaving Faith is supposed to respond to day after day.

So the real problem is that Faith has to cope with people pointing out the flaws in her arguments. And you call it "handwaving" as if it were wrong to tell the truth instead of unquestioningly agree with you.

quote:

Where Newton et al confusing religious apologetics with science when they developed scientific methodology?

I didn't say that. What I do say is that you are handwaving the difference between that and taking religious dogma as unquestionable fact - when the scientiifc evidence is firmly against it. Did Newton et al do that ? And if they did, do we accept it as science ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:32 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 3:28 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 33371
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 204 of 285 (354818)
10-06-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Brian
10-06-2006 2:25 PM


Re: One thing that may help
It is true that I'm not very disciplined about how I post and it would help if I could be.

But I'm very interested in the few science issues I do post on, and I do believe I understand enough of the particulars to justify it, so I can't see myself giving those up.

Doing one thread at a time would be a good idea though. I sometimes even forget which thread I'm posting on. That accounts for some of the off topic sequences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Brian, posted 10-06-2006 2:25 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 33371
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 205 of 285 (354819)
10-06-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by iano
10-06-2006 2:21 PM


Well, maybe Percy is right. If I stop posting, or just cut way back, maybe you too, more scientifically minded creationists would rush in to fill the vacuum.

But I really appreciated Arach's pointing out on this thread that a lot of my post count comes from trying to answer all my opponents, and that can sometimes mean six or eight posts every time I get back to a thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:21 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 3:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 206 of 285 (354821)
10-06-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
10-06-2006 2:05 PM


Faith writes:

Schraf is correct. I signed on in 2001 but only posted a few messages then, and did not post again for about three years. I started posting regularly in February of 2005.

In less than 2 years you have nearly 10,000 posts? No wonder it feels like you're omnipresent! Jesus Christ himself couldn't keep up such a pace! No wonder it feels like you've been here for years.

Faith, I've been here since the beginning, and except for vacations I'm here every single day, and as Percy I have only half as many posts as you. Only Jar and Crash have more, but not by much and they've been here much longer.

Could I suggest emphasizing quality over quantity? It isn't necessary that you take on all of evolution-dom by yourself. A few effective arguments are going to go a lot further than many insubstantial ones.

Research your topics, conscientiously address rebuttals, support your arguments with evidence. Strong arguments will defeat hundreds of weak ones. Go for quality and stop the frenetic posting behavior.

I notice Randman has been here only a little over a year but has over 5000 posts despite being often suspended - that's far too many.

I wasn't aware there were such high posting rates going on. We need posting limits.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 2:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:18 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 33371
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 207 of 285 (354823)
10-06-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by iceage
10-06-2006 2:43 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Faith contends her faith-baed premise is valid with any statement of proof. I ask repeatedly if she can acknowledge other faith-based premises - she replies... oh thats off topic - not wanting to place christian creation science on the same shelf with hindu creation science where it belongs. She prefer to elevate christian science on the same level as traditional science which, in my humble opinion does not.

Listen, I said OMNI declared this off topic. It's back there somewhere.

I don't know why you can't follow this. I am explaining MY reference points, NOT trying to persuade YOU to them. I am explaining that Biblical creationists will always take the Flood as a FACT, whether you do or not, and your definitions simply make no difference because we believe the God who made all things said it. I argued that IF the God of all things said it THEN it is a fact. This is perfectly good logic. This comes with all the baggage of Bible-inerrancy theology about who God is and how He revealed himself ONLY to the Jews, and is recorded ONLY in the the Bible, so of course other gods and other revelations are not recognized. You don't accept the definition, you don't accept any of it, fine, it's a creationist position, and given our premise IT IS LOGICAL. That's ALL I'm saying. This is an academic point that comes up in particular contexts. I'm not proposing making it a standard for anyone else.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by iceage, posted 10-06-2006 2:43 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by iceage, posted 10-06-2006 3:34 PM Faith has responded
 Message 215 by Admin, posted 10-06-2006 3:52 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 33371
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 208 of 285 (354824)
10-06-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Admin
10-06-2006 3:02 PM


I agree with your basic observation.

But you may not need limits since I'm stopping posting so much anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 10-06-2006 3:02 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 209 of 285 (354825)
10-06-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
10-06-2006 3:01 PM


Percys point above is a good one. And for me too. Why not pick and chose a bit. Certainly poorly disguised posts aimed at needling and ridicule only only aren't worth the effort. Throwing pearls to swine eventually means running out of pearls and flinging muck

(no offence to anybody - just invoking a biblical principle)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 210 of 285 (354826)
10-06-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
10-06-2006 2:49 PM


I didn't say that. What I do say is that you are handwaving the difference between that and taking religious dogma as unquestionable fact - when the scientiifc evidence is firmly against it. Did Newton et al do that ? And if they did, do we accept it as science ?

The thread in question asserted that it was not possible to do science if one held Goddidit. Faith dismissed the assertion and rightfully so. One can apply scientific method to find out how Goddidit. The OP was enlightenment philosophy and that is all.

Faith frequently has to field arguments which dismiss the possibility of doing science simply because one believes, a priori, that Godidit. But the dismisser is simply assuming his philosophy is correct. He does as she does in other words. I am not speaking about all her posting - just that narrow point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 2:49 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 3:33 PM iano has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019