Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005

Message 328 of 517 (592928)
11-22-2010 7:54 PM

Chronological Nesting
Please reconsider the direction you are taking with frako in Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand. I dislike his posting style altogether and fully recognize that his op as it stands is unwieldy and inappropriate. But by taking the apparent easy way out and making him just stick to a couple of pictures, say just the first two, you seem to me to be taking away what little point there is to his proposal. He needs a least two and better three examples of nested species in human lineage, with the promise that he can provide as many more as are needed to hammer the point in the course of the thread. That would be 4 to 6 species.
Ideally I would like to see the first two plus the two I whined about, but that's just selfishness on my part. I want to know why the connection between crusafontia and plesiadapis is so much less obvious than that between whatever, megazastrodon and thrinaxodon or homo ergaster and homo erectus. Is it just sloppy research on his part or is there a real "missing link" there.
But more importantly, if you are going to make him make a good op, saying "no more than two pictures" is a sorry schoolyard way of going at it. Make him summarize what he's really trying to prove instead of this crappy Draw Your Own Conclusions muddle. With the confused language about how none of these are older than (the oldest of) those, he's practically inviting the "c" side to say Well that's because they were all created at once on day 6!
What if he summarized his actual point in a whole new op? A real, proper op, that didn't go on for a mile and required no pictures at all?
Then he could do the examples two or three at a time whenever he wanted to advance his point From Shrew To You.
I don't have much hope for this op, but I wanted to vent, making it into a whole different thing won't fix it. He should do the actual thing he's doing, just do it right. An op in the science forums shouldn't be some Things That Make You Go HMMMM crap, it should be a proper beginning to a thread, (I intend to show that, I will take the position that, etc) with extended examples and argument reserved for further posts.
Thanks for your time!

Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005

Message 336 of 517 (600901)
01-17-2011 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by nwr
01-17-2011 3:28 PM

Re: Should Moderators promote their own topics ?
I assume this thread was started as a reaction to: Does Neo-Darwinian evolution require change ?
If anyone else had proposed that topic, some smart mod would have stepped up and forced the poster to sharpen it up. "Please explain better what you mean by Neo-Darwinism" would have been one of the first dictates that would come to mind.
As it stands, the majority of what Jar, for one, is saying in that thread thus far is just, what some mod should have said before it was ever promoted. And if they had, the results would have been included in the OP instead of spread out piecemeal over two pages so far.
Edited by Iblis, : fix peek noise

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by nwr, posted 01-17-2011 3:28 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2011 7:26 AM Iblis has not replied
 Message 339 by Blue Jay, posted 01-18-2011 9:41 AM Iblis has replied
 Message 343 by slevesque, posted 01-18-2011 3:17 PM Iblis has not replied

Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005

Message 346 of 517 (601080)
01-18-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Blue Jay
01-18-2011 9:41 AM

Re: Should Moderators promote their own topics ?
In all honesty, I think this is an example of over-scrutinizing the creationist.
I think you're missing my point. The term occurs in the title but not in the OP itself. The post begins "I used to think this was possible", apparently treating the title as a question he is asking himself but not discussing the terms of the question in any way. Then he proceeds to suppose, and wonder, and generally compose the sort of jibber jabber moderators are here to prevent.
A good Opening Post has its terms defined and its position clear already, it doesn't meander its way down to
slevesque writes:
Now if some things are disputed and/or unclear (which I'm sure some are) go ahead and ask a clarification or tell me what is wrong. Just make sure that the point you are raising hasn't already being raised.
and then spend the first couple of pages having its terms and position hammered out for it by people who are trying to debate it if they can just get what it is cleared up first.
But no, it's not the most important point, just the first one that comes to mind, because it's a disconnect between the title and the post itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Blue Jay, posted 01-18-2011 9:41 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but 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