Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thread Reopen Requests
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 305 (51349)
08-20-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Adminnemooseus
08-20-2003 4:35 AM


We had ~225 messages this past day - maybe I'm just trying to get people (hint - Frog) to slow down a bit.
Sorry about that. Honestly I was having a good deal of fun talking with MessenJah. There probably would have been a lot less messages in the thread if the average message length had been longer on all sides.
That, and I think DC85, MessenJah, and I had a pretty good feeling you were going to close the thread as soon as you saw it, so we sort of rushed to get out thoughts out there before they were disrupted by the change to a new topic, which may very well never occur. (I've noticed that the request to go to a new topic seems to often have a chilling effect on discussions with creationists.)
Basically DC85 and I were probably kind of excited we had kept a creationist talking for so long, and didn't exactly relish the thought of some of the more... verbose posters burying MessenJah in so much scientific research that we never heard from again.
Anyway, the topic is closed, and I guess I support that, but it was a good debate for the participants, I feel, and didn't seem to be in danger of spilling into the more worthwhile threads. Also I predict that MessenJah will claim victory in the debate by virtue of a killer response he was about to post before you closed the thread.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-20-2003 4:35 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 305 (51502)
08-21-2003 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Adminnemooseus
08-21-2003 4:17 AM


Especially since things had gone way off-topic, I think that's a lot of babble.
What, an off-topic discussion can't be a worthwhile one? Maybe we just need a way to change the topic, then. The discussion was spirited, yes. But was it really that objectionable?
In my perusing of the various topics, his avatar stands out as showing up a lot.
Also note the number of messages (1200+) in less than six months. That's an average of 6+ messages a day, every day.
Well, I work nights. Nothing to do all day while the wife is out. And I don't personally know any creationists, but I love the debate. (To tell the truth my friends and I all agree on practically every imaginable topic so I almost never get to really argue IRL.) What's a frog to do?
I can't help think that we're getting into a quantity rather than quality situation.
Well, I guess I'll try and bite my tongue (fingers?). I had hoped that I was contributing something vagely worthwhile but perhaps I was mistaken?
One thing though - if you're trying to assess quantity vs. quality, and all you're looking at is quantity, aren't you stacking the deck a little bit?
Am I about to become the next evolutionist to be made an example of, simply because I enjoy a spirited debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-21-2003 4:17 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 08-21-2003 11:23 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 305 (51652)
08-21-2003 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Admin
08-21-2003 11:23 AM


I think you were just a handy example of many posts, not a convicted culprit of thread diversion, and your distinctive avatar makes your posts stand out and be noticed.
Hrm, is my avatar too much? I thought it was fun - I think it's some original cabinet art from the "Frogger" video game, before they called it Frogger.
But point taken. I was worried I was becoming obnoxious, or something, and everyone knew it but me. The fact that Buzsaw, of all people, told me that he liked to debate with me gave me great pause in that regard. (No offense, Buz. )
While the administrators and moderators shouldn't be viewed as Gestapo troopers, neither are they potted plants.
Again, point taken. Like I said I think the rapid-fire nature of the discussion was due more to a sense of impending moderator shut-down than anything else. DC85, MessenjaH, and I are easily the more content-lite of the posters here, relying more on logic than on evidence, so doubtless that accounts for the shortness of our posts.
That being said, we not only appreciate and understand the feedback, but think it makes some very important points, and I'm sure I'm speaking for all the admins and moderators when I say we will definitely try to incorporate it into our future efforts.
Well, heck, you hardly have to go that far on my account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 08-21-2003 11:23 AM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 305 (82902)
02-03-2004 11:32 PM


I think "Walt Brown's super-tectonics" was closed prematurely. As far as I could see the topic had remained the same - the geologic evidence that shows Walt Brown is wrong.
That the topic was astronomically popular, yes, but a temporary pause would have been in order, not an outright close, I think. This action seems a little heavy-handed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-03-2004 11:57 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 305 (82933)
02-04-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Adminnemooseus
02-03-2004 11:57 PM


I'm considering temp. closing any topic that pegs the activity meter, unless I feel a reason why not.
On the assumption that quality is inversely proportional to quantity, I suppose.
I guess I would have handled it differently. There was a lot of good stuff there. I learned a lot. I think simple needed some time off to digest what we had presented to him - he was starting to repeat claims that we had already shown him were erroneous. I wouldn't have characterized the thread as "babble".
I don't think I would have permanently closed the topic.
The thing was 300+ total messages. That's a standard closing point for any topic.
Well, it looks like the point is moot. Simple doesn't seem to feel inclined to particpate in any of the sub-topics that we've started for him. Maybe that's why I felt the closure was kind of premature - there's no way we're going to get to finish up now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-03-2004 11:57 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by wj, posted 03-01-2004 2:03 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 167 of 305 (192383)
03-18-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
03-18-2005 8:23 PM


I would start off by suggesting that the above attitude so stacks the deck against creationists that it makes me feel like there's hardly any point in beginning to talk to you or anybody else here.
You're absolutely right - the deck is stacked against you, in the same way it's stacked against Flat Earthers, pherenologists, psychics, Holocaust deniers, supply-side economists, and everybody else promoting a position contradicted by the facts.
Because that's what we talk about here. Facts, and what we can conclude from them. As Percy has said, creationists claim that not only is their model true on a religious basis, but also an evidentiary, scientific basis. We explore this claim here, so it's incumbent on creationists to defend that claim by showing evidence for creationism, in a manner consistent with the neutral guidelines represented by the scientific method.
But they never, ever do that. If there is any evidence for creationism it has yet to be presented, and none of the rest of us are aware of it. If you have some we'd love to see it.
We do want a balanced site. But you don't balance the truth with lies. Creationists aren't allowed to balance the evidence for evolution with made-up falsehoods that support creationism. If they want to support creationism here they have to do it with evidence. The fact that there apparently isn't any evidence for creationism does put them at a disadvantage; but that's what happens when the model you're putting forth is wrong.
You know, it is one thing to believe creationists are wrong on scientific grounds, it is another thing and an EXTREMELY offensive thing, and in fact a violation of all civilized standards of discourse, to denigrate your opponents' integrity by imputing cheap motives to them as you do in the above paragraph. You are saying that they are content with lies, that they are so morally corrupt they have no dedication to honesty and truth.
For a number of prominent creationists, we do actually have evidence of chicanery and deception. We have evidence that they ignore data, pull quotes out of relevant context, defraud their supporters, offer arguments that they know are false, and so on and so forth. I'm sorry you're shocked to find out that we consider some - not all - of the prominent leaders on your side liars and charlatans, but we do have evidence that they are, and if you'd like to see it, we'll show it to you.
The only fair position would be to give the same benefit of the doubt and same basic respect to them, the same assumption of integrity and honesty, and basic intelligence and logical ability as well, that you would expect from opponents yourself
I for one do give them that benefit of the doubt. But for many of them - Kent Hovind being the most prominent example - there's simply no escaping the conclusion that they are dishonest people. Again, we don't come to this conclusion simply because they're our opponents - that would be unfair - but because we have direct evidence of chicanery on their part.
For my part, I have no problem with creationists who admit that evolution is the best scientific model, that all the evidence points to it at this point, and that it represents the best scientific understanding we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth - but nonetheless insist that it isn't "really" true, that the evidence is God trying to test us, etc. You can't refute that argument. It's entirely possible that God created the world in such a way as to fool us. Whether or not he would have done so is a theological, not a scientific question.
But the creationists who insist that creationism can be a valid scientific model, that in fact it's a better, more accurate explanation of the evidence, need to put up or shut up. When they make that claim, they're saying that they believe that creationism can pass the high bar required for scientific validity. So they should not complain when their model is put to that very same test and found wanting. Evolution, and every other scientific theory for that matter, was put to the same test. That's why we accept it.
For creationists to claim that it's unfair to put them to the same test is tantamount to asking for special treatment, and why should they be allowed to have it?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-18-2005 09:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 8:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 11:10 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 168 of 305 (192385)
03-18-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
03-18-2005 8:23 PM


Oh, one more thing:
Nothing the Bible says is evidence at all here, but that is absurd.
We do have a forum for the discussion of Bible issues, but just to insert my view:
The Bible is evidence for some things. In particular it's evidence that somebody, somewhere, wrote such-and-such a thing down. The Bible is not completely valueless as a source for information about the period in which it was written, and the subsequent periods in which it was redacted.
But it's not some kind of impeachable source whose literal statements can always be taken as fact. No such source exists. We're not completely against the idea of the Bible, or statements written in the Bible, being evidence for or against a certain thing. But the scope of that evidence needs to be taken into account; for instance none of the authors of the Bible had knowledge of population genetics so the Bible has no credibility as a source on those matters. Just as I wouldn't offer a copy of Pride and Prejudice as an authority on economics, the Bible is not a science textbook. But just as I would offer the same novel as evidence of certain attitudes in England during the Naploeonic War, I might offer the Bible as evidence of certain attitutes among Jews and Christians in various times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 8:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 11:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 305 (192423)
03-19-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
03-18-2005 11:10 PM


Yes, thanks a million for that confirmation of my point, Crash, and for confirming the fact that there really is no point in trying to talk to you or anybody else here, as I said one must feel from my side of the fence.
If you've got something new, some new evidence, we'd love to talk about it.
If you don't, then evolution is still the best explanation. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
If you only want scientists here, as I said, warn us all up front and the rest of us will go away.
I'm no scientist, and I hope I'm welcome. But I understand the rules that science places on how we collect and draw conclusions from evidence.
Evolution has met that challenge. Creationists claim that creationism can meet the same challenge. So why doesn't it?
Keep it up and you'll be talking to other evolutionists exclusively in no time.
Like I said I want to hear the new evidence, if there is any, from any side. New evidence is the only thing that will change my mind. I'm not interested in hearing anything but new evidence. If that means that people who have no new evidence feel that their times is wasted or their contributions are devalued, that doesn't really concern me.
As far as I'm concerned if you don't have new evidence then you're wasting my time. I don't run the place, though.
You really think it's supported by evidence.
Yes, I really do think it's supported by evidence. I don't think that position is a mistake but I'm amienable to the possibility that I'm wrong. (Are you? I doubt it.)
If evolution is disproven, it'll be by the evidence. If you don't have any then you're wasting my time.
How would that answer my point to Percy who made a generalization to ALL creationists?
Well, that's not what he said. He referred to prominent creationists; in other words the people who have been at this long enough and loud enough to attract rebuttals from evolutionists.
I mean there's always a new crop of creationists that simply don't know any better; don't know that what they're putting forth is a tissue of lies. Folks like Kent Hovind and Phillip Johnson know better; they've been exposed to the evidence. (We know that because a lot of the time it happens on tape.) We know they have no legitimate rebuttal. Since they continue to promulgate their arguments in the face of that, we know that they're lying.
Besides, I don't trust any of you here to make a proper judgment as to anybody's motivations.
So ask for the evidence and draw your own conclusions. Ask yourself if the likes of Kent Hovind are the kind of men you want representing your faith, or if their deceitful chicanery reflects poorly on the legitimacy of your message. Answers in Genesis thinks that Kent Hovind reflects so poorly on creationism that they take public steps to distance themselves from him, even though they support almost exactly the same position. Why would that be, do you suppose?
My own experience so far on this site is that I can't get across a very simple point at least partly because it's swallowed up in preconceptions, and I've even been accused of dastardly deeds when at worst I've worded something ineptly.
Those are the risks we all take when we communicate. Lord knows you've misunderstood plenty that we've tried to tell you. And honestly I'm on your side. The model that you offer should stand or fall on it's own merits, not whether or not Kent Hovind is a tax cheat with a fake degree.
I dread having to wade through your "evidence" but hey, OK, run it by me. I'll see what I can do with it. But please give me some time to get to it and through it.
I'm fairly sure there's a thread on that exact subject. Let me see if I can find it. It's actually kind of hard because he's the sort of guy we talk about a lot around here. Here's a thread about his most notable dishonest act - he's offered some amount of money to anyone that can "prove" evolution, the problem is that he doesn't actually have the money he's offering.
EvC Forum: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000
If that is a common creationist belief I have to say that I reject it with heart and soul.
No, it's not common (unfortunately), but it's not unknown. Most people can't figure out how both the Bible can be true and science can be accurate (as it must be; the success of the technology based on that science puts it beyond doubt) without them agreeing. And they definately don't agree.
I believe creationism has not yet developed into a full blown scientific theory but that they definitely do have much good reasoning on their side and it will only get better over time.
Well, good luck with that. If you ever get your act together and come up with an explanitory, predictive model, and discover the new evidence you'll need to confirm it, I'd be very interested. I'm not automatically opposed, as you seem to think. I used to be a creationist, you know.
But who's doing the work on it? Evolution was developed in the field and the lab. All I ever see creationists doing is trolling internet forums, writing books, and pouring over the Bible. I wouldn't hold your breath expecting scientific breakthroughs from these guys.
and that your view of creationism is as I've said simple prejudice
Well, wait now. I think I have a pretty good idea what creationism is. Particularly the literalist sort that typefies the movement. It's the belief that the Bible in general, and Genesis in particular, are a literal account of the formation of the Earth and the origin of the species that live on it, including the special creation of man. It's the idea that organisms only reproduce within the defined kinds God originally created, and that the features of the Earth that suggest apparent age are side-effects of the global flood described in the Bible.
Am I missing something?
A sign should be posted on the home page warning creationists that the deck is stacked here. That would only be fair.
That sign already exists. It's the warning that this is a science site where we discuss from an evidentiary basis. It's in the forum rules and everything. How did you miss it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 11:10 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 305 (192424)
03-19-2005 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by AdminJar
03-18-2005 11:39 PM


Re: This is NOT a debate thread.
My bad. I think it's about time for a thread on the subject. I'll start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AdminJar, posted 03-18-2005 11:39 PM AdminJar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 286 of 305 (349752)
09-17-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by AdminJar
09-17-2006 9:40 AM


Re: serious abortion questions reopen?
I guess I don't understand what's going on.
Anyone who attempts to engage Holmes finds themselves immediately sucked off-topic, having to defend themselves and the record against a ridiculously multiplying series of Holmes' dishonest distortions of their position. It happens to me, it happens to Schraf, it happens to FliesOnly. It's impossible, by Holmes' choice, to discuss any topic with him but this.
quote:
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Yet, the response of the admins, rather than investigate the problem, is assume that all participants are equally guilty and threaten closures and suspensions. Why is that?
Look, maybe the three of us are the crazy ones. Can I get some kind of indication that the admins have actually gone through and investigated the recent past of what I believe to be a genuine problem poster, and simply not found the consistent history of distortions and misrepresentations that, to my reading, are all but impossible to miss?
Or, as I suspect, do the admins find the minutae of such conversations far too boring to bother to get involved in, and they're just taking the easy way out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by AdminJar, posted 09-17-2006 9:40 AM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AdminJar, posted 09-17-2006 10:35 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 288 of 305 (349757)
09-17-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by AdminJar
09-17-2006 10:35 AM


Re: serious abortion questions reopen?
Oops, sorry. I'll take it to the proper thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by AdminJar, posted 09-17-2006 10:35 AM AdminJar 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