Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thread Reopen Requests
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 76 of 305 (72903)
12-15-2003 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by apostolos
12-14-2003 5:06 PM


Re: drifting of Topic: Innocents in Hell, Guilty in Heaven?
The topic was never closed. It just fell rather far down the list. I gave it a bump, including a message there.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by apostolos, posted 12-14-2003 5:06 PM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by apostolos, posted 12-15-2003 12:36 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 78 by Apostle, posted 12-26-2003 12:26 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 305 (72969)
12-15-2003 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Adminnemooseus
12-15-2003 12:21 AM


Re: drifting of Topic: Innocents in Hell, Guilty in Heaven?
Adminnemooseus,
Sincerely, thank you for not closing it and posting a clarification on the matter. I will be sure to keep an eye on what I post in that thread and future threads to keep the main topic in consideration.
Russ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-15-2003 12:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 305 (75161)
12-26-2003 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Adminnemooseus
12-15-2003 12:21 AM


Re: The Roman Church and Evolution
Administrator
This is in reference to the topic on the Roman Catholic Church and Evolution. It is under the Miscelleneous Issues heading. I feel it was closed too early. While various topics have been opened up to examine certain issues under this subject (i.e: Pope John Paul's Pontifical Address to the Papal Academy of Sciences) I feel this particular topic would have been helpful in making general observations on the issue rather than focusing in on particular speeches or encyclicals which would simply bog down this topic. I respectfully ask that you consider opening it back up for some questions were raised that I did not have the opportunity to answer.
Apostle
(Also could you explain how to highlight direct quotes in my replies as some other individuals do).
{Note: In response to this message, the topic in question, " The Roman Catholic Church and Evolution" was reopened on 12/26/03. "Pope John Paul II address to the Papal Academy of Sciences" also continues to be open. - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-15-2003 12:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 12-26-2003 1:00 AM Apostle has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 79 of 305 (75168)
12-26-2003 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Apostle
12-26-2003 12:26 AM


quote highlighting
If you want to know how someone did something, edit the post. You won't be able to change it but you will se what they entered.
When you are creating your own msgs you will see UBB Code is ON on the left of the editing window. All the various codes are there.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Apostle, posted 12-26-2003 12:26 AM Apostle has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 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

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 81 of 305 (82911)
02-03-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 11:32 PM


104 new messages on 2/3/04 (today) - babble - How much sense did the participents have? Talk about piling on.
I could have given it a temp. closing a couple of days ago, but I decided to let it run wild.
I'm considering temp. closing any topic that pegs the activity meter, unless I feel a reason why not.
The thing was 300+ total messages. That's a standard closing point for any topic.
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 11:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2004 1:55 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 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

wj
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 305 (89499)
03-01-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
02-04-2004 1:55 AM


Just checking if Ken has complained about censorship by closure of his Directory of creationist sites, essays, arguments, and quotes thread yet. Of course, as this is the logical place for him to register a complaint, it should be the last place to find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2004 1:55 AM crashfrog has not replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 305 (89501)
03-01-2004 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
06-14-2003 2:52 PM


But how can there be balance if board administration is determined that the primary component of any argument be evidence.
And any evidence, such as Bible Codes or Prayer studies, or theomatics, or NDE research, studies on the effects of religious beliefs, we evolutionists of course throw out for various reasons that seem good to us....objectively of course.....
C'mon, Percy, give yourself a break! Haven't you caught on yet that you are swamped in subjective explaining away of every bit of evidence you don't like. "It's anecdotal, it's not peer reviewed, some body somewhere debunked it,... ad nauseum." instead of spending your time replicating and reporting real evidence? You say that you metaphysical arguments don't carry much weight, so why do you give such weight to rationalizations?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 06-14-2003 2:52 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Mammuthus, posted 03-01-2004 3:41 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6553 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 85 of 305 (89509)
03-01-2004 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-01-2004 2:33 AM


quote:
instead of spending your time replicating and reporting real evidence?
This charge is more appropriately leveled at you Stephen...why are you not replicating the prayer experiments as they were done in the publications you hold in such high regard? You have belly ached that they have not been (and that they therefore somehow constitute evidence while admitting thay have not been reproduced and are controversial)...get off your hypocritical lazy ass and demonstrate that you are not a crank....or is it just fun to pontificate as opposed to doing actual work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 2:33 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 3:47 AM Mammuthus has replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 305 (89511)
03-01-2004 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Mammuthus
03-01-2004 3:41 AM


M.
Silly boy,
I have repeatedly testified that I have replicated the prayer experiments hundreds, no thousands of times, filling my life with way more riches and joy than I ever hoped to have. Not for publication, of course, except here. That's prayer. Anyone can replicate in the own prayer closet. No need for many of the published studies. You're the one who won't even try to replicate them.
The very thought!
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Mammuthus, posted 03-01-2004 3:41 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Mammuthus, posted 03-01-2004 5:32 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6553 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 87 of 305 (89520)
03-01-2004 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-01-2004 3:47 AM


Silly old fool,
quote:
I have repeatedly testified that I have replicated the prayer experiments hundreds, no thousands of times, filling my life with way more riches and joy than I ever hoped to have.
This is anecdote and personal opinion. You cannot even define whether you yourself repeated it hundreds or thousands of times..nice controlled experiment there Stephen...has your turning lead into gold experiment worked as well? Your wishful thinking is not a replication of the studies you claim support what you say.
quote:
No need for many of the published studies
..and this suggests you take issue with the published prayer studies and how they were conducted. You are a sample of 1, and an extremely biased and unreliable sample (your inability to remember the professor who you say supports your take on science) and thus add nothing to the reproducibility of the scientifically conducted prayer studies. The prayers studies themselves revealed nothing more than placebo effect and in one study, negative effects. This you brush off because you don't want to hear it (yet another piece of evidence that you are not a scientist).
Your blindly wishing to have science bolster your weak faith is an obvious crisis of your own belief in what you are saying. Your inability to comprehend that an actual scientific study of prayer effects on whatever require a proper sample size, controls, and independent reproduction of results is an obvious deficit in your ability to grasp how science works and what science is.
I will take your refusal to either conduct proper prayer studies scientifically and your attack on published research an admission on your part that you are 1. too lazy to do it 2. are scared to death of what the results will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 3:47 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 88 of 305 (89592)
03-01-2004 2:38 PM


TOPIC DRIFT
I think the previous 3 or 4 (or more) messages belong somewhere else.
AM

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 89 of 305 (96910)
04-02-2004 12:49 AM


Missing Links topic temp closure
The "Missing Links" topic has accumulated 80 messages in 6 hours and 45 minutes.
This seems to be being a chat line, not a normal topic.
I've closed it for now, and expect to reopen it in about 24 hours. People can catch up on their reading.
Adminnemooseus

Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 305 (103003)
04-27-2004 4:48 AM


closed topic (not ready yet)
Dear Admin,
I apologize for the delay to response to your warnings and bumps for my proposal topic (What makes that an old scriptures...) because I haven't seen you posts related to mine. You have replied in another topic. I don't open topics in where I haven't post something, this only if the subject is interesting or in which I think I could bring a small contribution. For checking this, I click my name and watch the current reply historic at least twice daily.
Also, tacking account of both your comments and the state of my researches concerning this thread, I prefer to not open some discussion on it yet. However, I agree with you owing the interesting preliminary results of my superficial investigations in this field. I need much more time to gather data for this purpose. This will certainly allows me to reach a better audience than I have actually on this board. Both writing in foreign language in a field and in complete opposition with my regular studies demands an extra effort and don't permit me to be so reactive as expected.
Respects,
Denesha

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2004 5:11 AM Denesha has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024