General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

I would invite Someone_Who_Cares except he only posts on great debates with anglagard as far as I can see. You'll have to let him know.This would allow us to discuss the age of the earth, as he has expressed interest in that. I would also want to discuss the matter of Lucy\Fraud as well.Not that he would increase the number of posts based on his latest rate of return.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

RAZD just began a thread in the Coffee House (Lies, Falsehoods and Misrepresentations) about my recent requests to avoid characterizing statements or positions as lies, or people as liars, and I'm replying here. Yes it is. The judge ruled that Clinton's sworn testimony was false and perjurious and held Clinton in contempt of court. He was disbarred in Arkansas and later by the Supreme Court. I think that whenever you have this level of evidence about someone's lack of truthfulness, it is very safe to call him a liar. When used as a synonym for lie, "falsehood" is no better than "lie". It depends upon which definition of "falsehood" you're using. One very commonly used definition is as a synonym for "lie". When used in this way there is no difference between "falsehood" and "lie". There is another definition of "falsehood" which means simply being wrong, and in that case the difference is, as you've noted, intent.But I have no idea why you've hitched your horse to an argument about the difference between "lie" and "falsehood". I never used the word falsehood, and I recommend that anyone using the word make clear from context which sense of the word they mean.I understand how difficult it is to accept as possible the depth of delusion necessary for some of the misstatements of facts we often hear from primary creationist sources. Unable to fathom how someone could actually believe such impossible or contradictory things, the tendency is to conclude they must be lying. I think this grossly underestimates the power of the God delusion.I recently posted links at Message 44 to a debate between Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of Way of the Master versus Brian Sapient and Kelly of the Rational Response Squad. This video is well worth watching because it makes very clear the power this delusion holds. Cameron and Comfort had agreed to provide scientific evidence supporting the existence of God without referring to God, faith or the Bible. They based their opening arguments upon God, faith and the Bible, and when it was pointed out that they had argued religiously instead of scientifically they denied it. The moderator tried to push this point three times, evidently believing they must be misunderstanding something, and each time they denied they had used religious arguments. Their arguments denying they'd argued religiously would never make any sense to people like you and me, but I'm sure they make perfect sense to the faithful.One comes away from this portion of the debate just shaking one's head. Clearly Cameron and Comfort sincerely believed they hadn't argued religiously, and they argued passionately that they hadn't. And yet they clearly had. This is the God delusion operating right out there in the open for all to see and marvel at. But despite how wrong they were, Cameron and Comfort were not lying. How so on the level of Clinton's lie? Has Ken Ham provided false and perjurious testimony in court? Has a judge ruled that he knowingly provided false information while under oath? Has his license to practice law been suspended anywhere?I'm not saying that this sets the bar for finding someone a liar, just that you'd be extremely hard put to find someone who had been found as unambiguously a liar as Clinton. Just as you'd be hard put to find someone who has been revealed as unambiguously an idiot as Bush.So go ahead and call someone a liar or call something a lie. Just support it with unambiguous evidence first.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm sorry but regardless of whether someone believes they are lying, when they repeat something that is demonstrably false, that is what they are doing. They may well believe they are telling the truth, but they are not. They are lying.The key point, particularly with the Christian Cult of Ignorance as exemplified by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, is that they have become so proficient at lying that they can now lie consistently to themselves.Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are classic examples. There are three possibilities.They are so severely deluded that they no longer have any contact with reality.They may well really be as ignorant as they portray themselves. For example, Ray Comfort may well be so ignorant that he actually believes the banana he uses as an example was designed by God and not man.However, someone that ignorant loses the right to hide behind the shield of ignorance once it has been pointed out to him that the banana he uses is an example of long term human design.However he doesn't correct himself. He continues to make the same assertions as though they held any validity.The third option is that he knows well he is lying and that his audience has been trained to ignore the slight of hand and falsehoods presented, so he continues it.These folk show all the characteristics one would associate with fraud, with a con. The sole difference is that they can legally hide behind the shield and protection of Religion.I think it is important to speak out against falsehoods. The money is one reason. While it might not seem like people such as Dr. Dino were "getting rich", they were doing far better than many of us, and doing so by cheating the folk that worked for them. The better ones bring in real chunks of change, the folk like the Gene Scotts and even Peter Popoff, who certainly meets the standards you outlined for Bill Clinton yet is back out there pulling in about a half million a year that he actually declares.That ain't chump change.The bigger reason is that these people continue to preach falsehoods. They continue to indoctrinate kids. They work to isolate children and shield them from outside information.I agree that it is not a good idea to call a member here in a discussion a liar even when they do just that. However, the example you gave of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron certainly would meet the standards of lying even if the continue to deny that they are doing so.I do not believe that the majority of the Christian Cult of Ignorance are liars, however the leaders of the Christian Cult of Ignorance IMHO can only be so described.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think they are the same level if you can provide the same level of evidence that what is said is a lie. I don't think it is fair to wait for some lawsuit to make a run through court to have that level of evidence. The general public did not need that for Clinton. It does not depend on what the definition of "is" is, it depends on the demonstration of falsehood\lie: deceit, intent, false. Failure to demonstrate one would be the cut off.I'm with Jar on this one (Message 243): ... And his run down of the three possibilities (a variation on the "classic" Dawkins' 4 categories: stupid, ignorant, insane or malicious). This needs to stop, and we have to start somewhere.There is a difference between lie and falsehood with the lie connotation, because it is not as "inflamatory" in debate - a point you have made that is also valid. I'm not sure that "lie" is less inflamatory than "cult of ignorance" so "inflamatory language" is still an issue without lie being used.I would suggest a compromise: use "falsehood" to keep a debate tone.Enjoy & thanks.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I have been thinking about the Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud, and I believe part of the problem with the thread is the "inflamatory language" issue, the other being the length.I note that I have received emails regarding the version of this on my website, and that it was found to be very useful in answering a creationist that was quoting Batten.It seems to me that this forum would be enriched by reviews of creationist articles like Don Battens, and I am thinking that this would work in the columnist corner, with the review worked over between the proposer (in Proposed New Topics forum) and a moderator.I am willing to rewrite the post in question with that kind of end in view if you think this is a good idea. I am not aware of any other review of this work.Enjoy.

I would like to say that I am not interested in debating the argument of "What a real debate is or is not," so I do not wish to debate this matter (or others like defining certain terms) with you.However, since you have brought up the Lucy matter, (and I apologize if this isn't the most appropriate place for this)I would like to say that I have revised my essay concerning this matter just recently. I have deleted the old statement, which I have learned is not proper, but in its place I have put in the truth about the knee joint and so my argument that Lucy is not a transitional from apes to man is just as strong, if not stronger! You can read what I have revised in my essay here: Page Not Found - WebsNote: Your sudden attacks at my argument and use of negative comments and bandwagoning that so many other Creationists have declined from using the argument were not what prompted me to realize my mistake. I learned of my mistake when reading 'Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy?' by Malcolm Bowden, where he explained the whole situation in the proper argument, which is what I have in my essay now. So I would like you to know that if you want to approach me and point out my mistakes, I would accept it much better if it were softer and more understanding (this is one of the main reasons I like debating with Anglagard- we actually get somewhere and I have realized the errors in my essay as we debated and fixed them).I do recall that you have said you would not debate with me until I remove my false Lucy argument, and now I have removed it. But I would still appreciate debating with someone who presents more arguments for "proof" than for only defining terms and saying we cannot debate until we define all the terms. I realize this is your specialty, but I like debating proof, not definitions.I will probably not reply to any replies made to this post, and it is true that I find little time and determination to debate here, but hopefully Anglagard and I can tackle another debate- the one about "proofs" against the Flood.Peace my friends. Once again, I apologize for posting this here, but as RAZD has noticed, I do not normally post anywhere except in the Great Debate topics.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Thanks for the reply, but this is not the place for this debate. Your denial of truth and reality, your continued reluctance to engage it, and your ad hominum comments leave me little choice but to answer. My answer is Message 78Replying in kind to your post: read it, reply (there - it's open to you) or run - your choice. But don't reply here: this is NOT a debate thread.Enjoy.

I'd like to make a pitch for promotion of ogon's PNT WORDS!While I agree with AdminPD that the question ogon posed at the end of the message is much too broad, I do think that he raises some questions that can be discussed. In particular, this excerpt:

quote:

---

I am reading these statements realizing that at different stages in my life I believed all of them to be true. But which statements are true? I’ve never had anyone show me chemicals turning into DNA, RNA and proteins, and I’ve never seen anyone turn them into living biological creatures. I have to take Joyce’s word that he replicated the RNA molecule and had the means at his disposal to accurately count all 10 trillion variations.

​

I have to believe the author/s of genesis had some kind of divine inspiration and information to write such an account of the beginning of life on Earth. I also have to believe that over 2 billion Christians in the world can’t be wrong about Jesus.

---

Here, he raises the question of how to evalute claims made by individual writings in the area of science and in the area of religion. The final question that he raises might be construed as his wish that the discussion be focused more on the question of evaluating individual scientific claims, although I certainly don't mean to put words in his mouth.I suggest, subject of course to ogon's approval, that his topic be promoted with the idea of discussing what criteria to use in evaluating the claims made by individual writings, either scientific, religious, or both.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well. A couple of questions, then.Chatty?I can think of 2 things that might mean.
(1) Informal.
(2) Dropping a "personal" note (e.g. the note to Mod)Yes? No?Cut and paste, tho? I take exception to that characterization.
AFAIK, whenever I have c&p'ed info from a website, I have credited that website*. And tho I can't be sure, after having posted, what 75? times, I would imagine nearly 3/4 of the thoughts/words are mine.Furthermore, if I were to characterize my posting style, I would say that I tend to "take apart" an argument one point at a time (e.g. when I tried to get keys on topic ... repeatedly). A lot of folks here tend to use more of a "shotgun" approach ... a point by point rebuttal of nearly each line of a post. And while that's useful and I like to read those, I think it's important to pin down an "opponent" and not let them slide on basic stuff. Rather like RAZD did in the Great Debate on evolution. He kept pounding on the definitions.Any help you can give me is appreciated.*With the exception of the definitions of logical fallacies, that is

Could you fix the title? I tried making itCreation Museum Age of the Earth is False KEYS and RAZD ONLY!!! and now to change or paste a new post I get a "We cannot post this because it appears that you are trying to hack the topic subject. Use your Back button to try again." message (a little late eh?)To be consistent with other GD topics it should beCreation Museum Age of the Earth is False (KEYS and RAZD ONLY!!!)Sorry

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Could you provide a link so I can see the text you quoted in context?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

She is referring to my Message 274 in the Museum thread.

Okay, thanks. My perspective is a little different, but if you have helpful feedback for Molbiogirl it sounds like she'd appreciate it. For myself, I liked that she outlined the issues she had problems with, picked one to start with, stated one of the YEC positions on that issue, then rebutted it with info from TalkOrigins.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

fixed thanks

To tell you the truth, I have been noticing AdminPD to have been somewhat over flexing her muscles lately. Whether she thinks she's being helpful to newbies or whether she is just confusing one person to another, I don't know. Many would agree with me that Adminmoose has always been the toughest moderator on these boards, and yet things that don't bother Adminmoose seem to bother AdminPD. Perhaps she's trying to overtake Adminmoose's reputation?

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!