AdminNosy banned?

Well it seems that my opinion of the class divide is not in sync with Admin's. I still stick by mine.There are 2 classes here, the working class and the 'criminal' class; the creationists are overrepresented in the latter.TTFN,WK

You'll have to say more, I don't recall this. Heck, I don't think I live up to any of my ideals. That's the point of ideals, isn't it, to serve as goals, not as achievements? Yes, this is true, many did seem to perceive me as making personal attacks on Nwr. No one actually went to the trouble of quoting something in context and attempting to make the case, though. I was never provided any substance to respond so, though to be fair to Buz he attempted it in the admin forum, but before I could reply Phat closed the thread suggesting that it wasn't constructive at this point in time, and I thought that perhaps he had a good point that maybe we should come back to it later. But no one's attempted this in the public forums, so perhaps you could remedy this.But before you put any effort into it, keep in mind that my claim isn't that I was blameless, only that I wasn't anywhere near as bad as Nwr, and that I didn't think moderator attention was called for. I was referring to people who are thin-skinned about having their errors pointed out, of which Nwr made an incredible, and incredibly uninformed, number. While you don't mention it here, you have up till now been countering my references to Nwr's errors with claims that he had a point. I again suggest that if you really believe he had a point that you go to the No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper thread and make that point, but that otherwise continuing to just state he had a valid point is an unsupported assertion. It is my assertion that it is flim-flam that is for some reason appealing to a number of people. If it really had any substance then Nwr would have stuck around and argued it so he could show he was correct. Instead he had to resort to posturing and making a show. This isn't the behavior of someone who believes he has a strong case.Edited by Admin, : Change authorship.Edited by Admin, : Fix sig.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Your point has merit, too. While that wasn't how I was using the term 2nd class citizen in that instance, it is certainly one of the ways it can be used.The point you're making is more about how dramatically unsuccessful creationists are in arguing their position in debate. But it can be looked at another way. I'll bet that we couldn't do half so much with their arguments as they do. They often prove surprisingly resourceful with extremely meager weaponry, and they should at least be credited for that.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I guess you can do a lot of damage even at a gunfight with a knife, provided you are crazy enough.TTFN,WK

In the EvC debate, most of the evolutionists here are 2nd class citizens, with a few first class citizens (ie, people that are doing the discipline versus those that merely debate it). A first class IDist then would not be Buzz, but instead would be Behe, Dembski, Sal Cordova etc. With creationism it might be Gish, Hovind, etc. The people that are actually doing the stuff, not the people that just believe it. Not just celebrities of course - but anyone who does the science, the public debating, is generally consulted with regards to the issues etc.Given the context of Percy's post, I think that is what he was driving towards. I just don't think there are that many 1st class evolutionists here. There are some, but not as many as there are at, for example, the Pandas Thumb or Pharyngula. If we can Matzke to participate, this place would be going on the up and up. He's probably busy enough with the 'thumb though.

---

From another perspective, the evolutionists here are treated as 1st Class Citizens and Creationists are second class. There are less moderators from the YEC side, they are often fiercely criticized for every logical hiccup, whereas evolutionists are frequently given passes.

---

That's how I read it anyway.

---

Abe: Too late. Woe is me.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Good to hear from you! Hope you continue to check in occasionally. I'm going to change your admin account to inactive. Let me know when you want it back so you can come here and wrestle us back on topic!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Guess the smack down meant more to me than you. I'm past it (it was a while ago) so we don't have to relive it again, and as you admit you don't live up to your ideals, lets just leave it at that.The more important question is if what you say will be true from this day forward? I hope so. Do you remember telling me how mods have the final authority and that authority should be respected? That included NOT questioning why a decision was made as well as pointing to what was done wrong. I believe you also commented that it doesn't matter who was worse. As I mentioned before, both you and nwr in this situation ended up doing things you both criticized me for doing in the past.In this case I am not about to go back through the thread and point out where I think you personally insulted him. Reading through it three times was enough and I am much more interested in results springing from it, than by rehashing everything. Uh... I explained it upthread. Indeed I believe I stated that I disagreed with his epistemic position so I am not the person to carry the flag for it. Here is what I think IS valid (using what has already been stated here)...I pointed to his opening comments were that it was pure opinion, that he was not intending to challenge BB, and he admitted a lack of knowledge. And his "reopening" comments were an argument that he was not accepting BB personally, due to his not feeling it had enough evidence such that he could be confident it would stand the test of time as a full explanation.There would be severe problems if he used that to open and advance that BB was errant, or that he was able to reject BB. But he didn't do that. Lack of acceptance is NOT rejection. It is holding it in a more tentative state than others might. Rejection would mean its lack of recognition for having any possible merit.That he had incorrect ideas about the nature of evidence (which you did show) is besides the point to that position. If I had been you I would have made sure he restated it was just his opinion, that he wasn't stating BB wasn't science, and he wasn't trying to refute BB, and then dropped it myself.But you appeared to want to make him a scarecrow, picking away at any possible errors where he admitted less than adequate knowledge. He stated up front that he had NO case. I'm not sure how that could not be more clear. Whether he went on to show ignorance regarding the field as a reason for holding it more tentatively means nothing.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I wasn't questioning a moderator decision. I was alluding to Nwr's decision to post a complaint in the moderation thread. It was a reference to the irony of the primary offender making the complaint. Is this about recent events? Or is this about you? That's fine as long as this is the last time you mention that you believe I personally insulted him without supporting it.As to the rest, all I can say is that I don't see it the same way you do. If I were to reply to the specifics of what you said I'd just be repeating myself, but it is probably worth repeating that it was never the intention of EvC Forum to allow ways in which positions could be stated and not defended. If you think you've found such a way then you're wrong by definition. It was always the intention that that not be possible here. I remember my motivations for creating this site as if it were yesterday. If you think the Forum Guidelines need to be clarified on this point it would be helpful if you could suggest some wording.Edited by Admin, : Add clarifying sentence to first paragraph.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hey Ned, as much as us balding/balded men would like, leaving this site won't bring our hair back. It made me feel better to find out that male pattern baldness is also found in ape populations. Perhaps it'd make you feel better as well.Come back soon!

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Fine. I'm much more concerned about what comes out of this. Okay, but then doesn't it make sense not to pursue such positions, rather than treating them as if they could be? I suppose from now on when a person states that its just an opinion, they should be warned not to continue because its a forum violation.That said I am still perplexed. Your position seems to only allow a person to accept a theory or reject it, and not claim remaining neutral pending more info? Nor apparently is someone allowed to doubt the longterm explanatory power of a theory? That is there must be some concrete reason for this doubt?Let's say this forum was run way back before heliocentrism had its conclusive support, or say plate tectonics before conclusive sea floor info. Am I correct in understanding a poster could not have said they doubt that geocentrism or stationary continents were the correct (or full) explanations? I can't tell you what you've made legal, I can only tell you what is logically valid. The two don't have to be the same, but it might surprise some to find out they aren't. This isn't to say you should change your intent or rule. I can work within that system if that's how you want it. In debate, do not state any personal opinions, or attempt to explain such. All statements should involve arguments that advance or attack a position, which are themselves open to attack via logic or evidence.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

difference of middle age vs present statements??I was suprised a bit by this explanation of Father Wagget 1909:

quote:

---

---

May I suggest that EVC has pushed the lability of "the harder statement" to it's rock solid equivalency, no matter the form, by its futherance of seperations of religion and science? I am not judging that this is desired, however. Perhaps the ultrasolidity of a 'hardest' statement should be acceptable. The technology can do nothing of the letter of law, no matter what ell is economized. Thus a limitation of the forum perhaps exists.

So long as you, Percy and other prominent EvCists have convinced yourselves that ID has been proven fraudulent you make my point that there is no place at EvC science fora for any IDist regardless of credentials to participate in science debate. So why is the site called EvC? What does EvC mean? Doesn't EvC debate forums essentially have a fraudulent name?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

As I understand the purpose of the moderation thread, if any member, including moderators determine there is a problem worthy of moderation they may justly utilize that service. Imo, it was not for you, the alleged offender, as per NWR, to make the determination as to whether the request should be honored.As I understand the purpose of the moderation thread, it was also the rightful place for you as a participating member in debate to go if you felt that NWR was a primary offender in debate with you. Instead, you chose to admonish administratively within the debate itself, resulting in the flare up. Perhaps another admin should have moderated NWR rather than you, the counterpart in debate.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

If the situation were reversed, and the board was mostly composed of Creationists who thought that evolution was wrong, would you complain likewise?There are only two options. We screen members to keep an even split. Or we force people into having come to no conclusions. Neither seems practical.An IDer is perfectly welcome to post a thread and say 'This is science, here it is.'. Other people are then welcome to say 'That's a load of bunkum and here is why'.If the IDer then repeats the claims, or asserts that it is scientific and so we should pay attention. We have a problem.Let us look at an example. The three domain hypothesis, which is under some debate at the moment. The participants don't ignore fundamental aspects of established science. They take them into account. I would heartily welcome a good debate with an IDist, someone who could present solid research, predictions and the like. Someone who can say - look here is some science.The problem is that it doesn't happen. Whenever something is presented it is shown to be flawed. There is no point just going around and around in circles - the debate is over if nothing new is presented in defense. That is why Percy had the strong words about ID and Baumgardner - nothing new was coming out if it, the claims were being refuted, repeated and refuted again.It's hardly a debate in science, it is a repeat of claims. You think Creationism is science, you think evolution is not? Come here and put your case forward where it will be critically examined by opponents of your position. If you are lucky, you might learn something and grow to understand your opponent's position. If you are unlucky, you will repeat the same claim over and over again and it will be refuted the same way over and over again and nothing will come of it. If you are lucky, you will be able to add further support to your position, which can then be argued, perhaps further support still.Rest assured, it will be critically examined. Rest assured, repeating the same thing over and over again will be looked down on.

It's the "critical" part that Buzz seems to object to. To a certain kind of person, any criticism of their belief system - indeed, any response besides unquestioning agreement - is tantamount to oppression.