General discussion of moderation procedures

You misunderstood my intentions.It is not an insult to point out if a person is ignorant of something. For example, I have a background in physics so I consider myself to have at least the basics of certain knowledge in the disciplines of physics, like optics, E&M, and quantum mechanics. I can't tell you how many times I have stumbled into people that have the simplest of simple understanding of these fields but are very opinionated about them. The thing is more often than not they are completely wrong on the fundamental levels. Is it too much to say to them that they do not grasp certain important concepts of physics for them to have valid opinion on the matter?The scientific method requires that you question and question the person you are talking to. Evidence is always required. Assumptions, especially unsupported ones, are always looked down upon. Conclusions almost always come after the evidence, not before.It might interest you to know that in the scientific community, we question each other all the time. When someone claims something, almost immediately everyone else jumps onto the person and demands for evidence. It is a very rigorous field, unlike what science fiction movies often portray.My observation tells me that you, and many creationists like yourself, often become irritated when asked for support for assertions. This is because, as I understand it, in the normal world a simple "I heard somewhere that..." and "did you know that..." is often enough for everyone to take your words at face value. Not to do so is a sign of disrespect, and I suspect that this is how you and many other creationists feel. What you don't understand is in science even the most respected scientists are repeated asked by everyone else to back up their assertions.For example, Moose is a geologist of some sort (please correct me, moose, if I am mistaken). If he makes a claim that there is a cavern 20 miles wide at 30 miles below New York city, I can assure you that he will very happily present his evidence when asked "how do you know?" rather than become insulted for people not taking his words at face value.So, what I said was not meant as an insult. You must understand that most creos are not scientists and therefore are not used to being scrutinized by their peers. In science, we are used to this.I hope that cleared it up a bit.Added by edit.Some more thoughts.Here is another example that is a little more clear as to the difference between academics and what we would call regular people.I often go to listen to preachers of various denominations just to understand christianity a little more. Almost all of the time, preachers would preach their messages without giving direct explanations to why, especially on moral issues. And as I understand it, people usually just take their words without question.When I do physics problems on the board for my students, I make damn sure that they understand everything that I do. Sometimes I make mistakes and some would point the mistakes out. I can't remember ever feeling insulted by being corrected by them or being asked the question "why?" In fact, sometimes some students would ask questions that I couldn't answer off the top of my head. What do I do? I just look up the info.A long time ago, one of my professors told us that the integral of e^(x*x)dx from negative infinity to possitive infinity is squareroot of pi. At first we took his word for it, but after a while it became apparent that none of us could actually prove it. We asked him and he actually didn't know how to prove it either. He looked up the proof and relayed it to us later on. As I remember it, he smiled and laughed the whole time. No grudge.If you want to discuss about science in a science forum like this one, try not to be insulted if people want you to support your assertions. This is why people lost their patience with you.PS- Look for posts by desdamona.This message has been edited by Troy, 05-06-2005 01:50 AM

well, see. it's not "people like faith." it's faith in particular.and yes, there was a bit of a double standard, but that was not admin's intentions. faith was, for the most part, participating very valuably in that thread. however, she did break some rules here and there. in lieu of suspending her, admin offered to let her continue in THAT THREAD ONLY. he made special mention that nobody else should be breaking these rules. faith was basically boot-camped to that one thread. if anyone disagreed with this forgiveness policy, they should have taken it up here.i for one was fine with it. i was rather enjoying my debate with faith there. i almost actually got my point across too. however, percy himself broke his own rule. a double standard would have been if the other admins had NOT suspended him.i don't think the agreement was meant to patronize faith or any other member of this board. it was simply because the debate was interesting and would have disappeared without her. normally, ANY member who engages in that sort of behaviour would be warned and then suspended. heck, i know we've BANNED several fundamentalists who just wouldn't play by the rules (i sort of miss buzsaw lol). so i don't think we're treating them as a group as children.faith was only given special treatment because she was the only one arguing her position.

---

אָרַח

Arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

however, percy himself broke his own rule. a double standard would have been if the other admins had NOT suspended him.

---

No, that would have been a triple standard. The rule Percy broke was one which invoked a double-standard. The line (such that it is) had to be drawn somewhere.I see that many people like the double standards here. That isn't surprising; people seem to absolutely love all the double standards we have in society at large these days. This forum simply reflects that larger reality. As the influence of right-wing fundies continues to wax unabated in society, culture, government, the courts, etc., we're simply seeing a reflection of it here. We shouldn't be surprised. Saddened perhaps, especially since we liberals are finding ourselves increasingly marginalized with fewer and fewer places of refuge available to us, but not surprised.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

But this place is owned by Percy and paid by Percy. There are certain things that I can't/won't do when I step into my friend's house. However, it wouldn't bother me if he does those things because it's his own damn house.

which is why i was suprised as hell when percy was suspended. i mean, i know he should obey the rules too, but i didn't expect him a) to break them and b) to actually get punished for it.

---

אָרַח

i think of it kind of like an affirmative action thing. i mean, the debate would have been over if it weren't for faith. ban her, and it would have just kind of died. i hardly think percy has any kind of positive bias towards the fundamentalists at all (as evidenced by the post he got suspended for).but i geuss the moral of the story is that you just can't ever to do anyone a favor.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-06-2005 07:01 AM

---

אָרַח

In Message 123 Faith writes : In what way is this not a straight out admission that Faith is now nothing but a troll (irrespective of whether she was originally or not) ?Just to make it clear, I'll repeat the key points : I know we are chronically short of YECs on EVC but do we need them badly enough to allow - even encourage - out and out trolling ?Just for the record I'm referring exclusively to trolling in the "abusive/inflammatory messages" sense here, since this is what Faith admits to. It is currently a matter of opinion whether she is also indulging in the "outrageous argument" variety as a troll rather than because she believes what she posts.

---

09/04/05 - Sharks attacked
30/04/05 - Wasps swatted
14/05/05 - More of the same ?

i think it should be noted that she was participating quite civily in that thread with me.

---

אָרַח

I think you misunderstand much of what happens.If a poster maligns all Christians (as happens here quite often) that is an opinion. People are free to civily point out errors in that position but there is nothing that says any member should not say or believe that "all Christians are liars and eat their young".When a Christian responds though by saying to that person, "You're a liar", that Christian has crossed the line and will be suspended.Feel free to substitute any term for Christian in the paragraph above.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The way it is done here, yes it is. Again, if you require that degree of knowledge for any particular topic it should be made clear up front. There is something that goes on here that is understood by your side of it in the terms you are presenting here, that is understood completely differently by the other side, and explaining it is extremely difficult if not impossible. You take your standards absolutely for granted, but it may be that SCIENCE as such is not really the problem, it's just that you THINK it is.The reasoning on the other side it seems to me from just reading through many posts here is often really very good, but those on your side just don't see it. This is why Bible-believing Christians and YECs just can't stick it out here. The prejudice is thick and vicious against them in ways you guys are aapparently completely oblivious to. I do not know if this is even a halfway fair assessment of the situation, but I would point out that this place is not titled the SCIENCE FORUM, it is titled EVOLUTIONISM VERSUS CREATIONISM. Although there are many science-minded creationists and most of us try to follow the basics at least, YECs at least start from Biblical revelation. Not to prove the case BY Biblical revelation except among ourselves of course, because we know that is not acceptable here -- and I find it very frustrating that I am accused of arguing FROM the Bible when I have very carefully NOT done so -- but that's a side issue. The point is that if this place really wants to be about BOTH evolutionism and creationism you have to make SOME accommodations to the thinking of the creationists.How, what, I don't know, but the problem with this supposed scientific mindset here is not that it's scientific but that it is circular -- evolution is so identified in your minds with science that nothing is regarded as science that doesn't prove evolution. There's a genuine Catch-22 type of situation going on here that you guys are incapable of recognizing, and those on my side are merely bashed by it all the time though it is hard to define exactly what it is. A LOT Of what is accepted as scientific here is truly stupid, I mean that literally, it is stupid, it is sophomoric, it is almost a parody of science but it is accepted as science while an extremely well reasoned argument from the other side of the fence is dismissed out of hand as not scientific. It is VERY hard to define what I am trying to say here because these assumptions are so ingrained they are unconscious.It's a side issue, but about your listening to preachers, I do not know what kind of preachers you've been exposed to but if they are any good they preach from the Bible and from historical background and from Bible scholarship all together. They are preaching to people who believe the Bible is inspired by God, and their job is simply to elucidate what God is saying. I really don't know what if anything this has to do with what goes on here though. In the context of preaching the Bible scientific assumptions are absolutely irrelevant.But you will not recognize any other kind of thinking as valid at all for any purpose whatever, and that is really stacking the deck. This is NOT what is going on here and your thinking it is is a BIG part of the problem. From my point of view many of the demands for support are just mindless rote behavior based on refusing to think about what is actually being said. They are STUPID demands, they are IRRELEVANT, they MISS the POINT, they are CHILDISH, they are NOT SCIENCE in any meaningful sense of the term -- or they are BAD science. I have been more driven crazy by pseudoscientific DRIVEL in answer to points I have made than just about anything else here, the inability to follow the argument, misreadings, misinterpretations, niggling nitpicky trivia glorified by the name of science, it's enough to drive a person stark raving mad.

You seem to be struggling with an awful lot of rage and anger - maybe you need to take a break? do something in the real world? Take a few days off from here?

Typical obstructionist irrelevant post.

This is quite worrying,do you feel the need to lash out like this in the real world?Can I recommend this book? I know someone who used it and they feel a lot better now. Learn to shorten links pleaseobstructionistI am not familar with this word, I think you have just made it up - However if I understand what you are trying to state correctly I am neither a writer of turgid poems or a great fan of Ms.Rand.I hope this sets you mind at rest (and maybe helps your blood pressure).I would love to stay and chat but it's a nice day and I think I will go for a nice walk (practicing what I'm preaching).This message has been edited by General Krull, 06-May-2005 11:44 AMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-06-2005 10:45 AM

Well, another obstructionist irrelevant post from you. Ho hum. I believe Ayn Rand's stuff is called objectivism.A perfect example of the poverty of education on this site that is half the problem I keep running into here.

While a newbie might be forgiven for not initially recognizing that this is a science site, you've been here quite a while. EvC Forum exists because of the threat to science education posed by Creationism, which seeks to have religious views represented in science class. Many Creationists believe Creationism is science, while evolutionists believe it is thinly disguised Genesis. It is primarily this issue that this site is intended to explore. And we are. But such accomodation will not include changing the definition of science. The reason you're having so much trouble identifying the problem is because you believe views held out of ignorance should carry as much weight as views based upon evidence and knowledge, and you refuse to abandon this view. This mindset is so ingrained within you that I don't think you even realize it. You are again speaking out of ignorance. It was your ignorance of geology and scientific methods that forced you to abandon the Deposition and Erosion of Sediments thread. It was your ignorance of the simple demands of historical study that led to all your frustrations in the Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts thread. Writing words and words and ever more words, mostly complaining about your poor treatment, is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about. Instead of complaining, get out a book and learn something. Come to the debate armed with actual knowledge. This is a debate site considering questions of scientific support for Creationism and evolution. The correct response to a request to support your points is to simply support your points. If you can't do that, if your only response is to become frustrated and insulting, then you don't belong here.--Percy