|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I'm a moderator, not a participant. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My only point is that there are those who disagree with you and that there's therefore something to discuss.
If you've got your opinion that ID is equivalent to creationism, and if you're not willing to discuss it to the point that someone like SO who disagrees with you is a liar, then since these are discussion threads there's not much more you can contribute on the topic. But if you feel like discussing whether ID is equivalent to creationism then carry on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Nuggin writes: He's not a liar because he disagrees with me. He's a liar because he says that I never posted the quotes - which clearly I did. Twice. But in your Message 709 you don't quote Smooth Operator saying that you never posted the quotes. You instead quote him claiming that Dembski has never equated ID with creationism, then you claimed you proved otherwise and that SO is lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Nuggin,
Now that we've established that you actually did accuse SO of lying when he disagreed with you, let me repeat what I said before: I'm a moderator, not a participant. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My only point is that there are those who disagree with you and that there's therefore something to discuss. If you hold your opinion that ID is equivalent to creationism so strongly that instead of discussing it you cast accusations of lying at those who disagree with you, then since these are discussion threads there's not much more you can contribute on that issue. But if you feel like actually discussing whether ID is equivalent to creationism then carry on. If this still makes no sense to you then we can continue the discussion over at Report discussion problems here: No.2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Last word of 1st para is possibly in error?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Brad H,
I am the moderator actively on duty in this thread. I've already posted 34 messages of requests and warnings in this thread and removed the posting permissions of one evolutionist contributor. Please leave moderating responsibilities to the moderator. If you feel you are having problems with discussion that I'm not noticing then please post to Report discussion problems here: No.2. Concerning your request to Nuggin where you say you would never compare his views to children's fantasies and request the same consideration from him, I assume you're referring to his references to magical wizards. This is extremely mild compared to what often goes on at discussion boards where the topics are controversial. Moderators here will not be concerning themselves with such trivialities, particularly when the author addresses himself directly and pertinently to the topic. If you cannot bear such slight slights then even this discussion board, a discussion board that is more strictly and neutrally moderated than the vast majority of discussion boards on the Internet, is too wild for you. Since non-moderators are not permitted to moderate, and since moderators here will be enforcing the standards of EvC Forum and not of Brad H, you have two choices. Continue with the discussion or drop out. Sorry to express this so bluntly, but most of my actions in this thread have been against evolutionists, so I'm not going to coddle any creationists or IDists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
In Message 805 Smooth Operator writes:
Smooth Operator writes: Everyone who knows anything about the history of the modern ID movement knows this is not true. The majority of ID proponents are Christians, so what? The majority of evolutionists are atheists, again so what? I could also call modern evolutionary theory a political atheist movement. In case no evolutionist has addressed this because they thought it off topic, it does seem on-topic to me. As part of the answer to the question, "What is ID?" someone has offered that it is a product of Christian fundamentalism, thereby calling into question its validity as science because of its roots in Christian theology. Smooth Operator's reply in effect says that ID's claim to be science is as valid as evolution's because evolution has its roots in atheistic thought. Seems worth addressing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Displays fine in Chrome, too, but in any event I've hidden the deeply nested quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I de-nested the quotes, try it now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Smooth Operator,
The argument of how impossible it is to really know anything applies equally to both sides of an argument. Please waste no more time on it in this thread. If you have direct evidence against a position then present that. Every time I think it's safe for me to resume participation in this thread you do something crazy again. I'm not withdrawing from participation this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Smooth Operator,
I think some people have their own ideas about what constitutes reasonable argumentation, and convincing them that their arguments aren't reasonable is rarely possible. Making bald comparisons with things like how we know that the Rosetta stone wasn't carved with lasers or isn't just a rock someone dug up in their back yard and carved ancient characters into isn't reasonable in my view. If you think Nuggin is overstating his level of confidence in some viewpoint then argue the evidence with him. Other approaches in the science forums will just draw the attention of moderators like myself. Normally explaining what you think constitutes rational argument to someone who disagrees with you is a fruitless exercise, so I'm not going to try. But my goal is to have a website I can be proud of, and that means that when someone reads a thread in the science forums they more often say, "Now here's a well structured scientific discussion," rather than, "Why are they letting this ridiculous argument run on and on?" I've done my part by removing disruptive elements like Dr Adequate from this forum and by attempting to focus discussion on the topic. Now you do your part by bringing some scientific evidence and argumentation. Please, no replies to this message in this thread. Anyone who feels they are having problems in a discussion should post to Report discussion problems here: No.2. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Smooth Operator,
I'm surprised by this response. Have you checked your PM inbox lately, or is the Messaging link blinking every 10 seconds with a non-zero integer between parentheses? Please, no response in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
It appears to this moderator that Smooth Operator is not going to be drawn into rational discussion. Anyone object to this thread being closed down? I'll wait a couple days for responses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
RAZD writes: I would also ask that Smooth Operator be watched and reined in on other threads if he tries to take over another rational discussion with more of his non-science non-sense. Not to mention that most of his posts are extremely long and repeated ramblings that don't really address the issues. I explained to SO via PM that I had been keeping this thread open in the hope that he might at some point begin engaging in constructive discussion, and that his behavior here would govern the degree of his participation that is permitted in other discussions at EvC Forum. While I have been occasionally heartened at SO's positive response to my occasional moderator requests (for example, to respond to arguments instead of sentences), it's hard to overcome the habits of a lifetime and he has backslid each time. My understanding of how SO feels about this thread is that he thinks the discussion problems are due to deficits in everyone else's understanding. So I already share your thinking on this, and I expect it is the conclusion of many others here. Even taking the significant challenge of SO's peculiar style into account, I don't think the rest of us covered ourselves with any glory. It appeared to me that many of us were following a course that played right into SO's hands. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Smooth Operator writes: It's not my problem if others have problems with their logic. They can't even formulate simple arguments without making logical fallacies. Then I suggest you find a board where people make sense to you. Time for closing arguments, everyone. I'll leave this thread open a few more days and post occasional reminders that the discussion period in this thread is over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
The discussion period is over. Please do not reply to any message. Post only summations from here on.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024