quote:Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims? Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it? Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses? What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence? Were your assertions lies?
quote:Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?
For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):
claim (1) ... "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" ... This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (2) ... "This is a high level of confidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (3) ... "This is a ... theory" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (4) ... "and support the theory with plenty of evidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (5) ... "The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (6) ... "this is a strong theory" ... Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
Message 100: also "If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it? If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?"
Message 78: "If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?"
Message 77: "Are you ever going to ... (a) present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR (b) admit that you have no objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
Similar questions repeated in many many other posts, all asking for the evidence to support the assertions, all unanswered
(D) note that I've said I'll answer the questions once bluegenes provides the objective empirical evidence that supports his six (6) claims.
Note that I have asked for the evidence since "Now try the topic: can you defend your theory?" (Message 4), that it was recapped\repeated in Message 78 and I haven't seen any moderator step in to ask bluegenes "for the amusement of the peanut gallery" to answer these questions.
I think bringing this thread to a close, by demanding that bluegenes actually provide the "plentiful" objective empirical evidence he should have, and claimed he had, -- or to withdraw the claims -- would be a much more productive use of moderation.
There are some buried comments relating to other GD/s
Certainly many of the latest comments have little to do with the topic of that GD and would be better off in spin-off topics.
:: could there be a SPIN-OFF forum? open like coffee house topics but specifically linked to any particular post as the start, where someone wants to go in a different direction or subtopic in greater detail?
All future "Peanut Gallery" topics be specifically tied to an individual "Great Debate" topic.
I'd go further and say that posts on the PG should be linked to specific posts in the GD and only address points in those posts.
Certainly they should NOT make comments on the character of any of the GD participants or anything else that does not relate strictly to the GD topic, in a respectful manner (forum guidelines etc etc).
GD participants do not post to the PG.
Absolutely fully concur, otherwise the GD would just as well be in an open forum with full participation by any interested party.
It does not surprise me that bluegenes disagrees, as he frequently posts there, even after being asked not to, which amuses me as he originally requested the GD.
Certainly neither of the participants should be put in the position of defending their posts in both places.
GD participants can pull material from the PG, but only if such supports that participant's perspective (as always, source links are a good thing). A "Great Debate" participant is not to bring in and debate opposing perspectives from the PG.
OR to correct misinformation\misunderstanding or to clarify a position. It should be linked, but the comment should be general rather than directed at anyone.
Certainly they should NOT make comments on the character of any of the PG participants or anything else that does not relate strictly to the GD topic, in a respectful manner (forum guidelines etc etc).
What do you think? I think this could help both the PG and the GD.
Re: Some thoughts on my recent controversial admin actions
Hi Adminnemooseus, thanks for your thoughts.
Admin is not an easy task, it's like herding cats, with claws and hissyfits and all.
I've been intending to do a message by message commentary on the here messages relating to the Jar and Coyote forum restriction and the subsequent Jar suspension... but that's a lot of time, effort, and writing, at least as I operate.
The first area is that of legitimate science. That debate was completed a long time ago, and the science side won. ...
And it gets added to with each new discovery, each new piece of evidence that further substantiates the theories and conclusions of science, and the evidence and new conclusions that lead to new theories and new information. Science keeps building on past learning, but it never reaches absolute knowledge levels -- it is a method of approximating reality be eliminating falsified\contradicted concepts and by finding consilience(1) with current theories and conclusions in new evidence.
We gradually push away the clouds of ignorance to see reality with increasing clarity.
... Of course, the less than legitimate science side will disagree with that. That is where areas two and three come in.
There are also areas of concepts that science cannot deal with, or at least cannot deal with in the direct hard approach used in physical science - the "soft" sciences (like sociology) and the areas of philosophy and the study of theologies. Specifically areas where concepts cannot be supported by objective empirical evidence, but can only work with inferences at best, and assumptions at worst. The conclusions made in this area of thought do not have the degrees of confidence that we see in the "hard" sciences.
The second area is that of the general public, the "real world". There outbreaks of creationism happen, and it is the desire of the science side to come down on it HARD. The goal is to get the creationists to shut up and go away. This attitude naturally crosses over into the third area.
In this area outbreaks of ignorance happen, and it is the desire of progressive rational thinkers to come down on it HARD. The goal is to inform and educate the public and break the cycle/s of ignorance and false beliefs.
But there is another aspect here, that involves who comes down hard and who they come down hard on. These are the people with firmly fixed beliefs and opinions.
Personally, I think the forum should promote open-minded skepticism -- open to the possibilities of all concepts and tolerant of those who believe them, with respectful tolerant skepticism of beliefs that differ from their own, especially when neither opinion is supported by evidence nor invalidated.
This area of the general public also includes moderate theists, especially those that have no axe to grind with science. There are some militant atheists, for instance, that feel that they need to come down hard, even on these moderate people, attacking all theistic beliefs. Some apparently cannot let go, as if the feel they must win, they feel they need to convert everyone to their beliefs, and in this regard are no different from fundamental theists.
The wrangles these people get into, carrying their attacks into every thread the person they attack posts on, do disrupt threads and they make those threads less appealing to others who want to read and debate the topic. This is where my criticism comes in. I do not care that others do not believe what I believe - I am not trying to convert anyone - and I do not care if anyone is intolerant of my beliefs (as their intolerance is their problem, and it doesn't affect my beliefs in any way).
What do I care about, is taking my (or other peoples) name in vain, inserting strawman caricatures of my (their) positions as if they factually portrayed these position/s and belief/s, and turning the thread away from topic to one about my (or other people similarly attacked) person. I believe everyone knows where I am coming from on this, and also recognizes that I am not alone in being stalked this way.
We should not allow stalking of people from thread to thread. Instead the person that feels so committed to their beliefs that they feel they need to engage in this kind of behavior should be told to start a thread to discuss their concern, and if they cannot get their target to respond, to suck it up and let it go. See Holmes (Silent H) comments to crashfrog on the What the H - Holmes is back! thread.
The third area is that of the internet forum. In the case of evcforum.net, the goal is to have an ongoing discussion, day after day and year after year. The goal of the science side is NOT to get the creationists to shut up and go away (or is it?). If that is to be the goal (creationists shut up and go away), to succeed is to end the function of this forum (and have a lot of evo side people whining about not having any creationists to beat on).
In order to deal with ignorance and false beliefs in a continual and open way, it is necessary to have input of ignorant and false beliefs to discuss. By keeping the forum open and inviting to those who - willing or unwilling - believe in erroneous or outright false information (Like Bachman for instance), they will continue to provide input to discuss and debate, and to try to show them the errors of their ways, to wean them from the ignorance and false beliefs.
We have instances on this forum where this has actually happened, and this alone is justification for this forum and for participating in it.
Thus, to sustain the viability of evcforum.net, the admins need to strive to maintain a (hopefully healthy) creationist population - We don't want them to shut up and go away. Thus, the admins need to promote a kinder and gentler discourse. The creationist side is relatively few in number and also have the disadvantage of have reality on their opponents side. The creationist's difficult mission is to show that that reality, at least to some degree, is actually on the creationist side.
No, we don't want them to go away, we want to educate and inform them -- and the lurkers that don't participate in the debates -- about what science and the evidence of science tell us about reality, and we want to disabuse them of falsified beliefs. When they run away or are driven away, then we lose that opportunity.
The debate works, at least best, when driven by the creationist side input. The creationists make their point(s) and the evolution side does their efforts to show why the creationist side is wrong. And the evolutionist side needs to do such in that "kinder and gentler" fashion, least they drive the creationists away. This is why I really don't like topics that start of with something like "Hey creationists, how do you explain this?" Then it is the evolutionist side driving the debate, and that just doesn't work wel
I think it can be driven from both sides in a respectful manner. The pro-science side can debate the science aspects - showing how evolution works, showing the state of knowledge about the origins of life, showing how the evidence from geology and physics develop into high confidence levels regarding the age of the earth (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for instance, not to toot my own horn so much as to cite a thread that a lot of people have recommended to others; Jar's Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. thread is also a good example). These threads can be used in discussions with the 'under-informed' and often ill-equipped
Now, the debate includes the details and the big picture. The big picture is important, but maintaining topic structure and quality requires more of a focus on the details aspect. Even though "everything" may be to some degree relevant, permitting "everything" in any given topic just doesn't work.
And yet we have the Free For All and, to a lesser degree, Coffee House which are not moderated or moderated to a minimal degree. Some degree of anarchy can be a good thing.
Perhaps I am a little oversensitive on this issue, but it is a rather constant barrage from some quarters, and I honestly feel that such behavior (when not in jest) serves very little purpose. See Percy's comments to Straggler re nwr (ie it's not just me).
Only if "baggage" from another thread impacts directly on the issue should it be introduced (and properly linked and quoted).
Otherwise it just amounts to a campaign to discredit people for not believing the same things you do. In that regard it is not respectful of other members of the forum, and I feel it should be moderated to reduce the incidence/s.
Re: Does "stalking" accomplish anything related to the topics?
I guess I would say that actually trying to get a straight answer out of someone is ...
Even when you inject it into a new thread where it is unrelated to the topic? When you are more concerned with nailing someone than discussing the topic?
You don't just try to get a straight answer on a thread where it is the topic, you take it to extremes, posting it in unrelated threads and making disparaging comments. That is where the stalking comes in.
You can't keep to a topic because you are more interested in attacking people than the issues.
... trying to get a straight answer out of someone is at least as productive and respectful ...
And when you mock someone in the process you are not really asking them for help are you? Certainly you don't think mockery is respectful approach to getting an answer do you?
So you don't really want an answer with that kind of approach, you want to discredit them.
You do realize that your approach invites disrespect in return don't you?
... and respectful as replying to direct questions with a series of ever-changing but nicely formatted charts, and tables.
Thus, as predicted, even when you get an answer to your question you mock it. Of course YOUR position is always consistent and never-changing ...
Because you don't really want an answer with that kind of approach, you want to discredit them.
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out your own relentless proclivity to mischaracterise the arguments of others by translating what is said to you into pure IF THEN type deductive logical arguments.
That address the issue on the topic
But it's okay if you do it?
This is particularly inappropriate and arguably dishonest when your opponents have explicitly stated that they are NOT relying on such deductions (e.g. when they are applying inductive reasoning).
But it does address\discuss the issues rather than mock the person.
Inductive reasoning is your latest gambit to sound technical and scientific. Mix it in with a bunch of jumbled together scientific sounding words like "objectively detectable" and you can impress some people.
Inductive reasoning is guessing. Inductive reasoning gets you as far as an hypothesis in science, so if ALL you are using is inductive reasoning then all you are doing is posing hypothetical questions. If you claim to have a theory then you necessarily need to have moved from inductive guessing of the hypothesis to deduction and testing -- a theory is a tested hypothesis.
So do you want a venting session or do you want to get in a piss and dis fight with people or do you want to discuss topics .... you need to make up your mind Straggles.
Would not a creationist be able to pose a question that they want answered?
For instance: is macroevolution possible?
The task for the thread is to discuss ways to investigate questions related to YEC with science -- not to answer them (so people should not respond with answers but with ways to determine the answers).
... showing that leftists can't think ... ... standard leftist procedure just confirms the fact that leftists can't think. ... ... This leftist trope of PC accusations would end all civilized discourse ... ... Leftism slanders conservatives as a political tactic, destroying meaningful dialogue ... ... The left really truly cannot think these days, their minds are totally corrupted ...
All your ranting is designed to shut down opposing views rather than debate honestly. You whole "hate leftist" thread is designed to insult and denigrate people you don't agree with.