Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,526 Year: 18,562/19,786 Month: 982/1,705 Week: 234/518 Day: 58/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 3 of 1043 (594277)
12-02-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
12-02-2010 9:14 PM


Very few problems with moderation.

Exceptions:

--Sometimes mods are a bit quick, or unsubtle, on the off-topic and ban buttons.

--Frequent threats of banning are very off-putting.

Edited by AdminPD, : Subtitle N/A


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-02-2010 9:14 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 37 of 1043 (595372)
12-08-2010 9:24 AM


Off-Topic
What are we doing with threads on wikileaks and Obama?

Those are so far off-topic for this board that they should be dumped!


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Panda, posted 12-08-2010 9:48 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 99 of 1043 (608874)
03-14-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Omnivorous
03-14-2011 8:13 PM


Re: Hey idiots
Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1974.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 8:13 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Omnivorous, posted 03-14-2011 10:31 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 181 of 1043 (629607)
08-18-2011 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by fearandloathing
08-18-2011 6:21 PM


Re: Moose said
Thank you to everyone for their support.

And thanks also to Moose for reconsidering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by fearandloathing, posted 08-18-2011 6:21 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Buzsaw, posted 08-18-2011 11:15 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(9)
Message 207 of 1043 (631588)
09-01-2011 8:46 PM


Moderation problems
Moose, your moderation is getting increasingly erratic.

This is becoming a serious problem for this forum, and for me. I have some idea what I'm talking about as I've been a mod on another forum for over three years.

I don't believe my posts in the Potential Evidence for a Global Flood thread warranted removal from that entire topic, especially as that is one area I, as an archaeologist, have direct experience with. My own research disproves the claim of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. That is why it is necessary to pin down the approximate time of the claimed flood, else there can be no productive discussion.


Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 8:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 209 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 10:59 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 217 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-02-2011 10:14 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 210 of 1043 (631616)
09-02-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Adminnemooseus
09-01-2011 10:59 PM


Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
But for the sake of having a debate on some aspect of "floodism" and/or "flood geology", we need to set such a thing aside.

As I see it, the Biblical "one year flood" is a consideration in that debate. That it Biblically supposedly happened somewhere in the last 5000 years is not a relevant issue.

Here is where we disagree.

"Flood geology" is an incorrect term as well as an unsupported claim.

This is what I have been trying to point out -- if the flood occurred during historic times, at the times given by biblical scholars, we are not dealing with geology! We are dealing with soils and both sedimentology and archaeology. The Cambrian explosion, K-T boundary and all the rest of those ancient claims are out, and recent archaeological deposits are in. Archaeological deposits are what I deal with on a daily basis. We deal with bones, not fossils, and sediments, not geological layers.

This makes a vast difference in the debate, and the evidence presented. If we have a free-floating time period for the global flood, we have a non-productive debate. Anything can be brought in as a justification for a global flood, even events separated by 500 million years! To have a productive debate we need to agree upon a time period and deal with the evidence pertaining to just that time period.

The biblical scholars whom I cited agree on something close to 4,350 years ago. That is a relevant issue, and indeed a critical issue. That time period eliminates fossils and a lot of other issues brought up by YEC creationists. It requires archaeological data, which I am able to cite--some coming from my own excavations and research.

So far I have not seen YEC arguments which refute my arguments, probably because the main creationists websites have yet to address those arguments. But the time period during which the purported global flood occurred is absolutely critical to this entire line of debate. If you disallow evidence for a recent global flood, all of archaeology is disallowed, even though this is clearly the most pertinent evidence. And then the date of the global flood can span 500 million to a billion years, with the usual pick and choose snippets passed off as evidence.

So again, I disagree with your decision to disallow discussion of a recent time period for the purported global flood. I think this issue is absolutely critical to any productive discussion, as it brings necessary focus to the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2011 10:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 385 of 1043 (648612)
01-16-2012 11:34 PM


I too feel Moose was treated unfairly.

Of course I don't know all the details, particularly those behind the scenes.

But I miss the old bugger!


  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 412 of 1043 (648860)
01-18-2012 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Buzsaw
01-18-2012 9:53 PM


Re: Bonafide Trolls
One peon high school graduate holding at bay a pack of science higher educated counterparts for 30 plus thread pages can't be all that ignorant.

If you think you are winning these threads you are incorrect.

The majority of members voted Buzsaw back in science whether or not they agree. So you think they want an arrogant ignoramus back in their science forums to debate on science topics?

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy the challenge. And of the creationists you are among the very few who can construct a sentence in the English language. You have shown, however, that you have no concept of science or how it works. I'm beginning to wonder if you are even qualified to read a science book.

How many fundi creationists would last here in this hostile debate board for eight plus years debating on behalf of ID and creationism?

Without learning anything? Only a "fundi creationist" with a completely closed mind. Nothing penetrates, not data, not logic, not reasoning, not theory, and not repetition.

This makes me wonder what kind of a deity it is that would value deliberate and willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Edited by AdminModulous, : offtopic content hidden. AdminModulous


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2012 9:53 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 435 of 1043 (663042)
05-20-2012 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Bolder-dash
05-20-2012 10:14 PM


Re: Don't be naive
Is any serious debater going to want to come on here on discuss the issues.

In science the primary debate is conducted in peer-reviewed journals.

As elsewhere in science, those journals require that one follows the scientific method and provides evidence.

Have a problem with that?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-20-2012 10:14 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-20-2012 10:32 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 439 of 1043 (663049)
05-20-2012 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Bolder-dash
05-20-2012 10:32 PM


Re: Don't be naive
I won't debate you here, because I now know this isn't a debate site, its a propaganda site. But thank you for confirming the notion that you don't want it debated either. I think one of the main reasons why your side doesn't want to debate it is precisely because they lack the evidence, so every time they debate it, they become stuck trying to hide from that fact.

Here are a few of the journals in which the evolution debate is carried out:

American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics

And here are the articles appearing in the April issue of American Journal of Physical Anthropology. This journal appears monthly.

  • New craniodental material of Pronothodectes gaoi Fox (Mammalia, “Plesiadapiformes”) and relationships among members of Plesiadapidae (pages 511–550)
  • Dental microwear texture and anthropoid diets (pages 551–579)
  • Gait selection and the ontogeny of quadrupedal walking in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis) (pages 580–592)
  • Craniodental features in male Mandrillus may signal size and fitness: An allometric approach (pages 593–603)
  • Early pleistocene human humeri from the gran dolina-TD6 site (sierra de atapuerca, spain) (pages 604–617)
  • The relationship between musculoskeletal stress markers and biomechanical properties of the humeral diaphysis (pages 618–628)
  • Skeletal development in Pan paniscus with comparisons to Pan troglodytes (pages 629–636)
  • Incremental enamel development in modern human deciduous anterior teeth (pages 637–651)
  • Fitness-related benefits of dominance in primates (pages 652–660)
  • Sexual dimorphism in skeletal browridge and chin morphologies determined using a new quantitative method (pages 661–670)

So where is the lack of evidence you claim?

I would put scientific evidence up against the vacuous nonsense that you post any time.

-----------

I realize this is off topic here. No further responses will be made on this thread.

Edited by Coyote, : Off topic note


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-20-2012 10:32 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-20-2012 11:32 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 505 of 1043 (663474)
05-25-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by foreveryoung
05-25-2012 12:39 AM


Time for a time out?
Your increasingly harsh posts are not doing you or your cause any good.

Maybe take a break soon and go take a long walk in the hills or something? That can be quite soothing after a few miles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by foreveryoung, posted 05-25-2012 12:39 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(8)
Message 682 of 1043 (691857)
02-25-2013 6:52 PM


Excessive
Onifre, 1 week (Message 191)

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by Rahvin, posted 02-25-2013 7:31 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 684 by ProtoTypical, posted 02-25-2013 8:00 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 689 by onifre, posted 02-27-2013 7:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 708 of 1043 (693557)
03-17-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by Bolder-dash
03-17-2013 9:23 PM


If you'd quit complaining about moderation and come up with some evidence for your nutty claims, maybe you'd do better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Bolder-dash, posted 03-17-2013 9:23 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Bolder-dash, posted 03-17-2013 10:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 728 of 1043 (729776)
06-18-2014 11:59 PM


Re: the flood thread
Message 71

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I'm here all week.

(Try the veal.)

Seriously, nonsense should be confronted where ever it appears. The "global flood" has been disproved for 200 years. Efforts to support it with pseudo-science should not be encouraged except for purposes of amusement.


Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-19-2014 12:15 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 739 of 1043 (733819)
07-21-2014 11:00 PM


Minnemooseus--

Your points are well-taken. Certainly we all should be friendlier.

And Faith, as part of the "loyal opposition" is a necessary part of this forum.

But Faith needs to meet us somewhere close to halfway.

Particularly, refusing to accept scientific evidence and the scientific method while claiming to be doing science gets old after a while.

If Faith claimed a miracle, that would be one thing, but the consistent errors, misrepresentation, and flat-out disregard of established scientific evidence--all in an attempt to twist that evidence to her liking--gets annoying after a few years.

Scientists strive for accuracy, and there is quite a stigma for being wrong. That is how many of us here are trained. I've certainly seen harsher comments than those here at scientific meetings. Given this, I think Faith is fortunate we've as polite as we have.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by ringo, posted 07-22-2014 12:12 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019