Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 2:43 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, candle2, DrJones*, Hyroglyphx, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo (8 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,149 Year: 9,185/19,786 Month: 1,607/2,119 Week: 367/576 Day: 42/128 Hour: 4/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Author Topic:   Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 355 (618426)
06-03-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Panda
06-03-2011 8:58 AM


Re: Does Bias Render This Board Irrelevant.
Panda writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Regarding behavior, it is anathema on nearly all boards for moderators to debate on behalf of their own ideological positions in threads they are debating in as Admin and AdminPD have done on this board, both in the science forum and the Coffee House Forum as I have cited.


I would ask for evidence of this, but I realise that I would be wasting my time.
You would probably just point at a mountain while stuttering "But...but...but...".

Mountain? What about all of the other corroborated evidence cited? The bully pulpet majority Admin and opponents of the minority constituency hone in on the most indirect evidence so as to divide and conquer bogging the thread down so as to distract from and obfuscate the minority opponent's paradigm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Panda, posted 06-03-2011 8:58 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by jar, posted 06-03-2011 10:32 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 320 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2011 10:57 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 317 of 355 (618429)
06-03-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Buzsaw
06-03-2011 10:28 AM


Looking for corroborated evidence.
Buz writes:

What about all of the other corroborated evidence cited?

Please provide a link to even ONE corroborated piece of evidence?

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Buzsaw, posted 06-03-2011 10:28 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 318 of 355 (618430)
06-03-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by cavediver
06-03-2011 10:00 AM


Re: Does Bias Render This Board Irrelevant.
cavediver writes:

The consensus of my opponents boiled down to, the property of space to expand is that space expands.

Really, Buzz? That is the level of explanation you were offered? Were you that blind to my posts, or is it just Lie-for-Jesus-June?

Who is blind to who's post is relevant to who's PoV perspective is being alleged.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by cavediver, posted 06-03-2011 10:00 AM cavediver has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1623 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 319 of 355 (618433)
06-03-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Buzsaw
06-03-2011 8:38 AM


Where in the Coffee House
quote:
Regarding behavior, it is anathema on nearly all boards for moderators to debate on behalf of their own ideological positions in threads they are debating in as Admin and AdminPD have done on this board, both in the science forum and the Coffee House Forum as I have cited.
What thread are you talking out specifically? I looked at the what I've done as AdminPD back to 2007 and I don't see anything related to you in the Coffee House.

I'm also having difficulty finding anything where we've discussed the Roman Catholic Church.

Would you please provide a link to the offending thread?

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Buzsaw, posted 06-03-2011 8:38 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Buzsaw, posted 06-03-2011 1:37 PM purpledawn has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 355 (618438)
06-03-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Buzsaw
06-03-2011 10:28 AM


Re: Does Bias Render This Board Irrelevant.
What about all of the other corroborated evidence cited?

quote:
You're doing it wrong, Buz.

Providing evidence for an event is not taking a story from the Bible, and then looking for pieces of evidence that would fit within that story if it were true.

You have to start with the evidence, and then show how it leads to a conclusion of the event happening.

Finding a chariot wheel in the sea isn't really corroborative evidence of the story from the Bible if it simply doesn't contadict it and happens to be lying in the spot you'd expect it to. You need to eliminate the possibility of coincidence for it to be evidence pointing to the event. Message 279


quote:
The correct way to use your evidence would be to observe the charriot wheels, columns, tracks, landing zone, whatever, and then use that to conclude that they were from an event during the Exodus by eliminating other possibilities until we're left with that one.

The wrong way to do it is to take the story of the Exodus, and then use the charriot wheels, columns, tracks, landing zone, whatever as pieces of evidence that do not contradict the story, but also could possibly be from the event discribed in the story.

If you're not eliminating other possibilities, like it being some mundane wheel that had nothing to do with the Exodus, then your conclusion isn't following from the evidence, its just a post hoc rationalization of some neat stuff you've seen. Message 283



This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Buzsaw, posted 06-03-2011 10:28 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 321 of 355 (618445)
06-03-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Meddle
06-03-2011 10:08 AM


malcolm,

My very first posting ever on this website was a topic I started where I asked:

I read recently where an editor of Discovery Magazine stated that Darwin provided a testable mechanism for evolutionary change, and as such it has stood up to the rigors of such testing.

I am not so sure that this is true. Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world?

As I questioned whether or not NS was really as tested and verified as claimed, I of course brought up the mechanisms which make NS work (random mutations). I then had to spend the next 100 or so posts listening to posters telling me that I couldn't discuss the mechanisms of NS because when I asked the original question in my OP they didn't understand that when I said Darwinian evolution I was not talking about Lamarkian evolution, or babels evolution or some kind of UFO ray controlled evolution. Apparently discussions of natural selection had to be limited to "some animals die and some don't" because without the variation of random mutations that is all NS is. And the Admin sided with all those crazies who said I was off topic for bringing variation into the discussion.

So next I proposed a thread titled "What are the merits and shortcomings of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?" This thread was denied because it was too broad to talk about, on an evolution vs. creation website. I was getting a pretty good idea early on that something was amiss with this board but I persisted.

I then proposed a thread called "New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet", because I felt that all anyone could ever come up with to discuss evolution was changes in bacteria eating habits or drug resistance. Since I don't feel this type of evidence does much to show the emergence of novel new body structures, not only in simple organisms, much less in complex organisms-so I wanted to discuss more sophisticated evidence. Percy began the discussion right away by saying it was a weak topic that probably should never be promoted.

I was then subjected to listening to an onslaught of posters moan about why bacterial evidence should be ignored! Along with that, your side then proceeded to talk endlessly about fossil records, and attempted to say that the fossil records are great evidence for Darwinian evolution. For some reason my explanation that fossils are possible evidence of ancestry or relationships but not of the mechanisms of how they came to be. After going around and around I got this from Percy:

Naturally I am not a participant in this discussion, but this thread is at a familiar impasse, so I thought it might help to briefly characterize the situation as I see it.

Evolutionists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection that we observe at work in the world today are sufficient to produce the observed diversity of species found in the both today and in the fossil record, but they do not have the kind of direct evidence of what happened in the past that creationists might find convincing.

Creationists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection, though real, are insufficient to produce the aforementioned diversity, but they cannot point to other observable processes or mechanisms that might have been responsible.

This was Percy's "impartial" assistance to the thread, wearing his admin hat.

cont'd

Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Meddle, posted 06-03-2011 10:08 AM Meddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Taq, posted 06-03-2011 11:17 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 332 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2011 12:46 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 322 of 355 (618449)
06-03-2011 11:15 AM


so I replied to percy (admin)

But the point of this thread is not just what evolutionists BELIEVE these mechanisms can do, the point is what they can actually show with evidence what these mechanisms can do. And so far, despite all of the repeated contentions that there is lots of evidence aside from the bacteria diet kind, there seems to only be talk of this evidence, not evidence of this evidence.

I believe if all of these people are allowed to SAY that they have presented evidence here, it is not asking to much for them to just number and list those evidences so we can be clear what evidence they are talking about. You can not say that the fossil record is evidence for the mechanisms of common ancestry. They are only evidence for the possibility of the common ancestry, not the mechanisms.

So, as moderator, and in accordance with the forum guidelines, please ask them to spell out their evidence clearly, by number, or stop just saying they have given evidence without saying what evidence. If they can only give bacterial evidence then my opening premise still stands. The name for the Theory of Evolution should be changed to the bacteria diet theory.

Now this was met with quite a strong rejection from percy-you know the one that promised he would never stand in the way of anyone asking for evidence. he said I wasn't co-operating, yet he refused to point out what any of this supposed evidence that everyone was saying they presented was.

At this point I had already seen quite a bit about how things get handled around here. So if your comment to me malcolm is to start an appropriate thread to talk about the evidence of the ToE, my response to you would be, I would, if the normal rules of English and sanity applied here.


Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Taq, posted 06-03-2011 11:19 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 325 by Percy, posted 06-03-2011 11:57 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7895
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 323 of 355 (618450)
06-03-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 11:08 AM


As I questioned whether or not NS was really as tested and verified as claimed, I of course brought up the mechanisms which make NS work (random mutations).

We could discuss why NS does not require a single mutation in another thread if you promise to participate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 11:08 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 11:59 AM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7895
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 324 of 355 (618451)
06-03-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 11:15 AM


At this point I had already seen quite a bit about how things get handled around here. So if your comment to me malcolm is to start an appropriate thread to talk about the evidence of the ToE, my response to you would be, I would, if the normal rules of English and sanity applied here.

So you ask for evidence, but then turn around and refuse to discuss it. In my eyes, this is not an honest way to approach a discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 11:15 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 325 of 355 (618460)
06-03-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 11:15 AM


The reply from me that you're referring to is Message 74.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 11:15 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by cavediver, posted 06-03-2011 12:35 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 326 of 355 (618462)
06-03-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Taq
06-03-2011 11:17 AM


Even if free discussion was allowed here (I mean in that other parallel universe where anything is possible), natural selection is not even a thing, so there is nothing to show. Natural selection is an adjective, like quickness, or funny, that people have mangled so badly as to make others believe its a real thing, and not just a description of one aspect of death. Its like attributing a cause and effect to surrealism or ambiguity. Its nonsensical. These are just descriptions of an observation.

Variation-supposedly in the form of mutations- is really the only thing evolution has. Wrap your mind around that if you can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Taq, posted 06-03-2011 11:17 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Taq, posted 06-03-2011 12:08 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 328 by Panda, posted 06-03-2011 12:19 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 345 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2011 7:26 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7895
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 327 of 355 (618463)
06-03-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 11:59 AM


Even if free discussion was allowed here (I mean in that other parallel universe where anything is possible), natural selection is not even a thing, so there is nothing to show. Natural selection is an adjective, like quickness, or funny, that people have mangled so badly as to make others believe its a real thing, and not just a description of one aspect of death. Its like attributing a cause and effect to surrealism or ambiguity. Its nonsensical. These are just descriptions of an observation.

Variation-supposedly in the form of mutations- is really the only thing evolution has. Wrap your mind around that if you can.

We could discuss all of this in another thread, or even in a one on one discussion if that would suit you better. You could even decide how the thread will be moderated, and by who (slevesque would be a good pick for you if he is willing to be moderator). Does this interest you at all?

Edited by Admin, : Fix quoted text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 11:59 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1878 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 328 of 355 (618466)
06-03-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 11:59 AM


Bolder-dash writes:

Natural selection is an adjective


natural selection
Noun: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

And even if it wasn't a noun, it would be an adverb/verb pairing.

Being correct is not your forte...

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 11:59 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 12:36 PM Panda has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1809 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 329 of 355 (618472)
06-03-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Percy
06-03-2011 11:57 AM


The reply from me that you're referring to is Message 74.

A very interesting thread... I've just been reading through. Here are Taq's own posts - all eight of them - and you link to BD's three replies from there. I think it gives a good flavour of how much real debate BD is really interested in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Percy, posted 06-03-2011 11:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 12:38 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 330 of 355 (618473)
06-03-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Panda
06-03-2011 12:19 PM


Its a description of an observation, which dupes like you repeated often enough to make it become a noun. Do you know that OMG and 'muffin top" are words now too?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Panda, posted 06-03-2011 12:19 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Panda, posted 06-03-2011 12:46 PM Bolder-dash has responded

RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019