I wanted to highlight the words "supporting evidence" in quotes from both PaulK and Percy but don't know how to.
Whenever you want to know how to do something, find a message that does it and hit its peek button. That will open another window that displays the raw text, including all the dBCodes.
You can do it with this message. For example, there's bold, italics, and [u]underline[/u]. You can also change the color, though you need to be careful with your choice of colors, since some color combinations do not contrast well with each other and can be unduly difficult to read -- problems dealing with certain contrasts tend to get worse with age. You can also change font size. Play around with it, using the Preview button to test your changes before actually posting the message. And, as I said, use the peek button to see what the codes look like.
The basic concept of those codes is almost exactly the same as with HTML, except these use square brackets ( ) instead of "angle brackets" ( < > ). Also, some dBCodes do not seem to play well together. In such cases, you can use HTML; that is a forum feature that I haven't seen elsewhere yet and it can be very useful indeed. Though when I use it to display a table, for some reason it seems to pad a lot of space before the table that an admin then has to come along to fix.
Here's an added treat, some same formatting code someone posted once. It's embedded between two "horizontal rules" produced by HTML HR tags:
question | is there sufficient valid information available to decide | | yes no | | decide based is a on empirical decision valid evidence necessary? (A) / \ yes no / \ decide why based on decide inadequate at this evidence time? =guess =wait (B) (C)
Ah DC85, you forget,
why does a creator define your truths? Your questions do not make sense until you answer this... Please explain
Isn't that cool? Just use the peek button to see how it's done.
Also, for displaying a link to a particular message, go to that message and look at the gray number in parentheses immediately to the right of the Message ### of ### at the top of the message. For a topic ID, I usually pull that number out of the URL/URI.
Atheists and anti creationists get to define what is and what isn't evidence around here. I think every claim that something has supporting evidence should be supported with reasoning for the claim. You people are going to go around and around in circles with creationists because of your false paradigm concerning how important "evidence" is when discussing issues. "Evidence" doesn't stop you guys when you talk about all the matter and energy of the universe just popping into existence. You just assume its true because no one has been able to come up with an alternative explanation that has its own "evidence" and evidence that meets your definition as well.
Well, science is based on evidence and working with the evidence. If a creationist wants to claim to be doing science or to be talking about science, then it is perfectly right and proper to get that creationist to present evidence and be ready to discuss it. For example, if someone were to try to engage you in talking about what the Bible says, wouldn't you expect him to be able to quote from the Bible in order to support his claims? Why expect anything less of a creationist making claims about scientific evidence?
Along with evidence is working with that evidence, figuring out what it means. That is where we build hypotheses and test them and refine them and then eventually we bundle together hypotheses into a model of how something works, which we call a theory. This should be old-hat for you, since I would have expected some of your classes to have covered the scientific method.
Also, when you require a complete explanation, be aware of what will entail. In The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage, then-new PhD Astronomy Cliff Stoll described how, working in the UC Berkeley computer center, he discovered a break-in into their system and how he and the NSA tracked it back to a German hacker spying for the Soviet Union. I recommend the book highly as an enjoyable read -- NOVA did an episode about his adventures which I once found on YouTube. In it, he described his final oral exams for his PhD. The examiner asked him, "Why is the sky blue?" As I recall, it took Stoll four hours to completely answer that question.
Similarly, if you were to ask why 2+2 is 4, then you would need to wait until you have learned number theory, an upper-division or graduate-level class in mathematics. You need to have had advanced training in mathematics to understand how and why addition and the other arithmetic operations work.
Another example, I could take you through how a computer's CPU works, but it would not be practical. Not only would you need to know and understand digital electronics (one of the simplest forms of electronics) and Boolean Algebra, but you would need to be ready and willing to spend many hours with me chasing sparks through several tens of pages of logic diagrams. It can be done, but within the context of this forum it would not be practical.
In the meantime, there is a discipline called "philosophy of science", which examines how science works and should work. Possibly an area to read up on.
Don't mean I still won't be suspended or even banned soon. But I won't give up until I am.
Well, since that is your goal, I'm sure that you will eventually achieve it. Not because of the quality of moderation on this forum, but because that is your explicitly stated explicit goal: to force the moderators on this forum to suspend and ban you.
And since that is explicitly what you want to have happen, then the fault of said banning will be entirely yours, not the moderators'.
BTW, as opposed to "good Christian" sites, you will really have to work hard to get banned from here.