Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 136 of 312 (426987)
10-09-2007 12:10 PM


Biblical and Religious Beliefs in the Science Threads
As I recently stated in the admin forum, introducing Biblical or religious ideas in the science threads is fine as long as they're accompanied by scientific evidence. But absent any evidence there's nothing to discuss or rebut except the Bible and religion, which would make it a religious discussion and therefore inappropriate for the science forums.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 137 of 312 (427023)
10-09-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Buzsaw
10-09-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
quote:
1. Paul, the moderation forum is not for debating who's logic, reason and evidence is credible. In order to determine that conclusively one must address the specific evidence, science, logic and reason in question posted within the debate thread itself as to who has substantially refuted who.
I'm not debating it. I'm agreeing with you. The case for the Flood depends on a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, just as you said.
quote:
2. If the side of the debate which espouses the Biblical record regarding the flood is disallowed from debate on the Biblical flood, who's to be debated in the thread?
You're not "disallowed". You're admitting defeat and running away from the science fora, being unable to support your views without relying on Biblical authority.
quote:
3. What do you propose, one sided discussion in the geology/flood science thread, moving the thread to Faith and Belief or some other solution to the problem at hand?
I didn't oppose that. Although any creationists who want to claim that the Flood is scientifically supportable ought to. I simply point out your admission of defeat, the tension between it and your statements of only a few days ago - and a warning that moving to Faith and Belief will be less help than you might think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2007 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 138 of 312 (427067)
10-09-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Buzsaw
10-09-2007 9:59 AM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
Hi Buz,
It was addressing a problem as to whether Bible-creos should be allowed to refer to the Bible as record according to our flood/canopy ideology...
I almost never debate flood geology, simply because I don't have the necessary geology background to make it stick (this does not hold true for some of the peripheral issues, such as biogeography, in which I do). However, I'd like to point out that you may be misunderstanding something here. Anyone will accept creo use of the Bible as a valid historical record IF and only IF there is corroborating external evidence to support that use. In other words, there has to be some physical evidence produced that indicates the historical reliability of the book. This works, btw, for any other document, paper or indeed book that anyone - creo or not - introduces as support for their respective positions. IOW, you can't enter into evidence something that is asserted to be factual without showing evidence that it really is. Regardless of whether you personally think the Bible is accurate, no one else will without some corroboration. Feel free to use the Bible in a science thread. Just be prepared to show how the book is externally validated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2007 9:59 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2007 10:06 PM Quetzal has replied

The Matt
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 139 of 312 (427207)
10-10-2007 12:14 PM


getting off topic.
I don't know if this is the right thread for reporting such things, but the thread Geological timescale and the flood seems to be getting pretty off topic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2007 2:31 AM The Matt has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 140 of 312 (427319)
10-11-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by The Matt
10-10-2007 12:14 PM


Re: getting off topic.
there is a high degree of correlation between threads that simple posts in, and threads currently active and hopelessly off-topic.
the "circle of the earth" thread is also pretty far off topic too. not to mention completely broken. do have a thread for "broken topics?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by The Matt, posted 10-10-2007 12:14 PM The Matt has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 312 (429249)
10-18-2007 10:46 PM


WTF, moose?
Moose, in this post that you complained to me about going off topic, did you perhaps fail to notice that I suggested that ILG start a new thread, and again later suggest he join an existing thread?

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-18-2007 11:08 PM nator has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 142 of 312 (429253)
10-18-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by nator
10-18-2007 10:46 PM


Re: WTF, moose?
...did you perhaps fail to notice that I suggested that ILG start a new thread, and again later suggest he join an existing thread?
And I thank you.
I still think that it be best that there be no responses to your message as it is largely a continuation of off-topic theme(s).
In general, when an admin posts a moderator message it may well be a rush job based on a quick observation and a limited consideration. Such may or may not prove out to be wrong. But to have any possible useful effect (affect?) something needs to be done ASAP. The alternative is a short term topic closure where all parties can leisurely consider what has happened, prior to the topic moving on.
And yes, moderation efforts are highly erratic, highly "hit and miss". The choice is, try to put a dent in problems here and there, or give up on doing moderation all together?
Or something like that.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 10-18-2007 10:46 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2007 2:00 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 143 of 312 (429351)
10-19-2007 12:29 PM


You can take your silly little debate rules and cram them up your ass, cop.
Message 40
Would an admin please step in and have a word with CatholicScientist?

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 144 of 312 (429371)
10-19-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Adminnemooseus
10-18-2007 11:08 PM


Re: WTF, moose?
Adminnemooseus writes:
In general, when an admin posts a moderator message it may well be a rush job based on a quick observation and a limited consideration. Such may or may not prove out to be wrong. But to have any possible useful effect (affect?) something needs to be done ASAP.
Effect.
Though I suppose a forum member could have a useful affect.
ASAP action probably wouldn't have any effect on that, though.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-18-2007 11:08 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 312 (429441)
10-19-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Quetzal
10-09-2007 3:59 PM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
Quetzel writes:
Feel free to use the Bible in a science thread. Just be prepared to show how the book is externally validated.
My statement to which you responded pertained to speech perse and not to actual usage of the Bible as evidence. Creationists have been critiqued for verbally alluding to the Bible as a historical record in some of our messages since there is historical information in it.
It's not about claiming infalibility. What historical info can be shown to be true is debatable. Nevertheless we consider it to be what we often refer to as the Biblical record or the Biblical historical record since many of the major historical events from Genesis leading up to the birth of Jesus are referenced in it, including geneologies of messianic forebears.
We also reference corroborating evidence relative to lending credibility to the record.
I don't refer to the Biblical record as evidence. Rather I sometimes refer to it as a Biblical historical record in debates about events in it because I personally regard it as such. I am not trying to argue that secularists should regard it as such. We all have our opinions about what is credible and what is not. That is what EvC ideological debate is all about.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Quetzal, posted 10-09-2007 3:59 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2007 9:33 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 147 by Quetzal, posted 10-20-2007 10:15 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 10-20-2007 12:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 312 (429473)
10-20-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Buzsaw
10-19-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
So basically you are saying that you want to CALL it history solely because that is your opinion - not as any attempt to suggest that it is true ?
I think that is a bit dubious - but so long as you don't mind it ALSO being referred to as a myth and you DON'T try to use the alleged historicity of it as an argument even implicitly it should be OK. Provided of course you get it right and don't, for instance, try to pretend that the YEC "vapor canopy" is in the Bible - as you have done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2007 10:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2007 10:31 PM PaulK has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 147 of 312 (429476)
10-20-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Buzsaw
10-19-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
Hey Buz,
It's not about claiming infalibility. What historical info can be shown to be true is debatable. Nevertheless we consider it to be what we often refer to as the Biblical record or the Biblical historical record since many of the major historical events from Genesis leading up to the birth of Jesus are referenced in it, including geneologies of messianic forebears.
Right. I understand how my opposite numbers attempt to use the Bible in this context. However, you neglected to address my main point, to wit: it is completely reasonable to use the Bible as a reference in any thread, as long as the claims are externally verifiable. IOW, you can't use the Bible (or your faith in same) to verify claims in the Bible. If, just as a for instance, you use the Bible as a reference for a global Flud, you must produce external evidence that there was such a Flud (for example, correlation between putative flood-type deposition from around the world - a "flood layer" that anyone can see). Other historical claims (such as whether or not there was an Exodus), would also need to be externally validated from non-Biblical records of the same time period. When such evidence is produced - depending on quality, of course - then I for one have absolutely no problem with someone using the Bible as an additional reference to support their claims.
Using faith in the Bible to support the claims of the Bible is simply circular, and hence invalid. That is where the Bible-believers get into trouble on science threads. They (in general) seem to fail to realize that someone who does not take the Bible as infallible history won't accept claims contained therein without some solid external corroboration.
This discussion is concluded. Do Not Respond.
See Message 152.
--AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2007 10:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2007 10:24 PM Quetzal has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 312 (429497)
10-20-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Buzsaw
10-19-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
If I could reemphasize Quetzal's point, science attempts to find out what is objectively true about the universe. Objective means that the evidence says the same thing to people of all races and religions. You can't offer evidence acceptable only to people of a particular religious belief. Evidence with that particular quality is not evidence but faith.
It is therefore completely unscientific to accept something as true without corroboration. The theories in science in which we have the greatest confidence are those with the greatest corroboration, i.e., those that are woven most tightly into the fabric of science.
There is no scientific evidence corroborating the interpretations of the creation stories in the Bible. Notice that I said "interpretations", because this lack of corroborating evidence makes it possible for fundamentalists to endorse many different interpretations. Walt Brown interprets the Bible to say the universe is billions of years old, while Ken Ham interprets the Bible to say the universe is at most 10,000 years old. ICR interprets the Bible in such a way that they conclude there was a vapor canopy, while the Discovery Institute interprets the Bible to endorse intelligent design. In other words, if one is ignoring real-world evidence, one can draw whatever conclusions one likes, but they'll all be different conclusions, and they won't have any correspondence to reality.
--Percy
This discussion is concluded. Do Not Respond.
See Message 152.
--AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2007 10:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 312 (429587)
10-20-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Quetzal
10-20-2007 10:15 AM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
Quetzel writes:
Using faith in the Bible to support the claims of the Bible is simply circular, and hence invalid. That is where the Bible-believers get into trouble on science threads.
Using faith in the Bible to support claims of the Bible is not what I do or what I am positing. We all know that any debate about the Genesis flood comes from the Biblical record. All I am asking is that Biblicalist members be allowed to refer to the Bible as a historical record in our speech. That has nothing to do with support or evidence It is simply how we describe the alleged historical flood and/or Exodus event. Debate relative to our position is about debating evidence which is brought forth in the debates. For example, the evidence debated in the Exodus was such things as the scientific research and photography of Dr Lennart Moller and the physical evidences which were cited in the region such as the topography of the beach area, the inscriptions, unusual split rock with dried up waterway, burnt top mountain, etc. How can you construe all this as supporting the Biblical record with the record itself perse, implying that we offer no physical evidence?
The OT is every bit as much about alleged history than about faith. The debates are about falsification and/or support as to the credibility of that historical record. Until imperically falsified, the debate goes on. Why should this debate board forbid Biblicalist members from referring this book to what to what we claim it to be, a historical record. That is not to say that anyone should necessarily consider any historical record to be totally accurate. For that matter many believe that a lot of modern history has been revisionist distorted accounts designed to be politically correct. That is debatable, but nevertheless some would still regard it as an inaccurate distorted historical record just as you think
Edited by Buzsaw, : clarification

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Quetzal, posted 10-20-2007 10:15 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Quetzal, posted 10-22-2007 8:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 312 (429589)
10-20-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
10-20-2007 9:33 AM


Re: Geology & The Great Flood Admin Moderation
PaulK writes:
So basically you are saying that you want to CALL it history solely because that is your opinion - not as any attempt to suggest that it is true ?
Where did you get that silly notion from? It is demeaning without evidence or support.
This discussion is concluded. Do Not Respond.
See Message 152.
--AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2007 9:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2007 4:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024