Thread Reopen Requests 2

The last two pages degenerated, which is why Adminnemooseus closed it. There were multiple contributors to the degeneration, for an example of your own see Message 148. I'll reopen the thread, but I leave it to you to keep the thread focused on arguments from evidence rather than from incredulity and ridicule, otherwise the thread will soon be closed again.For future reference, threads with titles that include words like "idiot" might do well at attracting participants, but not necessarily the serious ones you might like, and like a red car on the highway they tend to attract the attention of moderators, too. You might consider changing the title to something like, "Why is the Intelligent Designer Inept?"

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thank you - points taken on board...

Could this thread be reopened, I'll promise, I'll behave Thread and closing message found here : http://EvC Forum: Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government -->EvC Forum: Expectations For The New Obama Democrat GovernmentNosy was correct in shutting it down, but I would like to ask for the opportunity to reply to Bertot.Thanks in advance!

---

I hunt for the truth

Done. Sorry for forgetting about it.

Hi
Could the recently closed deism thread be re-opened? Message 1For the first time (that I have seen anyway) we have a highly competent and scientifically minded debator (RAZD) arguing the case for the existence of god/gods in earnest against the atheistic contingent (myself included).The normally in agreement science lobby are arguing philosophy, logic and practicality regarding their different outlooks as opposed to the all too frequent "creationists are demonstrably wrong" sort of debate that we often have.I would like the chance to reply to Raz. I would also like to see how the defence of deism pans out in practical terms.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As the problem in this thread is at least partially my fault, should you choose to reopen it, I will not post.{ABE} see I was late to the picnic, never mind, in the interest of not screwing up a good conversation, I will still stay out of it for the duration as promised.Edited by anglagard, : didn't see the thread was reopened

I would like to reply to Daniel4140 and provide a summary of the correlation problem that is still not addressed. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)If this is considered, let me know and I will write it. Included would be a request to then promote Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1Thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Daniel4140 wasn't addressing the thread's topic. If Daniel4140 doesn't propose a topic to discuss his issues then someone else should do it for him. His marshaling of a number of creationist arguments against dating methods deserves to be addressed.Your topic proposal has been promoted.

AdminNosy promoted the apparently closed PNT in question, and this resulted in the new but created closed "Dates and Dating" version of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.The is something to be said for presenting "grand unified topics". But they are contrary to forum rule/guideline 3 - "When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points." The reason for that rule 3 is that the lack of focus of such "Grand unified topics" make for debate messes.I think the "Version 2 No 1" is a fine reference but not a viable debate topic, thus I'm for leaving it closed. I think someone needs to start up a new "Dates and Dating" topic that has more focus.Select quality replies to this message are welcome. But such should focus on the concerns of "broad focus vs. narrow focus topics".Adminnemooseus

---

There is, in my opinion, a focus to the V2 No 1 topic of RAZD's: it is precisely the correlations. You can't discuss that without given the list of thing correlated. It may be difficult to focus individuals on the correlations because they don't understand them or can't handle them (or both) but that doesn't mean it isn't a focused topic.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Very well - Why don't you open the topic then? AM

Shouldn't we decide together that it should be open rather than playing tag with it? I will take it that you think it should be open then and do that now.

Thanks all.I think we can corral Daniel4140 with the new tree ring statistical analysis thread and the existing carbon-14 dating thread for now, and thus keep the focus on age correlations on the correlations thread rather than individual measurement problems.Thanks

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

If what I think the topic is about is right, that it's to focus on the correlation between methods rather on the details of the methods themselves, then I'm okay with it. Maybe Mod will chime in.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'd like my one last post on the pink unicorn thread afterhttp://EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument -->EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argumentTo put in my summation.Edited by RAZD, : link