Topic Proposal Issues

Of course I did. I'd forgotten we had a member named Granpa, so when you said the proposal was "utterly filled with fallacies" and "deserves not just promotion but maybe even an award for most fallacies in a single PNT" I naturally thought you were talking about Buzsaw's new proposal.But I understand now: Buzsaw, crap; Granpa, fallacies. Got it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Is anyone planning on looking at Straggler's Topic anytime soon? It's been languishing for days.

I think AdminPD is stretched a bit thin over in the religious threads. I'm a poor judge of thread worthiness in the religious arena, so I'll just promote it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Quantum PhysicsMessage 1: Message 2: My perspective is that such a topic should go into a science forum even if an evolution/creationism conflict isn't presented in the opening message. Just a matter of topic theme organization, if nothing else. Besides, there is a good chance an evo/creo aspect will develop.A problem with message 1, is that there is no specific debate theme there - There is no discussion launching point and it is not really properly promotable out of the "Proposed New Topics" forum. What Son Goku needs to do, is to bring one or two of those "great questions" into the topic starter message, and present a bit of his perspective about those questions.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit - Son Goku posted a message 3 while I was preparing this message.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

I think that's a good set of criteria. Son Goku just replied a few minutes ago, maybe you could take a look and decide whether it should be promoted.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Jar, that's what debates are; ideologies debating one another's crap. Your crap stinks worse than mine, Your crap wins scarce few debates attempting to refute my crap. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. Buz gets the last word on this little dubious sub-theme. Unless Jar is looking for a suspension.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Can someone get on this, please? It's the sort of thing that interests me. Thanks.

He seems pretty confused to me. I was hoping AdminPD would take a look at it to see if it was appropriate for the religious threads. Is your interest to resolve his confusion or poke fun at it?

It seemed clear enough to me; though I can entertain the possibility that I am completely misunderstanding someone with no coherent point in such a way that I think I understand him as having a coherent point. But what are the odds?I think his point is that if physicists came to a fundamental understanding of the laws underlying our universe, then anyone asking the question "why" about this understanding itself would get no answer from the physicists; they'd just have to say: "Because that's the way it is".At that point, he suggests, we should turn to theological explanations. This is what I should like to take issue with.

Oh, and it turns out from his further explanation of his point that I'm right. Whoda thought it?

Hi Dr Adequate,I think that's an excellent summary of the main point he was trying to make, at least in his OP. He seems to make a clearer statement in his reply to AdminPD. My concern is that members might just poke fun at the other things he says, to mention just a couple, that scientists reject the idea that God commands them to act, or his comments about a mechanistic universe.I think AdminPD's suggestion that he participate in existing threads is a good one, I'm inclined to wait a day or two.

Well, you could ask if if he's so sensitive that he can't stand criticism, and if his answer is "yes" you could always direct him to another forum.I've already written my answer, it is perfectly tactful.

I have been banned from proposing new threads. Perhaps indefinitely?As far as I can tell, I have broken no rules.If there are rules that you want to punish people for breaking, how about writing them.Include a section where you advise that threads can be denied.Also include a section that warns that bannings from proposing new topics can occur.Maybe even include a section that advises that warnings will be given before a banning results.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Your topic starting permissions have been restored.There has been a discussion of this situation at the "General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')" topic - The current most recent relevant message is here. I don't offhand have much to add to what was said there. What I do have to say is, a relatively new member showing up and doing 7 new PNTs directed at a particular member is rather troll like behavior. Thou had succeeded in irritating the moose. Or something like that.Adminnemooseus

Ordinary Ignoramuses
Message 1I am having problems with John 10:10's claim that "the Jeremy's of this world" reject a divine creator.
The linked review of an autobiography of 2 scientists makes no mention of how Jeremy thinks the universe was created. This seems completely unfounded - Jeremy has not made any statement regarding his belief in a creator.
And there is no intrinsic problem with believing in evolution and not believing in a god.Perhaps a request could be made to clarify what John 10:10's assertion is based on and how it is problematic to believe in evolution but not in god?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.