|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Topic Proposal Issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I agree with GAW-Snow, except that I wonder if it should be a special forum. Or perhaps two forums, one for questions on science issues and the other for questions on faith/religion issues.
I'll describe how it would work for the answers on science: Anybody could propose a question, or a small series of questions.The discussion in the thread would be limited to the question(s) in the OP. The originator of the thread, and others from the faith side, could post asking clarification. But they may not make any faith-based challenges of the answers given by those on the science side. Those on the science side may answer the question(s). They may also ask (politely) for clarification of the questions. They may disagree with one another (part of the self-correction of science) provided that this disagreement is in the direction of answering the questions in the OP. The originator of the thread will always be treated as if on the faith side (while within this thread). Even if a scientist proposes questions, he/she may only ask for clarification and may not challenge the answer given. Topics should go through PNT, mainly to ensure the clarity of the questions raised. Comments: So far Faith's Some mutations sound too good to be true has worked out well. Similarly Purgatory is an example of a question on faith issues that might have been handled this way. The moderators gave Faith a hard time proposing her thread (for admittedly good reasons). I think it should not be that hard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
It looks as if the moose was already on this case
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
No, they shouldn't promote their own topics (in my opinion), at least for ordinary discussion topics.
Specifically moderator started topics such as announcement or the POTM threads are different from ordinary discussion topics. I assume this thread was started as a reaction to: Does Neo-Darwinian evolution require change ?. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Panda writes:
Yes, I looked.Anyone had a look at Message 1 in New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.? I'm wondering where you find the neural tissue in an oak tree. I think he might really be talking about learning rather than about evolution, but there's a lot of confusion in that PNT. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
zi ko writes:
Internal communication - plant hormones.maybe trees have some way of internal and external communication! External communication - presumably pollen distribution via wind or insects. Plants have a rather different lifestyle from animals, so they don't have the same communication needs.
zi ko writes:
I consider evolution to be a kind of learning. But it is not intermingled with what we ordinarily consider to be learning. The idea that they are intermingled sounds Lamarckian, and is pretty well refuted.
it is true. in my theory learnig and evolution are entirly intermingled. zi ko writes:
I had to look up prodromal. Having looked it up, I am still unclear on what you mean there.learning is a prodromal function which leads ... Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
..., could someone start a thread over in Coffee House?
I just started Symphony by accident. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dr Adequate writes:
Poor choice (on grammatical grounds).I suggest that it should be called "Evolution v. Creationism", as a plain and simple statement of its unique purpose. Make it "Evolution v. Creation" or "Evolutionism v. Creationism". Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
A quick comment on the PNT (Help me understand the non-literallist position).
AdminPD suggested two other threads that are in Bible Study. But I had thought that Taz was proposing a discussion that would better fit in Comparative Religions.Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
To me, he looked pretty close to a spammer. The only thing missing was a url to his site.
His PNT does not actually propose a new topic. It's just an advertising blurb. I'm not seeing any interest in discussion in that post.Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
I gave the PNT Atheists control science a cheer, because I think it is a topic that needs discussion. However, I do not agree with the author's view.
My comment here: I hope the thread is promoted to a forum where Buzsaw is able to participate in the discussion.Jesus was a liberal hippie |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I'd put it in Is It Science?
To me, it looks like a topic in creationism, might be more appropriate in Theological Creationism and ID.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
But the central question is whether physics laws are constant.
We know that they are not constant.. Newtons laws were different from those of Aristotle. Einstein had yet another set of laws. And now we have QM. That would require scientific evidence to challenge them, not ad hoc wishy-washy theology fantasy responses.
I see it as more a philosophical question.
Personally I lose interest on anything on the faith side of the forum.
As do I. And I have already lost interest in Christian7's new topic.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024