taiji2's complaint

Hi Omnivorous,You're kinder than I can be. From his very first post Taiji2 struck me as clueless. His enthusiasm for pouncing on and clinging to irrelevancies tells me that it is an approach he has developed from long practice to deflect attention from the weaknesses in his arguments.--Percy

Hi Taiji2,No one's playing games, you're just paranoid and become quickly upset when feedback isn't flattering. The reason so many suspect you're a troll is because in a thread about intelligent design you quickly became diverted onto tangents and no amount of cajoling was able to bring you back. If from here on out you discuss intelligent design at the Is there a legitimate argument for design? thread and your complaints here in this thread then you should meet with better outcomes.--Percy

There are no games. This is just debate and discussion - you muster your evidence and arguments as best you can.Your frustration that your views are finding no traction here fails to take into account the degree of difficulty of what you're trying to do. You're trying to convince people that views with no supporting evidence can be proven. Inherent in this view is that it has no supporting evidence. The foundation for all successful arguments is supporting evidence. You have no supporting evidence, therefore how can you hope to convince anyone?Not only are you meeting with no success, you're meeting with a great deal of skepticism and even derision, the same as if you were arguing that unicorns are real. You didn't really expect absurd propositions to be treated with respect, did you?--Percy

Hi Taiji2,Well, this is ironic. You finally return to your original point, but in the wrong thread. I wasn't trying to discuss that topic here. I was only giving you my opinion about why you've become so upset and frustrated. Your comments belong in the Is there a legitimate argument for design? thread. I'll respond over there.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You're an emotional guy, and you keep interpreting criticism as vehement attacks. We're just trying to have a discussion with you. As of the time you wrote that Coyote hadn't yet replied to your Message 25, and still hasn't as I write this. How would you know whether he considered your answer good enough?I don't myself share Coyote's interpretation of what you're doing. He thinks you're trying to redefine science so as to allow your views to qualify as scientific. I don't think you're trying to redefine science. I see you as trying to define a discipline outside of science whose findings are just as valid as those of science. The very first line of the registration agreement that you accepted when you registered says, " EvC Forum hosts the debate between evolutionists and creationists." It was founded out of concern about creationism's impact on public school science education.But EvC Forum hosts discussions about all kinds of scientific and religious topics. Taoism fits in just fine, particularly in the way you've related it to ways outside of science for gaining knowledge. I am not as emotional as you and had no such emotional response. When you said the thread title should have said it was about science I merely pointed out that the thread was in one of the science forums. New threads have to pass through a thread proposal process over at Proposed New Topics where we make sure, among other things, that thread titles are informative. It isn't felt necessary to include in the thread title that the thread is about science when it is in a science forum.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

You in effect invited a fellow vet to take it out to the parking lot. Who do you think you're kidding? We don't think that, and you don't get it. We think your views about evidence and knowledge are fatally flawed, and that you don't tolerate criticism very well. Only the part between quotation marks was from the registration agreement. What I said that was in the registration agreement was, "EvC Forum hosts the debate between evolutionists and creationists." The other part where I said, "It was founded out of concern about creationism's impact on public school science education," was just some additional information for you. You can find a little more information at EvC Forum: About This Site . I don't really see much of a mess. The other thread (Is there a legitimate argument for design?) is ready and waiting whenever you're ready to resume discussion.--Percy

Member accounts at EvC Forum are never deleted because it orphans their messages. If you click on "Your CP" at the top left of the page you can change your account to inactive. Your messages will then be displayed with only your member name and no other information, and you won't appear in the member roster.--Percy

Actually, I said something a little different. After mentioning that member accounts are never deleted because it orphans the member's messages (the board software has the ability to delete member accounts, it just is never done here) I let you know that you can activate and deactivate your account yourself. Moderators can of course edit anyone's account, but members are usually left to perform simple functions like activate/deactivate themselves. Sure. As I mentioned in the other thread, moderators are discouraged from participating and moderating in the same thread, so I won't be moderating this thread. We do have a set of Forum Guidelines that you might want to look over. We like to try to keep threads focused on the topic, and in fact it's in the Forum Guidelines, check out rule 2. This is the correct thread for discussing your concerns and complaints about EvC Forum. Is there a legitimate argument for design? would be the right thread for discussing Taoism as a legitimate approach to intelligent design. This is just informational since I'm not moderating this thread.--Percy

Interestingly, something along these lines is a very common argument in support of science when in discussion with Biblical literalists, who argue that where science and Bible disagree that science is wrong because the Bible is God's inerrant word. But, responds science, man wrote the Bible, and men lie. God wrote the universe, and the universe doesn't lie.--Percy

You asked Taq what he would do when creationists claim natural laws as part of God's creation, so I thought you might find it interesting that it is more often science pointing out that if God wrote nature's laws that the universe must contain much better evidence of what is true than a Bible written by men. Creationists have already attempted to claim that natural laws are part of God's creation, and that science has misinterpreted the evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusions. They called it creation science. Public schools teaching creation science wound up in court on several occasions and lost, thereby giving birth to a new version of creation science called intelligent design that dropped all the religious trappings. Intelligent design hasn't fared any better than creation science, and a good many Christian fundamentalists reject it out of hand.--Percy