|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Old topics and other things PRATT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
At the Peer Review or BUST?? topic, there were a series of messages - I'll start with one I posted (with the subtitle "I guess we could do it again, but...":
Adminnemooseus, in writes: Chuck77 writes: I think i'll start will Stephen Meyers peer reviewed article on " Intelligent Design-The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Published by the proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. ... there is a 201 message, existing topic on the matter.
Meyer's Hopeless Monster It's even still open. This led to:
Chuck77 writes: From Adminnemooseus: " there is a 201 message, existing topic on the matter. It's even still open." Great, I wonder what it would be like here if ALL the moderators weren't Evolutionists. He wants to send me to a thread where the last comment was in 2005.....besides his that was in 2009 as a follow up of the 2005 comment. Yeah, thanks. In other words buzz off. Gotcha. I know it's just crazy to actualy want to maybe start a new thread on it and not comment on one that is 6 yrs old. Too much to ask I suppose. I already feel cramped here. It's the evo way or the highway. Seems fair. Which in turn got 3 replies:
Wounded King writes: So even though you yourself acknowledge that the topic you intend to bring up has been discussed before in depth you still want a brand new thread to discuss it and plan to ignore the old one and presumably the other two or three threads there have been on the topic? What you have done here is precisely demonstrate why so many creationists/IDists get accused of presenting PRATTS. It is an especially succinct demonstration since some of your claims, such as Richard Sternberg having been fired as a result, are so demonstrably false. Son writes: The thing is that when you respond to an old thread, it's put back on top for all to see. This way, you don't need to make too many topic on the same subject and those entering the old thread can see what others had already said about this topic as well as your new message. This way, we can avoid repetition. And before you're claiming persecution: EvC Forum: What is a KIND?As you can see, evolutionists and creationists are treated the same way. Here Frako is also redirected to older threads. Misha writes: Chuck77 writes: He wants to send me to a thread where the last comment was in 2005.....besides his that was in 2009 as a follow up of the 2005 comment. Yeah, thanks. The objective behind sending you to an old thread is that the thread is still active. He is giving you direction so that you can reactivate a discussion that you feel has not been completed. By directing you to an old thread you know have access to ALL of the comments by previous posters. That means that you don't have to re-hash some of the arguments. You'll also have a good idea of what has been said. That way you can see if your comments are any different than what has already been said. If 1000 people started a new thread concerning the Meyer paper and each said the same thing. That would equate to a PRATT. He is trying to help you from falling into the same trap that too many other creationists have fallen into. He's doing you a great service, however you see it as an attack. My feelings on the starting of a new topic was ambivalent, and in a less than wonderful way, I expressed such in my message. It started with the subtitle "I guess we could do it again, but...", meaning that a new topic could be started. I, however, ended with "It's even still open". That little sentence was an afterthought that I hesitated including. I didn't see any real point in reactivating the topic to just redo what was upthread. So, at this point, I say "start it again, via a new topic", but there is also an older version of the debate available to consult. Now, some long time evo side members love to gripe that the creationists (new or old members) never bring anything but PRATT's (Positions Refuted A Thousand Times). Do you really think there are any non-PRATT's available??? Essentially, new creationist members and those PRATT's are what drive the evo-creo debate. Evo's, if you don't what to be encountering PRATT's, you'd best leave this forum and go do whatever else it is that's happening on the internet. As I see it, part of the Proposed New Topics (PNT) process function is to limit the creation of same themed topics - We don't want a new one constantly getting started, but now and then that seems to be the thing to do. Let the old topic rest in the past, as some sort of archival source of reading. Or something like that. So, to PRATT or not to PRATT, that is the question. Adminnemooseus Added by edit: If nothing else, Meyer's Hopeless Monster is a place to have an encounter with Brad McFall (aka Brad). Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Annoying little typo fixed. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Do you really think there are any non-PRATT's available? Surely whether we do or not is irrelevant, it was Chuck77 who was claiming there was a substantial body of significant creationist research being published in their own journals tht shouldn't just be dismissed as PRATTs. Admittedly so far his examples have been less than stellar on the 'not a PRATT' front. I think claiming all creationists IDists are only ever recycling PRATTs is a bit unfair. We have had some, such as shadow71 and Smooth Operator, who have brought new arguments based on recent research. These arguments may fit into large overall themes, such as genetic information/entropy or directed evolution, that are frequently raised, but I don't think the arguments as they were presented could be dismissed as PRATTs. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Wounded King writes: Maybe it's because creationts like Chuck77 does not know that his 'arguments' are PRATTS? He doesn't know that his 'arguments' are lies? He only gets his 'arguments' from creationists and he has never in his life been told about the counter-arguments which destroyed his 'arguments'. He doesn't know that they are lying. I used to be on that side of things. I was never told the truth. I believed it, though. Do you really think there are any non-PRATT's available? Surely whether we do or not is irrelevant, it was Chuck77 who was claiming there was a substantial body of significant creationist research being published in their own journals that shouldn't just be dismissed as PRATTs. Admittedly so far his examples have been less than stellar on the 'not a PRATT' front. I think claiming all creationists IDists are only ever recycling PRATTs is a bit unfair. We have had some, such as shadow71 and Smooth Operator, who have brought new arguments based on recent research. These arguments may fit into large overall themes, such as genetic information/entropy or directed evolution, that are frequently raised, but I don't think the arguments as they were presented could be dismissed as PRATTs. TTFN, WK I was raised in those circumstances. Only heard the 'arguments' from fundies. I was never told that reality is different. Never heard the other side. That's why this forum is very valuable. You hear arguments from both sides. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistaaake and added a few words. Edited by Pressie, : Another spelling mistaaaaaake and added a capital letter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Perhaps when there’s a general thread the poster could be told they can start a thread about a narrowly-defined specific question? Some single aspect of a larger question. This would help curb tons of Evolution is Just a Theory threads.
Perhaps the mods should discuss is if the debate aspect of the site should require that issues should be reargued after a certain amount of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Adminnemooseus, I did take your comment at first as a brush off because of the " it's even still open" MUAHahahahahah sort of feel it had. Now that i've been here for a few weeks I see it WASN'T a brush off and had no idea that once you comment on an old thread it brings it back "up top"-so to speak, for everyone to see. So my comment was out of line to begin with and unmerited. Thanks for going "easy" on me as a newcomer. In contrast it's probably nice to start a new thread and feel "involved" with the conversation more and possibly bring things to light the other one didn't. Even if something was discussed already it's fun to "freshen" it up some.
It all depends on how you look at the "debate" I suppose. Is it fun and educational for people or life and death? If it's fun well, new fresh threads can be well, fun and educational. If it's life and death, then why touch a perfectly good refuted argument like Meyers paper? "We completley refuted his findings and there is no need to revisit the same thing as long as that one thread is open for everyone to see and for the rest of eternity. End of story, thanks for playing, go home now, we win". ) So anyway,my temper tantrum was unnecessary. My bad. Thanks the open discussion about it. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : off topic Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hallo Mr/Ms Administrator (or anyone else who can answer)
Are we allowed to reply in this thread? I'm new to this forum too and not very familiar with the rules as to what we may or may not do. Pressie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
My understanding is that the answer is "yes, but...." Much of what Chuck says is off-topic and shouldn't be discussed here. Keep to things relevant to running the forum and you should be OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Usually best to start a topic on a a subject than to debate in the suggestions thread.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Thanks PaulK and jar!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Are we allowed to reply in this thread? I'm not a moderator but fall under the "anyone else" category. The topic here is, as Moose put it, to PRATT or not to PRATT. If your comment is directed in this direction then have at it. If your reply would be to answer some of the inanity in Chuck77's message then I'm afraid this is not the place for that. This was not the place for his comments either btw. So be patient. This is a big place and you will have plenty of opportunity to push back in more appropriate threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Thanks AZPaul3
That's why I'm not going to comment here. I realized that my answer to his comments were not on topic. I appreciate the rules. (Sorry for postin this twice) Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Thanks AZPaul3
That's why I'm not going to comment here. I realized that my answer to his comments were not on topic. I appreciate the rules. Pressie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Sorry everyone for highjacking this thread. Im still getting used to staying on topic. It's a little harder than it seems(apperantly).
I deleted the content in my post to Pressie which had nothing to do with Adminnemooseus' OP. My apologies. At first I was eager to start new threads, being "new" here but know I think it actually puts a lot of pressure on the Author. Trying to respond to everyone and at the same time make your points clear and concise for everyone to understand. When they don't understand you have try to explain one thing 10 different ways (from a few posts i've seen). I think i'll sit back for a bit and comment on already existing threads until I get more accustomed to the site.
Adminnemooseus writes: Now, some long time evo side members love to gripe that the creationists (new or old members) never bring anything but PRATT's (Positions Refuted A Thousand Times). Do you really think there are any non-PRATT's available??? Essentially, new creationist members and those PRATT's are what drive the evo-creo debate. I agree with that 100%. That IS what drives the debate. As debates are essentialy on-going. It's inevitable that things are going to be covered multiple times when newcomers join(either side). The question to start new threads or not to to me personally should be left up to the admins (which it is). Their discretion after years of doing this is far more intune with the "feeling" of the forum and are a better judge of character than most newcomers are of themselves. People think they have a good grasp on a subject until they are in the middle of the debate. People who may be smarter than you or more knowledgeable about a certain subject can question your stance and things can get ugly(from what i've seen) So, my solution to PRATT or not to PRATT is sure, if a subject hasn't been discussed in a while and some new light can be shed on it or started from a "clean" slate let the newcomer start a thread, if the thread is a successful one then it's a win. If he gets ripped for a good week or so or fails to reply as he should and can't handle the pressure he probably won't be proposing anything new for a while. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
So, my solution to PRATT or not to PRATT is sure, if a subject hasn't been discussed in a while and some new light can be shed on it or started from a "clean" slate let the newcomer start a thread ... I can see your point, however, wouldn't it be better to continue a discussion in an existing open thread on the topic starting with the information already there and then introducing this new light as a push back to the existing information? If not then the new thread is bound to get bogged down repeating the same arguments as the old thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Does anyone know if there is a specific topic on the difference between ID and Creationism? A lot of people seem to think the two are the same thing or ID is Creationism in disguise. They are not, and it's not an opinion. They are vastly different if people would care enough to see. This is just a general question for the forum.
To me, when I hear that the TOE and Abiogenesis are different im pretty much forced to accept it even tho I disagree that they are two entirely seperate areas. What matters tho, is that they ARE seperated. It would be nice if ID and Creationism were to. Has this been hashed out already on other threads? Im thinking yes. If so can someone post the link here to it? Is the general consensus on the forum that ID and Creationism are the same? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024