Re: Adminnemooseus still says "No" to having a "Peanut Gallery" right now
While a "real world" debate might have an audience, that audiences responses to statements would be limited to such as cheers and groans. They would not be shouting debate content up to the podiums.
True, but you're addressing the analogy, not the point I was making. The Internet is a much richer environment (in some ways) than the live debate before an audience, and there any many more channels of feedback available. I think what you're saying is that you believe some of that feedback affects the debate in material ways. I agree. Viva la differance!
I have long struggled on where to use "effect" and where to use "affect". I think I long just used "effect" for all, and forgot about "affect". Recently it was pointed out to me that "effect" is a verb, and "affect" is a noun.
So, I think feedback effects the debate. The change in the debate would be the affect.
I see that the GD is pretty much over with at this point. In my opinion, while the discussion was interesting, the topic was too general. Debating the entire Grand Canyon as a whole is impossible.
Heck, you couldn't do a Ph.D. on the Grand Canyon!
Maybe in the future, geologic topics should be much much narrower in scope - if possible. Perhaps discussing a single Formation or Group within the Grand Canyon. Or why a certain rock shows evidence for deposition/formation under specific conditions.
YECism gets a hand in geology only when Creationists are able to generalize. When you get down to specifics, YECism loses.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 04-12-2005 11:57 PM