Faith's Participation in EvC

No, that's just an example of the problem - confusing religious apologetics with science.

Holy Moly! 9686 posts in 19 months.I did a survey some months back and figured there were about 90,000 posts submitted per annum. With you doing about 6100 per year and me doing about 3600 that makes 9700 posts per year between the two of us. Thats nearly 11% of the total. Typically we'd generate at least a post per post in response. Often more which cannot be responded to. Say 1.2 posts reply per post of ours. Thats 21,000 odd posts. Nearly 24% of the total!EvC needs life blood and we're a not insignificant part of it. Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy. Power to the people!!Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi Faith.
I am going to be serious for a minute.Why do you spread yourself so thinly around the forum?Don't you think it would be more productive for you if you stuck to just a couple of forums.Personally, I stick to what I know, the faith based forums, and I very seldom go anywhere near science. This isn't because I am totally ignorant of the subject, it is just that I don't feel qualified to argue on the science threads. I have been known to ask a question or two just for clarification, but there is no point in me discussing evolution for example because I am not familiar enough with the material.I think you should stick to the faith forums, you wouldn't have so many posts to answer and wouldn't feel ganged up on.Just a suggestion.Brian.

And it's 99.9% of the nonsensical posts! Me too.Brian.

Which is exactly the sort of handwaving Faith is supposed to respond to day after day. Where Newton et al confusing religious apologetics with science when they developed scientific methodology? Deciding that an Enlightement-inspired backdrop is a preferable one is your entitlement. Deciding it is not is an entitlement too. You pays your money and you choses your philosophy/belief

We got ourselves an highly unlikely convoy I'm all for improving EvC even if it means some of the tosh I throw up from time to time is prevented. But let the fine tuning apply across the board. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is my last post. May the admin ban me life. I have found my short time here frustrating and largely a waste of time.How can any two or more people have a fruitful discussion (especially in a science forum) if they cannot even agree on simple english words or even try to agree?! Here is an example... Is it just me or is the term "fact" being misused above. In a forum recently faith makes this arrogant comment: But when pressed politely to define those term she condescendly refuses.Message 25Wiki defines 'fact' as: is an objective and verifiable observation.Further more, I sure her definition of "fact" stems from the implied assumption (My God is True. My God wrote the Bible, My God said it in the bible - it is fact and it is as good as any scientific fact). Great for theology, devastating for a science discussion.Found this little jewel in the wiki on "premise" Faith contends her faith-baed premise is valid with any statement of proof. I ask repeatedly if she can acknowledge other faith-based premises - she replies... oh thats off topic - not wanting to place christian creation science on the same shelf with hindu creation science where it belongs. She prefer to elevate christian science on the same level as traditional science which, in my humble opinion does not.

quote:

---

Which is exactly the sort of handwaving Faith is supposed to respond to day after day.

---

So the real problem is that Faith has to cope with people pointing out the flaws in her arguments. And you call it "handwaving" as if it were wrong to tell the truth instead of unquestioningly agree with you.

quote:

---

Where Newton et al confusing religious apologetics with science when they developed scientific methodology?

---

I didn't say that. What I do say is that you are handwaving the difference between that and taking religious dogma as unquestionable fact - when the scientiifc evidence is firmly against it. Did Newton et al do that ? And if they did, do we accept it as science ?

It is true that I'm not very disciplined about how I post and it would help if I could be.But I'm very interested in the few science issues I do post on, and I do believe I understand enough of the particulars to justify it, so I can't see myself giving those up.Doing one thread at a time would be a good idea though. I sometimes even forget which thread I'm posting on. That accounts for some of the off topic sequences.

Well, maybe Percy is right. If I stop posting, or just cut way back, maybe you too, more scientifically minded creationists would rush in to fill the vacuum.But I really appreciated Arach's pointing out on this thread that a lot of my post count comes from trying to answer all my opponents, and that can sometimes mean six or eight posts every time I get back to a thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In less than 2 years you have nearly 10,000 posts? No wonder it feels like you're omnipresent! Jesus Christ himself couldn't keep up such a pace! No wonder it feels like you've been here for years.Faith, I've been here since the beginning, and except for vacations I'm here every single day, and as Percy I have only half as many posts as you. Only Jar and Crash have more, but not by much and they've been here much longer.Could I suggest emphasizing quality over quantity? It isn't necessary that you take on all of evolution-dom by yourself. A few effective arguments are going to go a lot further than many insubstantial ones.Research your topics, conscientiously address rebuttals, support your arguments with evidence. Strong arguments will defeat hundreds of weak ones. Go for quality and stop the frenetic posting behavior.I notice Randman has been here only a little over a year but has over 5000 posts despite being often suspended - that's far too many.I wasn't aware there were such high posting rates going on. We need posting limits.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Listen, I said OMNI declared this off topic. It's back there somewhere.I don't know why you can't follow this. I am explaining MY reference points, NOT trying to persuade YOU to them. I am explaining that Biblical creationists will always take the Flood as a FACT, whether you do or not, and your definitions simply make no difference because we believe the God who made all things said it. I argued that IF the God of all things said it THEN it is a fact. This is perfectly good logic. This comes with all the baggage of Bible-inerrancy theology about who God is and how He revealed himself ONLY to the Jews, and is recorded ONLY in the the Bible, so of course other gods and other revelations are not recognized. You don't accept the definition, you don't accept any of it, fine, it's a creationist position, and given our premise IT IS LOGICAL. That's ALL I'm saying. This is an academic point that comes up in particular contexts. I'm not proposing making it a standard for anyone else. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree with your basic observation.But you may not need limits since I'm stopping posting so much anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percys point above is a good one. And for me too. Why not pick and chose a bit. Certainly poorly disguised posts aimed at needling and ridicule only only aren't worth the effort. Throwing pearls to swine eventually means running out of pearls and flinging muck(no offence to anybody - just invoking a biblical principle)

The thread in question asserted that it was not possible to do science if one held Goddidit. Faith dismissed the assertion and rightfully so. One can apply scientific method to find out how Goddidit. The OP was enlightenment philosophy and that is all.Faith frequently has to field arguments which dismiss the possibility of doing science simply because one believes, a priori, that Godidit. But the dismisser is simply assuming his philosophy is correct. He does as she does in other words. I am not speaking about all her posting - just that narrow point.