|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith's Participation in EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It might make a difference if I were dealing with only one or two at a time. I'm not aware of short shrifting anyone on purpose, I'm merely aware of getting worn out on long threads and having to face yet another lengthy restatement of the same thing. I have no idea what post it is you are referring to, sorry.
I simply disagree with your general assessment of me, and I suppose this is doing what Percy says I do, but I'm just too TIRED* to try to put together another argument about this stuff. Maybe in that case I shouldn't answer at all. So if I have to be disappeared from the forum, so be it, that's all I can say. *I don't mean too fatigued, I mean psychologically tired, discouraged at the lack of communication. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
sorry, realized I don't have anything to say right now.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
That's the whole point that Brad was making. Dawkins and other Atheists go beyond science without their positions being questioned.
As far as I can tell, Dawkins is not attempting to have his atheism added to the school science curriculum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 6175 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
It might make a difference if I were dealing with only one or two at a time. I'm not aware of short shrifting anyone on purpose, I'm merely aware of getting worn out on long threads and having to face yet another lengthy restatement of the same thing.
Yes. That is a weakness of the forum approach to seeking resolution to a complex discussion.I have the same sentiments, and only write a tiny fraction of what you do. I grit my teeth and refrain from rebuttal to some known responders who insist on "last tag" and increase the length of the post with each response as they dissect each phrase to supply a response that dares you to keep it going. I wish the forum had a distilled "tree of debate and knowledge" so that topics can be clarified but not rehashed over and over. So, Faith, good luck on refraining from a response to everyone and in your time management, pick depth-of-response over quantity. 'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1592 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i'm not going to engage in your off-topic antics, and your standard revisionist rants, but i will note this again, for the record:
Let me add that i recognize many evos do not want to see their critics banned, but at the same time, there are those that do, and they have a lot of influence and power for that sort of thing at EvC, the contents of this thread disprove your point. the powerful and influential members -- moderators -- are quoted in op in vast majority for letting faith stay. one moderator, the owner of the board, voiced his opinion that faith should go. the word "opinion" is important here. he does not, evidently, have complete say, and must consult the other moderators. and even if he did not, his actions would evidently have been questioned by the other moderators who voiced such opinions, and probably a number of people publically. we have a an entire thread for that sort of thing. your little conspiracy doesn't work, and is simply shown by all the voices, including my own, arguing rather effectively for faith to stay. randman, i've argued for you to be allowed to stay -- a fact you have never acknowledged. faith at least has the good graces nowadays to say "thank you" when people argue on her behalf, instead of accusing them of bias and conspiracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
nwr writes: As far as I can tell, Dawkins is not attempting to have his atheism added to the school science curriculum. How many universities have "The Selfish Gene" in their curriculum? At any rate that is off topic as well as being a straw man. My point is that Atheists on this forum don't get challenged when they try to make their arguments for first cause scientific, in the same way that Creationists or even Theists do. Edited by GDR, : typo Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminOmni Inactive Member |
Great reply, arach.
arach writes: the contents of this thread disprove your point. the powerful and influential members -- moderators -- are quoted in op in vast majority for letting faith stay. one moderator, the owner of the board, voiced his opinion that faith should go. the word "opinion" is important here. he does not, evidently, have complete say, and must consult the other moderators. and even if he did not, his actions would evidently have been questioned by the other moderators who voiced such opinions, and probably a number of people publically. we have a an entire thread for that sort of thing. But Percy has the Power Supreme. He invited moderator comment, and got a lot, but the decision is ultimately his, and I suspect that a return to business-as-usual would result in swift action. A few blasts from randman provide a welcome reminder of how much good a little pruning can do. I think Percy has shown considerable forebearance toward both the problem at hand and the follow-up discussion. When he asks for opinions, he listens to them with an impressively open mind. He has noted, and I agree, that many moderators could do a better job of nipping off-topic and/or obstructionist impulses in the bud. I plan to do just that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If evolutionism was real science, they'd have considered the argument on what is lost in variation and considered the mutational rate (molecular clock) and BEFORE EVER ASSERTING MUTATIONS DRIVING MACROEVOLUTION, they'd have to prove that by showing mutational rates in observed mutations are sufficient and beneficial and at a rate to overcome the loss of genetic diversity. So true, Randman. Sorry you were suspended again. I thought your input was right on. Well, I may be joining you soon one way or another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Faith can state her HYPOTHESIS that the flood MAY have happened and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way. How Faith states it isn't the issue. If she read it on the back of a cornflake packet it would simply be her motivation, her philosophy, her belief. We all have one of those. What matters is the case made based on intepretation of the evidence. The evidence is available to everybody without favoring this or that philosophy or belief. The common denominator on which we might agree hasn't changed from the time it began: the principles are simple and agree upon. I repeat (in order to prevent potential side tracking) that: it matters not whether or not Creos have managed to do this science or not. The principles apply to creo and evo and every other philosophy/ belief under the sun. There is a single watering hole at which we all drink. If we can agree on what that is then the science can begin and all this rubbish about "my belief vs your philosophy can cease". Much of what Faith has had to involve herself in involves rebutting the assumption of a philosophy If we manage to get that far then a proof text of the position of EvC from both sides of the divide can be established and whenever a newcomer decides to plough that old ground all can refer them to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6121 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
What matters is the case made based on intepretation of the evidence. The evidence is available to everybody without favoring this or that philosophy or belief. The common denominator on which we might agree hasn't changed from the time it began: the principles are simple and agree upon. Well put. Unbelievable as it may seem - I agree with you. (Which, in some circles, makes one instantly suspicious that we are both wrong>) What do you think of the approach I outlined in post 239 of this thread? The "X, Y, Z" would refer to the evidence itself - unambiguous and not open to philosophical spin; the facts, if you will. Faith doesn't appear to like that approach, because the corollary is that if the evidence is against whatever particular philosophy or idea or concept or whatever, then intellectual honesty requires one to admit that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1592 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
But Percy has the Power Supreme. He invited moderator comment, and got a lot, but the decision is ultimately his, and I suspect that a return to business-as-usual would result in swift action. he has the ultimate power, yes, as owner of the site. but in another regard, the site does not exist without its members, and i'm sure he'd hear a heck of a lot of complaints for banning a member who has essentially done nothing wrong.
I think Percy has shown considerable forebearance toward both the problem at hand and the follow-up discussion. When he asks for opinions, he listens to them with an impressively open mind. yes, i have found percy to be very open to discussion. i have seen him swayed a few times, in threads such as these.
He has noted, and I agree, that many moderators could do a better job of nipping off-topic and/or obstructionist impulses in the bud. yes, agreed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Percy
Just a thought here. I would suggest that there has been enough discussion that is specifically about Faith. Iano has just started a thread "Let's Make Things Better". I think that he is on the right track by trying to deal with any problems that exist in a more general way rather than focusing on one poster. I suggest that maybe it is time to close this thread in favour of the general approach suggested by Iano. Edited by GDR, : Sorry. I should have replied to Quetzel with this. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5281 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Just to clear my own point out of this thread.
It is true I did not notice that RickJB's emphasis was on "SCIENTIFIC case" rather than "scientific CASE" which NWR noticed but you are correct about 'my' "point." If Ira had really wanted to make things equal for 'the sides' after Richard had said that he didnt want to disabuse a kid of his belief in the equivalent of a flat Earth, Ira should have re-questioned the good Dr. as to if there was not any way that the spherical nature an evolutionist(s)' thought, might not be rather flatened, not by what was wrong, with what the kid's (hypothetical) thought was but rather with what the "sphere" *did not say* about the world that was out there in Collins' sense. Ira was either not aware that there was any possibility here (through a double negative during live conversation) or was also in sympathy with Richard Dawkins. Without getting a response any better than "I suppose" from Richard it does APPEAR as a double standard when the callers' and hosts' sympathy replaces hard questions and answers which were what the listener like me was expecting when first tuning in. My personal guess is that the host did not want to spurn the guest. Edited by Brad McFall, : some punctuation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
Brian writes: and Faith has done a pretty remarkable job of pulling it off.
Are you on drugs? The whole reason why this has been brought up is exactly because she hasn't being doing a remarkable job. Brian.
My above quoted statement, in the larger form, was:
It, at least to me, seems that Faith is largely single-handedly holding down the creationist side all over the place. Doing such is a mighty heavy load, and Faith has done a pretty remarkable job of pulling it off. There is the old statement:
If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bs. While her science input into the various science topics may indeed be pretty much nonexistent, she does succeed in putting out large quantities of eloquently stated bs. In doing such, she succeeds in keeping quite a few opponents busy replying to her. In a perverse sort of way, "a pretty remarkable job of pulling it off". The various evolutionary theories, biological and otherwise, are very strong. Of course, the creationists dispute this, but are in a hard place to back their dispute with scientific reasoning. They have such choices as using either "points refuted a thousand times" (PRATT), some sort of nonsense blather, or "God's word says it is so". Faith seems to mostly do the third. Now, Percy/Admin has stated that he has no problem with anyone disagreeing with evolutionary fact and theory on a purely faith basis. In other words, if the creationist does not profess to dispute the matter via scientific reasons - Then "no problem". It seems that Faith does indeed disagree with evolutionary fact and theory on a purely faith basis. But then she also goes on profess that the science is bad, without much if any scientific argument on why and how the science is bad. In the process, she clutters up a lot of science oriented topics with her "eloquent bs". Thus the proposal to restrict her out of the science oriented forums. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4242 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Arach mentions the banning of creationists from the science forum. Actually, I think it would be more appropriate to ban most creationists from the theology forum. Sure, many are up to speed with their particular following`s dogma, but try to get them into discussing Bible history, provenance, strands, DSS, Emendations, Alternative Christianities, Weight of Ancient Witnesses, archaeology as pertaining to Biblical claims, etc. and you are in the land of the ignorami. I would imagine a genuine believer would want to know if they are standing in quicksand, or on a rock-solid foundation. If you can`t debate your belief`s sources, does that make you Christian Lite?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024