Thread Reopen Requests 2

Catholic Scientist in various posts from the "Who designed the ID designer(s)?" thread in the Intelligent Design forum over 2 days beginning June 29 writes:You're such an idiot.Not when they're idiots like you.Nuh-uh!That doesn't follow at all, stupid.Boo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river. You gonna go home and eat some baby food, crybaby?I do it all the time. I already explained to you that its your stupid idiocy that requires me making fun of you in order to have any desire to reply.I've disagreed with tons of people without thinking they're stupid idiots... except for the ones who are stupid idiots.

Catholic Scientist writes:I don't see how limiting my participation in just one of the many forums helps enforce the rule.

Out of curiosity, are you capable of limiting the permission of who people can reply to?

Not at present, but this is on the todo list, as is limiting participation by thread instead of by entire forums.

That thread hasn't been on topic since about five posts in, with you, IMJ, and Butterfly largely to blame for the derailing.
Jon

Science and evidence have definitions. All words have definitions. The standard definition of words like science, evidence, theory, supernatural, logic etc apply to everyone. Making up your own incorrect definition to a word does not improve your arguement, it just makes it confusing.Just taking Dawns summation as a source of an example, there is obvious misrepresentation or total incorrect usage of the following words and phrases : evidence, science, secular fundamental humanist, apologetics, scientific method, natural causes (I personaly have written an extensive reply to Dawn illustrating how to correctly use the term). This sort of thing is relatively common amongst creationist debaters.Another tactic often used is to misinterpret or misrepresent facts in order to confuse the argument. For example, using Dawn again because he is such a good source of poor arguements.When refering to the TOE, however, they insist thier is direct evidence, even if, like creationism,no one actually wittnessed that event. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit thier purposes and demand and insist that we provide what they are not required to establish the position as validThere are two examples of common, dishonest arguement here. There is misrepresentation of the ToE. This sentence suggests that evolution is not currently occuring. Even Dawn must know that this is not true. But this is an example used by many creationists, not just Dawn Bertot. I am only using this as an example as it is handy. This can only be deliberate dishonesty in order to further his own cause. He also suggests that followers of the ToE are changing the word evidence to further their cause when this is also not true.

Dawn Bertot writes:Myself and Butterfly, AKA, mallethead, would like to use the following and our final summations in the Kent hovind thread to reopen it or start a new one concerning, debate tactics used by both sides

Why was the "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" thread locked off again exactly? It's interesting that I was preparing to respond on it and then it was locked for "bogus messages about to be posted." Was it for my benefit? Or am I just reading too much into this?

Temporary topic closure because of bogus messages coming in about 15 minutes.

Temporary topic closure, because of bogus messages, coming in about 15 minutes.