Too much moderation on these boards?

I hope so of course. On one of his threads he recognized that the moral argument against God didn't hold together. But that hasn't undone his nihilism that I've seen. In other words I'm supposedly influencing him to become a Christian and a creationist or at least trying, I gather. Cute. Wish it were so. Wish God would exercise that power through me to influence him and many others.What I appreciate about Robin is his objectivity and neutrality. I think he's unique at EvC and that may be why some, Moose in particular, are confused by him. He's an atheist, or as he prefers to call it, a nihilist, and believes in evolution, but at the same time he's sincerely asking questions about all of it, and he sees through a lot of the posturing on the evo side.He also doesn't think like a scientist. He thinks like the English teacher he is, and he understands logic as a built-in function of language and reason, and understands it better than the scientists here it seems to me. I feel an affinity with all these things about him, despite his believing none of what I believe.

Be careful, Yahweh has a reputation for being rather harsh on those who worship false gods.Brian.

All the more reason it is important to lead people to Him through His Son.

He doesn't have a son.I'll keep you a nice warm seat Brian.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic

But the purpose of the board and any alleged prime position amongst posters, whatever that is, are two different subjects. The purpose of the board is still to discuss whether or not Biblical Creationism and its surrogate, ID, are science. That is the goal of the board.The fact that we have gone out of our way to allow other interests and subjects to be discussed has nothing to do with the purpose of the board.To address what many people seem to want to post we have created additional venues for them to use. Those were outlined in the message you are replying to, Message 138.There still appears to be a need for a two tiered system in both content and behavior. Part of the two tiered system are all of the forums that have been added in the Social & Religious area where the standards of evidence are much lower than in the Science Forums as well as the forums in Side Orders which include forums such as the Coffeehouse. If we were to move to a single tiered system where all were required to abide by the same standards of evidence and behavior as in the Science Forums it would reduce the opportunites for the Biblical Creationist to ever present their arguments for their position. This would include not just their positions on the primary issue, whether Biblical Creationism or its surrogate, ID, are science, but also positions on morals, social issues, education, philosophy or history.

Dream on Jar. And remember next time you propagate the idea, that it is a dream of your own manufacture and one you choose to impose on others (ie: it was never asked for). If anyone is fooled by it then they deserve to be - its nefarious objective must be patently obvious to all but the most dense (although I doubt anyones intellect could be so low in wattage so as to take you seriously in this)Anyway, I've requested that your illusionary project be suspended in my case and trust I will be exposed to the full wrath of your demand for evidence in due course - not that I will tolerate your cherry picking of my own arguments for attention.I trust I shan't be hearing anymore of this tripe again.

quote:

---

You mean the non-science stuff which occurs on this science site.

---

Yes, exactly.Back before the PNT process was instituted, the traffic was MUCH greater in the science fora.The quality was much lower, though.

quote:

---

Making it not-just-a-science site.

---

No one is saying it is a science-only site.

quote:

---

And if the non-science stuff formed the majority of all discussion what would that do to the notion that it is a science site?

---

It would simply mean that there was less participation in the science fora on this science site at the moment.

quote:

---

those in whose favor the bias is supposedly aimed never asked for the bias to be applied in the first place.

---

Indirectly, they do.When someone like Faith complains of an unfavorable bias while simultaneously verbally abusing her opponents, she is, in effect, asking for special treatment.

quote:

---

Moose ASSUMED I was a whiny creationist.

---

I'd use "sullen misanthrope", myself.

Ha, ha. I like that.

I read somewhere that you are an English teacher. Talk about a chance to influence the hearts and minds. Do you like your job?

I don't know that I want to influence anybody as regards their fundamental beliefs. My job is to teach them how to write better and force them to read books they don't want to read. My job is ok. There are certainly a lot worse jobs in this world. I'm not complaining.

Wait, I thought you said you were a math teacher at a community college.What's this about being an English teacher now?

No, I never said that. Now I did teach high school math aboard a Navy ship one time, but I don't think I talked about that here.I wasn't qualified to teach it, but I did anyway.

You don't think a persons worldview might influence the way in which the (presumably) proscribed books are read? Is there any flexibility in what you prescribe as reading material and which material do you promote in that case?Say the title of an essay you give as homeworkEdited by iano, : No reason given.