PDA

View Full Version : I want to thank the management



Dons
2007-Feb-16, 06:06 PM
I want to thank the management of this board for putting an end to the latest ID/creation v. Science thread.


Certainly, you in no wise have limited speech, but rather defined the direction you want this board to take. You want a science board, and your direction, and guidance, to that end is commendable.


This is a note of thanks, and to express my continued support.


Don

jamini
2007-Feb-16, 06:12 PM
Last time I checked, it was only closed temporarily. But I would agree that based on the OP's obvious inability to present anywhere near the criteria requisite for any ATM theory, it would be in the best interest of the continuity of this forum to close the topic permanently.

WaxRubiks
2007-Feb-16, 06:41 PM
if atheists didn't hijack science then maybe the oozing puss ridden tumor that is ID wouldn't have come into existence.

jamini
2007-Feb-16, 06:46 PM
if atheists didn't hijack science then maybe the oozing puss ridden tumor that is ID wouldn't have come into existence.

Atheists didn't "hijack science", they salvaged it from the burning ashes of the trash bins of a church-enslaved society.

Doodler
2007-Feb-16, 07:17 PM
This thread's heading for a lock down faster than the other one managed.

Dons
2007-Feb-16, 08:02 PM
Seeing ID is clearly religious, supported by myth gods, and does not belong on a science board, then perhaps a general posting by the management would be required stating why ID will NOT be a topic.


The document might take some drafting and editing, perhaps with input from the community members, then have this one time statement, or proclamation posted on the opening page of this board.

This one time proclamation will state that ID will NOT be a topic, and WHY (in detail) ID is NOT a science topic. Just saying ID is too contentious so it is avoided, certainly, to me, gives the wrong impression. By the looks of many of the members here, they in no wise will back off from a contentious subject, but rather will not degrade themselves in a discussion of what god is the greater, Zeus, Thor or Bugs Bunny.


If the ID topic comes up in the future, the management (or others) could refer the poster to this detailed cover letter and that would be the end of it. Also placed at the bottom of this proclamation members could place their name (and date) in support of it; so “new comers” would not assume the management of this board is operating in a vacuum.


This would be a very professional cover letter, on the order of a legal memo, giving citations of law according to ALWD format and following the rigorous standards of scientific documentation.


In this document ID would addressed, one time only in open pubic by this board, and then the ID subject set aside so we do not have to be stuck in the “oozing puss ridden tumor” that is ID.


Don

Dons
2007-Feb-16, 08:13 PM
This thread's heading for a lock down faster than the other one managed.

Yes, you are right; any further discussion by me will be in email, and not in open board posting.



Don

SolusLupus
2007-Feb-16, 11:32 PM
if atheists didn't hijack science then maybe the oozing puss ridden tumor that is ID wouldn't have come into existence.

So this explains your ad hominem against Dawkins.

Hm. Your same logic for presuming that Dawkins was ignorant as to the subject matter of religion (which was faulty and ad hominem) now can be applicable to you, for reasons more based in evidence.

Oh, the irony.

Serenitude
2007-Feb-17, 12:04 AM
This thread is horrible. I hear the lock rattling.

WaxRubiks
2007-Feb-17, 12:09 AM
ad hominem :A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007256296x/student_view0/glossary.html

how was saying that Dawkins was ignorant about the bible an adhominem?

I don't know, perhaps he has read the whole two bibles but he doesn't seem to have much of an understanding of religion if he thinks that he has successfully attacked all christian belief by quoting and attacking some of the garbage that there is in the old testament.



Oh, the irony.


but still perhaps you have a point.

SolusLupus
2007-Feb-17, 12:45 AM
ad hominem :A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007256296x/student_view0/glossary.html

how was saying that Dawkins was ignorant about the bible an adhominem?

You basically said that because he didn't believe in religion, he didn't know what he was talking about. You also made an attack on the person (Dawkins) by saying he didn't know enough about the subject he was arguing against (religion), and then using that to target his argument.

And yes, I know what an Ad Hominem Fallacy is. You don't need to quote that at me.


I don't know, perhaps he has read the whole two bibles but he doesn't seem to have much of an understanding of religion if he thinks that he has successfully attacked all christian belief by quoting and attacking some of the garbage that there is in the old testament.

Oh alas! you show less and less understanding of what Dawkins says as you post.

You really think that the crux of his entire argument involves, "Oh, here are some Old Testament quotes"? You admitted to not reading any of his work, and that's the entire synopsis you can come up with?

That's not counting "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", "The God Delusion", and many more?

Pardon me if I guffaw.

WaxRubiks
2007-Feb-17, 01:13 AM
ok, here is a pdf downloadable version of "The God Delusion"

http://www.divshare.com/download/23359-f49

I'll have a go at it. ;)

SolusLupus
2007-Feb-17, 01:18 AM
Huh. Cool.

*Download*

Edit: Thanks.

Maksutov
2007-Feb-17, 01:33 AM
I want to thank the management of this board for putting an end to the latest ID/creation v. Science thread.


Certainly, you in no wise have limited speech, but rather defined the direction you want this board to take. You want a science board, and your direction, and guidance, to that end is commendable.


This is a note of thanks, and to express my continued support.


DonI add my second to what Don wrote.

Although the lock is for only one day, we can hope that it will soon become apparent that non-science subjects belong in an appropriate forum, such as Off-Topic Babbling, and non-science subjects that are concerned only with religion (including religious topics such as ID) and/or politics belong on another BB.

gGriffeth
2007-Feb-17, 02:31 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
True that my friend

Van Rijn
2007-Feb-17, 02:32 AM
I add my second to what Don wrote.

Although the lock is for only one day, we can hope that it will soon become apparent that non-science subjects belong in an appropriate forum, such as Off-Topic Babbling, and non-science subjects that are concerned only with religion (including religious topics such as ID) and/or politics belong on another BB.

But, I think that's why it is important to ask what the scientific evidence is to support the presenter's argument, and if he cannot or will not answer, to close the relevant thread. It seems to be his contention that there is objective evidence for his argument. If he cannot present it, he demonstrates it is not a scientific argument.

Maksutov
2007-Feb-17, 03:41 AM
But, I think that's why it is important to ask what the scientific evidence is to support the presenter's argument, and if he cannot or will not answer, to close the relevant thread. Understood. But there are some subjects and areas of interest that are, by definition, non-scientific. Since the underpinnings for these don't involve scientific evidence, the discussion is going to be from the outset, my word against yours, my feelings against yours, my beliefs against yours, ad infinitum. Such "discussions" accomplish nothing, and often fall into arguments about personalities, etc., which is not good.
It seems to be his contention that there is objective evidence for his argument.I recall him writing in his first post to the thread in question these rather revealing words
I haven't read through the whole thread, but I've noticed a trend.followed by
I don't plan on engaging in evolution debates here (and then engaging in an evolution debate), and ending with
Bottom line: Ken G, you'll make few friends in your own camp if you continue to advocate this ineffective strategy. Go with a proven winner: lies and money.Having reviewed all of his subsequent posts, the content is primarily qualitative attacks against the methods of any scientists and non-scientists who support the theory of evolution (and against those persons themselves, e.g., "lies and money"). I don't recall him actually saying he had "objective evidence", but instead a few documents and links to websites which "disproved" evolution. Investigation of these references showed them to be the same old material which had been debunked years ago. Thus what one always gets with YECs, OECs, and IDers: many, many claims of being able to "disprove" evolution in particular and cosmology in general, but no objective evidence that stands up under scientific scrutiny to back up such claims.
If he cannot present it, he demonstrates it is not a scientific argument.Agreed.

Where I'm coming from is two perspectives.

1. Claims of YECs, OECs, and IDers have been demonstrated scientifically 100% of the time to not be supportable.

2. The foundations of YEC, OEC, and ID are religious in nature.

As a result of these two items, YEC, OEC, and ID have no place in a science board. As soon as one of these approaches provides new (or more accurately, any) objective evidence (on one of their BBs) that their claims can be demonstrated scientifically and this evidence has been scientifically scrutinized and found to accurately describe and predict the way reality works, then we should welcome that group back.

Van Rijn
2007-Feb-17, 08:42 AM
Understood. But there are some subjects and areas of interest that are, by definition, non-scientific. Since the underpinnings for these don't involve scientific evidence, the discussion is going to be from the outset, my word against yours, my feelings against yours, my beliefs against yours, ad infinitum.


That sounds like a lot of ATM arguments - belief based, my word against yours, evidence ignored.



Where I'm coming from is two perspectives.

1. Claims of YECs, OECs, and IDers have been demonstrated scientifically 100% of the time to not be supportable.

2. The foundations of YEC, OEC, and ID are religious in nature.

As a result of these two items, YEC, OEC, and ID have no place in a science board. As soon as one of these approaches provides new (or more accurately, any) objective evidence (on one of their BBs) that their claims can be demonstrated scientifically and this evidence has been scientifically scrutinized and found to accurately describe and predict the way reality works, then we should welcome that group back.

I understand your position. In my case, I have no illusions about the basis of the claims made. I certainly do not expect he can support his claim of objective evidence for his position. However, the claim has been made, the questions have been asked, so let's give him the chance to present the evidence he says exists. Of course, if he continues with the tactics you describe and cannot or will not provide the evidence or answer reasonable questions, I would hope the thread is again soon closed.

Thomas(believer)
2007-Feb-20, 03:28 PM
I don't understand this discussion about ID.
The last thing that the "creator" wants to do is reveal Itself.
If I understand the Bible and other religions well, then it is about believing.
The ones with the strongest faith get the greatest rewards.

Maybe string theory will provide a better indication for a designer, but more in the sense how well It hides Itself.

John Mendenhall
2007-Feb-20, 05:45 PM
Maybe string theory will provide a better indication for a designer, but more in the sense how well It hides Itself.

She. How well She hides Herself.

Thomas(believer)
2007-Feb-20, 06:23 PM
She. How well She hides Herself.

You are probably right that the Creator or Designer is female.
Still, I like to keep it in the middle.

Occam
2007-Feb-20, 06:30 PM
She. How well She hides Herself.

Quite right. The creator is a she. That's how she remains ineffable and her ways mysterious.

antoniseb
2007-Feb-20, 07:17 PM
No warnings, as I'm sure it was all meant lightly, but I've closed this thread due to excess theology.