Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Yup, but I’d rather reach consensus first.
I somewhat agree with your sentiment, but I also don’t want to see the massive derails we’d get from people complaining about their posts not being approved. I’d like to see some clear guidelines from Lizzie since she’s the site owner.
I agree with you there as well. While I don’t like the idea of banning people, if there are going to be rules that impose that consequence, we should enforce them. Lizzie chose otherwise.
The easy solution is to make OP rights more exclusive. Technically, this is a blog. Not everybody should be a co-blogger.
The easy solution is to let anyone post anything that doesn’t include the bannable offenses. Deciding who is worthy of posting is much harder, not to mention antithetical to freedom of expression.
Spoken like a true loser, Glen. If saying there isn’t a ToE is so stupid why is it that no one can refute me by linking to it?
Adequate discussion? No one has ever linked to the alleged ToE, Neil. That means the adequate discussion has proven it doesn’t exist.
Dumbfuck.
Glen Davidson
LoL! Not one of those is the theory of evolution. You have never linked to the actual theory, Alan. Methinks you don’t know what a scientific theory entails. Your summation isn’t even close.
Yes you are, Glen. Nice projection.
I’m afraid I am forced to agree with phoodoo, Alan.While Frankie’s post is wildly inaccurate and does appear to contain a quote mine, it doesn’t include any of the bannable offenses.There is nothing in the rules that allows an admin to refuse to approve it.It I think we have to let it through and address its deficiencies in the comments.
Neil, what do you think?
My post does not contain a quote mine and no one can refute it. It’s as if you are all oblivious to reality.
Afraid of the tough task of judging individual characters, are we? But that’s admin’s job. Yet again you show you don’t have what it takes to be admin.
My emotional reaction to the idea of controlling other peoples’ expression is revulsion, not fear.
The role of the admins here is to support Lizzie’s goals by following the rules she laid out. That does not require the authoritarian approach you apparently crave.
Well, I’m not going to make an issue over this. My view is that posts require the highest standard of compliance with the rules. And Joe’s OP is a repeat of a false claim that is refuted simply by pointing out the existence of On the Origin of Species, which comes close to spamming in my view, which is why I won’t publish it as it stands. On the other hand, the sky won’t fall in if the OP is posted and I won’t be upset if you feel strongly we should publish as is.
It would be good to get some input from Lizzie. I’ve felt for some time that there needs to be some clarification on how to deal with repetitious false claims such as this classic example from Joe that “there is no theory of evolution!”
Alan Fox,
Again with the bluffing cowardice. Why is it that no one can link to this alleged ToE? It is as if it doesn’t exist.
BTW “On the Origins of Species” isn’t a scientific theory. It didn’t make any testable claims. Heck Darwin didn’t even understand inheritance.
And the OP was put up as a response to my suggesting Joe rein in the trolling on “there is no theory of evolution”.
?
On the Origin of Species.
Again, that isn’t a scientific theory. It is too vague and doesn’t make testable claims.
Try again.
WRONG. At the time of writing, people thought the universe was much younger than it is, which would have been insufficient for evolution. It made a non consensus prediction and was vindicated after the fact. ID – nada.
Make your mind up. A theory that is vague must exist. If you want to argue that Darwin’s theory is vague and unsupported, that would be a more honest approach.
Yes Alan, the concept of evolution via natural selection exists. That doesn’t make it a scientific theory. Darwin’s idea was too vague to be considered as a scientific theory.
Something that is vague and unsupported cannot be a scientific theory. Perhaps you are confusing a scientific theory with a theory in the more general/ philosophical sense, ie more of a musing than science.
What page does Darwin say how much time is enough time for his concept to work itself out-> ie bring forth the diversity of life from some starting population? How did he figure it out?
A nice account here: http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/darwinism_and_the_age_of_earth
Educate yourself, Joe.
Darwin didn’t know how long it would take because Darwin didn’t have a testable mechanism. And no one knows if the alleged 4.5 billion years is enough time if natural selection is the main player. All observations say it is impotent with respect to universal common descent, especially once sexual reproduction started (another process darwin couldn’t explain).
The way Jerry Coyne talks about gene and whole genome duplications followed by just-so diverging mutations, there isn’t enough time in a 16 billion year old universe to produce the diversity of life via natural selection:
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution
Duplicate genes require new binding sites unless there is a lucky duplication. Then there are the function altering mutations. There just isn’t enough time available for all that needs to happen to happen.
So the only testable claim an alleged biological theory makes has nothing to do with biology?
The Creationists predicted the universe had a beginning. They also predicted reproductive isolation.
Alan Fox,
Well for crying out loud Alan, how difficult is it to see that if there is only one side deciding what are false claims, you couldn’t possibly hope to achieve a real discussion site here. Since every moderator here only comes from one side of the debate, its like having Donald Trump decide which news articles are fair to be printed about him.
I think it is a false claim by you that the theory of evolution has been spelled out clearly and agree upon by the science community. The fact that there are so many examples of what is claimed to be some theory of evolution proves the point. How can there be ten, or one hundred? That is the equivalent of none. How high would the number of supposed definitions need to be before you would accept that its meaningless?
If your side can’t agree on one definition, that means there isn’t one. There aren’t 100 theories of relativity. If there were, there would be the same as none.
The number of supposed theories of evolution is apparently unlimited. But of course we should be discussing this in a thread, not in moderation Alan.
So I challenge your claim Alan. 100 years ago perhaps you could have said there is a theory of evolution: random mutations, plus natural selection is the creator of all we see in life. But since your side has abandoned that (replacing random mutations with anything), no more theory exists.
I spy with my little eye something beginning with YEC. You can go back to being irrelevant now – or better yet prepare for your lawsuit:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17489641&postID=940578705113398659
I’ll fly KeithS in first class for that one so we can both enjoy the spectacle.
This is gibberish and inaccurate. We’ve long known that RM is a driver of heritable change (and it still is) but we’ve known about sex for a bit longer than 100 years. But as always, I’m happy to give you a fuller account providing you provide a similar level of detail from the ID side.
1- Questioning the age of the earth doesn’t make a person a YEC. Your false dichotomy is duly noted as is your irrelevant posts. And given how they determined the age of the earth anyone with even a little science background would question it- it contains at least one untestable assumption
2- Random mutations drive disease and deformities and nothing more. There isn’t any way to test the claim that random mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to complex adaptations.
3- There isn’t any way to test the claim that random mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to sexual reproduction. Heck it can’t even account for gene regulation
Anyone asking for the same level of detail from ID as we expect from evolutionism is clueless. It was Darwin who claimed to have a step by step process for producing the diversity of life, not ID, We are just asking that evos support the claims of their position. But we understand why you would rather deflect attention than to actually try to support the claims of your position
OTOH ID has a step by step process for determining if intelligent designs exist. And we have shared that.
Nowhere that I’ve seen, and I’ve been following this train wreck of pseudoscientific nonsense for far too many years.
If you think you have a step by step process, link to it and provide some examples of using it.
Given your obvious willful ignorance plus the fact that I have already posted the methodology on this site, tells me that you aren’t really interested.
The methodology has been used on biological structures like ATP synthase. And guess what? Your position has nothing to refute the design inference.
Interesting. You keep talking about it but don’t link to it or provide any examples. Your behavior is indistinguishable from bluffing.
oops
Just search this site for “Testing ID”
Still no link or example. Why should anyone think you’re doing anything other than bluffing?
Still no link or example.Why should anyone think you’re doing anything other than bluffing?
So you are too incompetent to search this site. And tat is supposed to be a refutation of my claim? Really?
Testing ID- http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/testing-intelligent-design/
Note- it is more than your position has.
Bluster but no content.
And more projection from Patrick.
Nowhere in that post or the ensuing comments do you provide a step-by-step process for identifying design, let alone any examples of doing so. Your earlier statement in this thread is therefore shown to be false.
It’s so cute when trolls learn a new word.
You learned a new word?
You have reading comprehension issues.
The design explanatory filter: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm
A step by step process for determining design.
You could simply make your case by detailing the step-by-step process and showing how to apply it to real world biological systems. Unless and until you do, there’s no reason to take your baseless assertions seriously.
Applying the EF to ATP synthase, the structure comes out as being Intelligently Designed. That is because there is no way to test the claim that it arose via physics and chemistry, so we can rule that out and it fits the design criteria laid down by Behe.
Frankie,
So much math! EF = personal incredulity. Thanks for clearing that up.
The EF = personal incredulity to the scientifically illiterate as it requires knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Also it is more than your position has.
More baseless assertions. Let’s see your step-by-step application of the EF to ATP synthase. In detail, please.