Originally posted by LCKob
Actually so do I ... but thats just me, as the saying goes, it takes all kinds.
{snip}
True, {snip}
A reasonable approach and commendable for its direct and organized theme... ... yet, I would not dismiss a question out of hand for being passive or
open ended ... IMO it deserves a chance to develop or unfold as the originator intends ... I for my part, merely attempted to "nudge" it along in
hopes of conceptual fruition...
Okay, then thus far we are in agreement. I don't think I dismissed the question for being open ended. I don't think I dismissed it all. In fact, I
think I responded in a totally appropriate fashion. In fact given the question:
How do creationists explain hominids like H. erectus, H.
ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis? What about A. afarensis, A. africanus, or A. robustus? These are just a few examples of non-H. sapiens hominids,
but you get the idea.
I think that stating
how about looking at a Creationist site... seems like it might be the best place to start
followed by:
For example searching the ICR's website using the term "erectus" yields 17 hits.
seems like a great answer.
Plus the included links not only provides the author with the infomation they asked for, but further demonstrates a way in which they might find the
answer for themselves in the future.
I should qualify what I mean by information gathering ... I think I implied it, but was not express in my definition ... which is namely the
information gathering in the "academic" sense and such gathering in a semi social setting ... for which I contend that forums can be either ...
depending on the participants and the general intellectual climate.
Okay... I see your point. I my personal opinion, the internet - especially in anonymous discussion forums is not a typical social setting. To my
knowledge there certainly is no consensus opinion. Perhaps this is part of the difficulty. However, in my own mind: The internet is a great
information gathering resource; hence my earlier reference to google. However, IMO, the discussion forums are places to post ideas, theories, whatever
you've heard or otherwise explored.
Like I said before, if the discussion forums were based on people saying "Hey guys what's the deal with air conditioners, how do they work?"
there'd be little discussion. Since the question does begin with
How it is an open ended question in a technical sense, however, it really
lacks the ability to progress further on its own, as you pointed out:
I for my part, merely attempted to "nudge" it along in hopes of
conceptual fruition
A well formulated discussion topic is not generally in need of 'nudging to conceptual fruition,' at least that's what I think.
True, it is less than efficient, but then again so is dating, small talk and gossip ... and the forums at times incorporates all three and more ...
Sorry, but I don't think the O & C
Conspiracy forum is the appropriate place for any of these things.
I agree within the context of strict and academic/scientific assessement paradigm ... but would you not agree that forums such as those found
on ATS (and elsewhere) ... tolerate a reasonably liberal policy on "thought exchange" ... out of the simple expediency of freedom of thought and
expression (within reason)?
I certainly would agree. I just think it would make things easier if concepts were well thought out, reasonably planned, and had some sort of
direction from the beginning. I don't haunt too many forums, but for examples of what I am saying, I would look for threads authored by soficrow in
particular, and Rren. Note that I am not saying I agree with those two on all issues, rather that their threads are lucid, well thought out, and
generally lead to good discussion.
So far in this thread the only thing that's really been discussed is the ethics of thread authorship.
By the way, speaking of thead authorship, have you heard of
BBCode? It makes your posts
easier to follow.
[edit on 12-1-2006 by LCKob]
