It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Changes Coming to Origins and Creationism.

page: 5
71
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Learning By Example


Originally posted by intrepid
This forum has become a cesspool of bickering and trolling.

Ironically, I must say that a great many of the preceding posts have proven this observation true beyond all reasonable doubt.

For anyone who may be uncertain of the issue at hand, I urge a careful review of the first post in this thread.


Originally posted by intrepid
This is coming to an end.

Indeed. This is a particularly unwise thread in which to bicker and troll, or pursue personal vendettas from other threads, and I strongly recommend that members not do so here for any reason, real or imagined, as self-identifying in such a fashion effectively forces moderator action.

For those wayward souls who continue to miss the point of this thread or the friendly reminders we provide, I pray this proves helpful, because not understanding the process or its purpose tends to end badly.

Meanwhile, for those who choose to stay on topic and respect the ATS terms & conditions here and in other threads:

Thank you so much! You make this all worthwhile.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


I'm still confused as to what is considered the purview of this forum as my questions regarding that issue have gone unanswered.

Do discussions of evolutionary science remain here?
What about discussions of creationist arguments?


With Conspiracies in Religion, it's quite easy to separate things out as there's another forum on general religious topics, but there isn't a general forum on Origins et al...so...could you please enlighten me as to where the above to types of threads would go?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Divergent Evolution

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


This forum is dedicated to the discussion of the organized conspiracy to influence science education through the introduction of creationism and other non-scientific origin concepts.

The purview is as stated in the description above. However, as you are quite aware, there's quite a bit of uncertainty with regard to what that actually means. Long ago, SkepticOverlord launched this forum with these comments:

New Forum For The Debate of Origins and Creationism

Although the title of the thread suggests one thing, the stated purpose of the forum (both in the thread and at the top of every page) suggests another, which can lead to confusion. I think the biggest problem facing the forum is that it has become less conspiracy-oriented and more theology-oriented -- although I don't think anyone can necessarily be blamed for missing the distinction over the years.

I can't speak to the details at this time, but as intrepid pointed out, change is coming. Hopefully the intent and focus of the forum will become clearer as a result.

In the meantime, as mentioned in the OP, threads that have no conspiracy angle may be moved to a more suitable forum. Because things have been less focused and so many threads currently qualify for a move, it may take a while for things to settle down.

Also, I want to make sure we've been crystal clear that while different points of view on topics relevant to this and other forums are encouraged and appreciated, ad hominem attacks, trolling and off-topic digressions are not welcome and are subject to moderator action.

As always, thanks to everyone who doesn't need to be reminded.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
When can we expect these "Changes?"

The forum is all but dead because of this thread.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by intrepid
 

Change, they say, is the only constant, but what change is being mooted here? Stricter moderation? All you’ll end up doing is strangle the forum.

A better idea would be to insist that Origins & Creationism is used for its intended purpose. This is stated on the top of every thread page in the forum:


This forum is dedicated to the discussion of the organized conspiracy to influence science education through the introduction of creationism and other non-scientific origin concepts. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups.

In other words, it’s a forum for discussing the conspiratorial hijinks of creationists.

It is explicitly not a forum for debating the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution. In this forum, the truth of evolution is not contested. See this stickied thread for confirmation.

In my view, this forum will improve in tone if the moderators actually do what they are supposed to do: prevent or penalize creationists from trolling the thread with laughable ‘disproofs’ of evolution and character attacks on ‘evolutionists’. Bring those to a halt, Intrepid, and I guarantee that you will have not only a more polite forum, but also a more intelligent one.

Of course creationists would still be welcome – to discuss the acknowledged creationist conspiracy and defend their side, but not to spam us with quotes from Answers in Genesis and argue about scientific theories they clearly do not, and do not wish to, understand. Accomplish that, my much-admired Canuck friend, and this forum will soon cease to be the Augean stables it now is.


Well said and couldn't agree more. Seems like they would rather make unnecessary changes rather than doing their jobs at moderating and weeding out the bible thumping preaching garbage.

On a side note: Don't feel like reading the entire thread, but was MIMS question ever answered? Rather interested in what/if the answer was/will be.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I can already see the positive effects of this new policy...

There's been a whopping one new thread created in O&C since this announcement and it's so off-topic for this particular subforum, it's not even funny. Not sure if the intent was to just kill off O&C completely or not, but good job! It worked!



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Well said and couldn't agree more. Seems like they would rather make unnecessary changes rather than doing their jobs at moderating...


Which is what we are doing.


....and weeding out the bible thumping preaching garbage.


Thank you for pointing out why this action had to take place. I couldn't have provided a better example.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

Hi, Intrepid. Would you like to address, specifically, the points I made in my earlier post (page two of the thread, but conveniently copied in its entirety by sirnex on this very page)?

I am sadly inclined to believe that you won’t be doing what I proposed: that is, taking the forum back to what it was originally intended to be, a place where creationist plots and conspiracies (whether real or imagined) could be discussed. You won’t be doing it because controversy attracts eyeballs, and eyeballs attract advertisers.

The problem with O&C, as far as ATS is concerned, is that the controversy is getting too hot, and respectable advertisers don’t like to be associated with forums in which people attack each other so viciously.

What ATS wants to do is keep the controversial off-topic stuff, like troll threads by creationists and madness’s ‘challenge’ threads (both of which attract controversy, which in turn attracts eyeballs, which in their turn attract advertisers), and still maintain the minimal standard of courtesy in discussion that will stop this site from turning into another GLP.

Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it, girls.

I predict that one of two things will happen, in the end. Either you will take the forum back to what it’s supposed to be, and accept the resulting drop in page views as the price ATS pays for its own integrity (it may help you to notice that the posts in which this solution is called for, mine included, have garnered the most stars in this thread), or else you will close this forum altogether.

Now would you please, very kindly, hurry up and make up your minds and do whatever the heck it is you are going to do, so that we can once again enjoy normal service in this forum or else take our custom – with respect to this issue, at least – elsewhere? Thank you.

Oh, and by the way: if you ignore this post like you ignored the last, you had better change your screen name.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Hey Mods, we're up to three off-topic threads in O&C since you made your announcement about what a cesspool of bickering it's become. Any chance these are going to get moved to the correct forums, as was promised in the OP?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Pimander
 

I'm not going to contradict that you're a scientist...but you're clearly not a biologist if you're using the term 'Darwinist', as there isn't a living Darwinist. There might be "neo-Darwinists", which incorporates Mendel's ideas into Darwin's..but even that is a misnomer.


Stop fishing. Anonymity is a good thing. However, I am very definitely a scientist.


Semantic error to be honest. Darwinists was a quick (not very clear way) of saying - those of you who think that gradual evolution by natural selection then speciation IS THE ONLY WAY new species develop over time. [Natural selection happens but there may be more to it than that - although fundamentalists never concede that]

There is also such a thing as Darwinism, of course. I would have though a scientist would know that.



Darwinism

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of On the Origin of Species in 1859. This entry first formulates ‘Darwin's Darwinism’ in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. Both Darwin and his critics recognized that his approach to evolution was distinctive on each of these topics, and it remains true that, though Darwinism has developed in many ways unforeseen by Darwin, its proponents and critics continue to differentiate it from other approaches in evolutionary biology by focusing on these themes.
plato.stanford.edu...

edit on 23/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


...and there aren't any living Darwinists because of Gregor Mendel's work and our modern understanding of genetics. Also, it's odd that you're citing the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I'm incredibly familiar with as philosophy is my minor) on a science point...

...also, who said that natural selection is the only means to speciation? As a scientist, you should know better. There's sexual selection (which was actually proposed by Darwin) and genetic drift.

Of course, if someone comes up with yet another means of speciation, they can go ahead and present it with evidence to support it. It's not a question of 'fundamentalism' to reject any other idea relating to diversity of life, merely a matter of evidence which is absent for any other idea.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I thought off-topic Bible-thumping nonsense was what you were supposed to remove from threads that aren't related to those sorts of things. And that sort of Bible-thumping nonsense (as opposed to sensical Biblical reference and discussion) crops up all too often in this sub-forum.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

The Philosophy of Science. What does that mean? You say some strange things sometimes.

Sexual selection is a form of natural selection. What is the evidence that genetic drift causes speciation?

In my opinion, we need more examples of speciation being observed without human influence. Nearly every example we have is caused by humans.

edit on 23/6/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 



Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

The Philosophy of Science. What does that mean? You say some strange things sometimes.


Alright, here I am going to call bovine excrement. You are not a scientist, as you've claimed to be. For one thing, no scientist refers to themselves as a 'scientist', they refer to themselves by field of study. My father is a physicist (his more specific field is a mouthful so he just uses that colloquially). I know other scientists (being at a university, you bump into a few) and they'll refer to themselves as organic chemists, computer scientists, engineers, quantum physicists, botanists, zoologists, etc.

Any scientist at the very least has to spend a unit on the 'philosophy of science', or at the very least read some Popper on the subject.



Sexual selection is a form of natural selection.


No, natural selection refers to competitive and environmental pressures, sexual selection refers to mating habits. If you're a scientist, you're sure as hell not a biologist.



What is the evidence that genetic drift causes speciation?


...plenty.



In my opinion, we need more examples of speciation being observed without human influence. Nearly every example we have is caused by humans.


Except for the myriad examples we have where it hasn't been. Oh, and that 'human influence' is called "setting up a general experiment that replicates natural conditions like population migrations."

So, spit out your scientific credentials, because I'm just not buying it now.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Alright, here I am going to call bovine excrement. You are not a scientist, as you've claimed to be. For one thing, no scientist refers to themselves as a 'scientist', they refer to themselves by field of study.

I'm not going to tell you my field of study. My first degree is pharmacology but I work in a different field now. Pharmacology is a biological science so you are wrong. I wish to remain anonymous and you really should respect that. Hard luck if you don't like it

I suspect what irks you is that you aren't a practising scientist like me. You studied it once.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, natural selection refers to competitive and environmental pressures, sexual selection refers to mating habits. If you're a scientist, you're sure as hell not a biologist.

Sexual selection is an environmental (other members of your species are part of your environment) and competitive pressure. Why are you so obsessed with semantics?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


In my opinion, we need more examples of speciation being observed without human influence. Nearly every example we have is caused by humans.


Except for the myriad examples we have where it hasn't been. Oh, and that 'human influence' is called "setting up a general experiment that replicates natural conditions like population migrations."

Come on then. Where are your examples? I seem to remember last time you did this you didn't produce a single example of true speciation (i.e. no further interbreeding possible) being observed that wasn't caused by humans. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it's just not been observed.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, spit out your scientific credentials, because I'm just not buying it now.

Fishing again are we...

Sorry but you aren't getting them all. If I gave them members could work out who I am. Not happening. My credibility in the real world is more important than on ATS.


If you aren't buying it, that's fine by me.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

In fact if you have already posted the examples in another thread point me to that thread. This is getting annoyingly off topic.

Sorry OP, this always happens when I debate with madness.

edit on 23/6/11 by Pimander because: typo



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Hey mods, isn't the most recent thread in O&C a prime example of the thing that you're weren't going to allow in this forum any longer? Or is it just not OK to turn this forum into a cesspool of bickering when you're an atheist, but if you're a theist it's open season?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

I don’t think this was really about taking sides. It was just stupidity and lack of forethought. Somebody had a rush of blood to the head and decided to Take Action. Now they’ve realized there’s no real action they can take, short of killing the forum, so they’re hiding their faces in shame and embarrassment.

Either that, or it’s a conspiracy by the moderators to kill the forum anyway. One which seems to be succeeding.



edit on 2/7/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
This forum has become a cesspool of bickering and trolling. This is coming to an end. The change is not to the rules but an enforcement of them as some members are unable to post without causing disruption. Threads that have no conspiracy angle will be moved to Faith, unless they are disruptive, then they will be removed. The threads in Faith will be given the same treatment.

I'm sure there will be calls of "censorship" but these action will be taken against Deist and Atheist threads/posts alike. The staff wishes that these actions didn't have to take place but the disruption has been going on for too long with some NOT listening to the staff, who's responsibility is to the site for ALL members and visitors alike. Not just the few standing on soap boxes bickering. This is to let EVERYONE know what is going to take place in this forum. It is non-negotiable.

ATS is a place for intelligent debate. This forum was one in the past. It will be again. Most will applaud this action and that is the reason that is has to be done. We look forward for it to be one once again.


I'm a bit surprised by the negative responses here. If the intent was to return this forum to what "was one in the past" "a place for intelligent debate" - I say discussion. Why be against it or even blame the mods?


I say why not?

my 2cents.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Quite right; see my first post in the thread.

However, all the threads you have made since first posting here will have to be deleted, or at least locked.




top topics



 
71
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join