Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Up with the dedicated Evolution Forum!

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science. The religion forum is about 50% Evolution/Creation (These numbers are very well researched and peer-reviewed, and not at all based on "gut-feelings" or quick glances and personal experience)

We need an Evolution forum. That way if I want to discuss general non-evolution science, like a new alloy, or non-biological chemistry or the Pluto Express mission, I don't have to wade through six pages of inactive Evolution threads pro and con to find them. It would also clear up the religion thread to focus on aspects of religion OTHER than origins.

The discussion...CAN be important, (usually just a bunch of posturing...by people who take the opposite stance of you, dear reader) but there are other things besides Evolution I'd like to talk about sometimes when it comes to science.

There would certainly be enough traffic to keep the Evolution Forum going, and it would be probably one of the most visited. Also I think it would increase traffic to the regular Science Forum for non-Evolution topics, because they would be easier to find for those interested in not-evolution for a change.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:04:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science.

It should be appropriately named, "Denying Evolution Forum".

The religion forum is about 50% Evolution/Creation (These numbers are very well researched and peer-reviewed, and not at all based on "gut-feelings" or quick glances and personal experience)

We need an Evolution forum. That way if I want to discuss general non-evolution science, like a new alloy, or non-biological chemistry or the Pluto Express mission, I don't have to wade through six pages of inactive Evolution threads pro and con to find them. It would also clear up the religion thread to focus on aspects of religion OTHER than origins.

The discussion...CAN be important, (usually just a bunch of posturing...by people who take the opposite stance of you, dear reader) but there are other things besides Evolution I'd like to talk about sometimes when it comes to science.

There would certainly be enough traffic to keep the Evolution Forum going, and it would be probably one of the most visited. Also I think it would increase traffic to the regular Science Forum for non-Evolution topics, because they would be easier to find for those interested in not-evolution for a change.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 5:09:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
We need an Evolution forum.

If we have an Evolution forum, people will post about abiogenic evolution and cosmic evolution, and all the stupid chimps will be punching away "origin of life/universe isn't Evolution" punctuated, of course with wordy chants of "you're an idiot" against people pointing out problems with Evolution.

Sorry if I've offended any proud chimps. You're not really stupid. Intelligence is a meaningless concept, right? A human and a worm are equally intelligent, so says some leading priests of Evolution.

"Hey look ma, I got a MSRA infection, that proves I'm a monkey!"
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 5:39:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 5:09:02 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
We need an Evolution forum.

If we have an Evolution forum, people will post about abiogenic evolution and cosmic evolution, and all the stupid chimps will be punching away "origin of life/universe isn't Evolution" punctuated, of course with wordy chants of "you're an idiot" against people pointing out problems with Evolution.

Sorry if I've offended any proud chimps. You're not really stupid. Intelligence is a meaningless concept, right? A human and a worm are equally intelligent, so says some leading priests of Evolution.

"Hey look ma, I got a MSRA infection, that proves I'm a monkey!"

Considering you nor anyone else is actually "pointing out problems with Evolution", the bold underlined is perfectly relevant.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 7:16:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:04:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science.

It should be appropriately named, "Denying Evolution Forum".

Wouldn't science fiction advocates of Evolution be off-topic if they posted pro-Evolution content in the Denying Evolution Forum?
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:34:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:25:55 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
See #21 in this thread

http://www.debate.org...

You pre-stole my idea!
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:01:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science. The religion forum is about 50% Evolution/Creation (These numbers are very well researched and peer-reviewed, and not at all based on "gut-feelings" or quick glances and personal experience)

The anti-evolution position is just an antisecular position in a Groucho-mask, with a joke-store labcoat, Sky.

It's not proposing any scientific alternative to evolution; it's proposing mandatory religious indoctrination as an alternative to secular education, and religious nationalism as an alternative to pluralist secular democracy.

It's not here in the Science forum opposing evolution. Really, it's opposing empiricism, and the validity of secular reasoning in policymaking.

So if you took evolution out of the Science forum, you wouldn't be moving antisecular contrarians into their own play-pen. You'd just be giving them two fronts to fight on, and they'd want to fight on both fronts because they want to neuter the whole of science, not just biology.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 2:56:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:01:34 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science. The religion forum is about 50% Evolution/Creation (These numbers are very well researched and peer-reviewed, and not at all based on "gut-feelings" or quick glances and personal experience)

The anti-evolution position is just an antisecular position in a Groucho-mask, with a joke-store labcoat, Sky.

It's not proposing any scientific alternative to evolution; it's proposing mandatory religious indoctrination as an alternative to secular education, and religious nationalism as an alternative to pluralist secular democracy.

It's not here in the Science forum opposing evolution. Really, it's opposing empiricism, and the validity of secular reasoning in policymaking.

So if you took evolution out of the Science forum, you wouldn't be moving antisecular contrarians into their own play-pen. You'd just be giving them two fronts to fight on, and they'd want to fight on both fronts because they want to neuter the whole of science, not just biology.

You're really smart, RuvDraba, too bad we can't have discussions in which we disagree because if I rebut your ideas more than two consecutive times in a single thread, you break down into personal insults. "Sorry you've not been educated enough to understand me..." etc. I can provide a few links to discussions we've had if you don't believe me. You act like you're entitled to me agreeing with you because you're stuck in your ways and educated beyond your capacity for humility. Tell me, Ruv, what do you call someone who only listens to people who agree with them?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 3:04:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 2:56:41 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:01:34 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science. The religion forum is about 50% Evolution/Creation (These numbers are very well researched and peer-reviewed, and not at all based on "gut-feelings" or quick glances and personal experience)

The anti-evolution position is just an antisecular position in a Groucho-mask, with a joke-store labcoat, Sky.

It's not proposing any scientific alternative to evolution; it's proposing mandatory religious indoctrination as an alternative to secular education, and religious nationalism as an alternative to pluralist secular democracy.

It's not here in the Science forum opposing evolution. Really, it's opposing empiricism, and the validity of secular reasoning in policymaking.

So if you took evolution out of the Science forum, you wouldn't be moving antisecular contrarians into their own play-pen. You'd just be giving them two fronts to fight on, and they'd want to fight on both fronts because they want to neuter the whole of science, not just biology.

You're really smart, RuvDraba, too bad we can't have discussions in which we disagree because if I rebut your ideas more than two consecutive times in a single thread, you break down into personal insults.

Sky, this is off-topic, but you are mistaken. You need not respond to my posts at all, but if you do, know that my respect depends on the quality of the argument and its supporting evidence, while my tolerance depends on the demonstrated good faith of the poster.

That is all I have substantive to say on this matter.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 3:13:12 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 3:04:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/16/2016 2:56:41 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:01:34 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science. The religion forum is about 50% Evolution/Creation (These numbers are very well researched and peer-reviewed, and not at all based on "gut-feelings" or quick glances and personal experience)

The anti-evolution position is just an antisecular position in a Groucho-mask, with a joke-store labcoat, Sky.

It's not proposing any scientific alternative to evolution; it's proposing mandatory religious indoctrination as an alternative to secular education, and religious nationalism as an alternative to pluralist secular democracy.

It's not here in the Science forum opposing evolution. Really, it's opposing empiricism, and the validity of secular reasoning in policymaking.

So if you took evolution out of the Science forum, you wouldn't be moving antisecular contrarians into their own play-pen. You'd just be giving them two fronts to fight on, and they'd want to fight on both fronts because they want to neuter the whole of science, not just biology.

You're really smart, RuvDraba, too bad we can't have discussions in which we disagree because if I rebut your ideas more than two consecutive times in a single thread, you break down into personal insults.

Sky, this is off-topic, but you are mistaken. You need not respond to my posts at all, but if you do, know that my respect depends on the quality of the argument and its supporting evidence, while my tolerance depends on the demonstrated good faith of the poster.

That is all I have substantive to say on this matter.

It is off topic. This thread is not at all about the validity of Creation or Evolution, or the validity of any idea or philosophy. All this thread is about is giving Evolution it's own forum because there is so much traffic in the Science Forum on just Evolution, that it is harder than it needs to be to find and maintain discussions on anything else. Then along you come, with your off-subject attacks on people you don't like and don't understand. Did you read the first post?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 4:01:14 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 3:13:12 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/16/2016 3:04:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/16/2016 2:56:41 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:01:34 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/8/2016 5:31:16 AM, Skynet wrote:
So the Science Forum is at least 75% Evolution, not general science. The religion forum is about 50% Evolution/Creation (These numbers are very well researched and peer-reviewed, and not at all based on "gut-feelings" or quick glances and personal experience)

The anti-evolution position is just an antisecular position in a Groucho-mask, with a joke-store labcoat, Sky.

It's not proposing any scientific alternative to evolution; it's proposing mandatory religious indoctrination as an alternative to secular education, and religious nationalism as an alternative to pluralist secular democracy.

It's not here in the Science forum opposing evolution. Really, it's opposing empiricism, and the validity of secular reasoning in policymaking.

So if you took evolution out of the Science forum, you wouldn't be moving antisecular contrarians into their own play-pen. You'd just be giving them two fronts to fight on, and they'd want to fight on both fronts because they want to neuter the whole of science, not just biology.

You're really smart, RuvDraba, too bad we can't have discussions in which we disagree because if I rebut your ideas more than two consecutive times in a single thread, you break down into personal insults.

Sky, this is off-topic, but you are mistaken. You need not respond to my posts at all, but if you do, know that my respect depends on the quality of the argument and its supporting evidence, while my tolerance depends on the demonstrated good faith of the poster.

That is all I have substantive to say on this matter.

It is off topic. This thread is not at all about the validity of Creation or Evolution, or the validity of any idea or philosophy. All this thread is about is giving Evolution it's own forum because there is so much traffic in the Science Forum on just Evolution, that it is harder than it needs to be to find and maintain discussions on anything else. Then along you come, with your off-subject attacks on people you don't like and don't understand. Did you read the first post?

Yes. My diagnosis is different to yours.

There is no scientific controversy with respect to the validity and efficacy of evolution.

Here in Science we see two kinds of questions about evolution: a small number of questions by members who don't understand evolution very well and want to make better sense of it, and a large number of rhetorical attacks by a small group of the same members who aren't opposed to just evolution, but also to secular pluralism.

Since they're not motivated by genuine concerns about evolution so much as discrediting disciplines they believe are supporting secular pluralism, I believe that splitting Evolution off into its own forum wouldn't reduce the number of confected controversies a small number of members create to clog the Science forum. It would just split the confected controversies into two forums, and likely grow them, since antisecularists would feel obliged to represent their positions in both.

So even allowing the unlikely prospect of active moderation keeping the topics separate, I believe your proposed measure would be largely ineffective at reducing posts that aren't about genuine science issues, and improving the quality of science discussion over-all.