This.
@Dan_Eastwood I can understand how other discussions around here have derailed can leave one with rather low expectations but, please believe me when you seem to have erred extremely(unusually) far on the side of hypersensitivity.
4 Likes
What is going on here?
To amplify: it appears at first glance to be a gross abuse of moderation authority.
4 Likes
Nobody said anything about making me wait. Is that what this is? I really have no idea why you refused to post that comment and no idea how you intend people to participate in the moderation process.
2 Likes
I think it’s splendid as is. If I’d written it, it would have been a bit more confrontational, but that, I suspect, would not be the kind of “improvement” which would meet with approval. And, of course, it’s his comment, not mine…
1 Like
I would suggest, then, that you refuse to handle the bomb.
2 Likes
Yes, my impression was likewise “more fool you” for Dan assuming responsibility for policing, to Joshua’s satisfaction, his latest ‘Office Hours’ clusterf@ck.
2 Likes
The bomb I can handle, the hard part is asking for a little cooperation and getting shit on for my efforts.
Joshua Samidass, I have said nothing to suggest that his audience is “anonymous non-academic atheists”, but rather that biologists are – a suggestion supported by the facts that (i) the title of this forum is “Peaceful Science”, (ii) that his presentation was on the “Compatibility of Evolution” – a matter of core interest to biologists, and (iii) that, as far as I can ascertain, numerous biologists but no philosophers or theologians have engaged him on these threads.
I therefore find your post to be both highly inaccurate and bullying and thus highly “inappropriate”.
Your post was flagged as inappropriate: the community feels it is offensive, abusive, to be hateful conduct or a violation of our community guidelines.
Balderdash! @moderators
2 Likes
No need to test this because we already know when the intelligent design occurred and the actualization of the design.
Yes. It has both and more.
Just read these sections of my paper for more:
Universal common design theory
Origin of life and species model
Origin of species predictions
Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer? - Peaceful Science
Did you read the comments on that thread that were ubiquitously critical of that “paper”?
More evidence that you don’t take criticisms seriously.
Like what? And which thread are you referring to?
I can’t find any objections that were raised in that thread.
The criticisms range from the generalised:
… to the specific:
… and back to further generalised criticism:
I fail to see how any of this can be considered serious objections that render it “unsalvageable”
Good! When for the former and who and how for the latter?
I have. It does neither.
I didn’t say that these particular criticisms were. I said that they were “ubiquitously critical of that ‘paper’” and “More evidence that you don’t take criticisms seriously.”
I would further suggest that they are emblematic of near-ubiquitous criticism of your claims.
Apart from Bill Cole, can you point to anybody on this forum who has anything positive to say about your claims, or considers that your ‘paper’ may provide the basis for anything worthwhile?
2 Likes
A precise number with error bars would be preferable (and unprecedented).
Don’t forget units for those numbers!
Just read section Origins of life and species model and Definitions my paper.
Not the updated draft, you haven’t. Go read section Future research and Universal common design theory
Sam Foerster
I’m not too sure that you will get this message. I don’t even know if I am typing in the proper location.
Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for what you’ve posted. I haven’t come anywhere close to reading all of this.
It does appear to me to show the pretension of the so-called, ‘peaceful’ science enterprise. To me, it looks like a pile on to anyone who expresses the slightest doubt about materialism.
I am not sure what you are asking or whether it applies here.