Phi for All

I hope you aren't lumping all us neutral people in with the negatives. This tends to happen when one is overly positive.

I'm going to point out, again, that you have a LOT of misconceptions about science, scientists, and the members here. I doubt anyone here would ever state that the "BB is the only answer", since, again, theories aren't "answers", and they're subject to better evidence when it comes along. Or even being overturned by better supported explanations. What is true is that the BB is the best supported explanation we have so far. Can you point me to the posts where anyone here attacked you for being Protestant? I haven't read all your posts so I might have missed this. I honestly have no idea who you're talking about when you say you're being attacked by "those who vehemently deny God and Bible of any translation". That would be a strong atheist position, and I don't recall any such. Don't make the mistake of conflating someone who refutes certain biblical claims with someone who denies there is a god(s). As far as denying the Bible though, you'd have to further clarify your concern. Denying that the Bible is accurate? Denying that the Bible is divinely inspired? Denying that the Bible has some great messages for mankind? I know you feel persecuted, but aren't you forgetting that most of the folks here treat god(s) like they treat stamp-collecting (i.e., they just don't see the point), rather than arguing (vehemently or not) that god(s) don't exist? Also don't forget that science requires precision, and much of the pushback you've been getting has been clarifying points where you were mistaken in your science details. We can't help that, it's the geek in all of us that has to make sure we're talking straight and about the same thing.

! Moderator Note In the future, especially when you're asking about something non-mainstream, can you please take the time to make sure your Opening Posts give enough information so people know exactly what you want to talk about? It would save multiple people asking for clarification.

Nobody who thinks they're good at solving people's mental problems would call themselves a psychiatrist (unless they had the degree), but many might claim to be good at psychology. I think the same is true of philosophers (or at least the ones without the degree). People who know they can't sound knowledgeable when talking about science often talk about philosophy without fear. In much the same way, those with no artistic training often deem their personal preferences good enough as a means of critique.

Size. Smallest US state in area. My state has counties bigger than RI.

! Moderator Note Posts regarding Earth creatures who don't need oxygen split off to here.

In my observations, only those who want to break the rules complain about the moderation here. Most find it refreshing that we maintain a civil tone compared to most forums, and most don't mind a bit more rigor in their science discussions. The only types of discussion that might be discouraged are the ones designed to break the rules (like mentioning religion in a mainstream thread). Right, because the police only deal with murderers and gruesome crimes. Great argument. I was asked to be a moderator by the site owners. They gave us some rules to enforce. That you question this seems disingenuous. It's not a for-profit site. It makes enough on Google ads to pay for the services. Other advertising is against the rules. I was going to go over your other points, but forget that. I'll tell you straight, coffeesippin. You don't know science as well as you think. I know that from personal experience. And that would be perfectly fine if you didn't have such a chip on your shoulder about it, or insist that you're right when everyone else in a thread is trying to show where you're wrong. Then you bring up your religion every chance you get, which nobody here is very interested in (science discussion site). You argue off-topic about these things, you get testy when corrected, and you're just cantankerous in general (which I get the feeling you enjoy, since you do it so much). Part of what you may not understand is how many of your posts get reported by the membership. Do you really think the staff has the time to hover over your every word? People report your posts, and that creates an electronic trail of procedure we need to implement to take care of the report. The mods aren't out to get you, but the membership obviously has a problem with your style. You generate a TON of non-science discussion that is a complete waste of time. Why did you come to a science discussion site just to bitch and moan about the rules you agreed to when you signed up?

! Moderator Note It's right after "Lazy Dead Pike". Thread closed.

! Moderator Note In order to keep the thread on topic, you need to check your facts before stating them so declaratively. Please ask questions if you're unsure. If you're suggesting changes to mainstream science, you need to start your own thread in Speculations.

Looking for investors in my new ice cube maker apparatus for home refrigerators! No more trays, no more molding, no more cutting to get your cubes! Can I call it the Wombutt? Wombrrr? Wombat3?

That IS diplomatic. It also sounds like Yiddish syntax.

Strange has said it twice now, and you missed it both times. The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please rethink your premise, if this is why you don't "believe" the evidence supporting BBT.

Poop3. Fantastic! Reminds me of a joke where a politician and a physicist meet on a plane. The politician wants to talk about dark matter, so the physicist says, "First let me ask you this. Even though a deer, a cow, and a wombat are all herbivores and eat grasses, when the deer defecates it comes out in little pellets, a cow makes flat patties, and the wombat makes little cubes. Why is that?" The politician looks perplexed and says, "I have no idea!" The physicist looks at him and says, "Well, why should I talk about theoretical physics with you when you don't know shit?"

You keep saying you're not a science denier, but this is a basic biological classification. Study up on hominids if you're interested in learning something. This has NOTHING to do with religion at all, it's not a faith-based belief, it's a system of classification that's based on trustworthy observation derived from countless genetic experiments. I've probably said it already in this thread, but if you actually study evolution and the theory that explains it, you'll come to realize there's no way to stop the process of evolution from happening. If you think you can, your reality is wrong.

! Moderator Note Warning point issued for thread hijacking. Sorry you can't abide by the rules thousands of others are capable of following.

I've shown (or attempted, in your case) why a distinction is necessary, but you've NEVER shown why conflating evidence and proof is meaningful. In fact, every example you give shows me that your interpretation of these definitions is exactly wrong, and unhelpful, and you only keep bringing it up because it gives you great leeway in the rigor with which you treat a topic.

I'm not sure why you chose a science discussion site to join for conversation. If you came to learn, like most of us, I don't think you'd have the same kind of troubles here. If you asked questions, instead of trying to tell people here where science is lacking (when it's clear you don't understand what you're criticizing), I think the members here would be happy to include you in their own learning processes. But you don't do any of that. You argue about things you don't know, and you get annoyed when your ideas are refuted. You constantly bring up religion and your god, even in mainstream science threads, and that always gets a negative reaction (because it's against the rules). I don't think you came here necessarily with a big chip on your shoulder, but you certainly have put one there since. I think many folks here are getting tired of short-sighted, oft-repeated (and refuted) religious arguments forced into science discussions. No offense, I'm sure you're a nice person, but you have only a popular science knowledge while trying to topple mainstream explanations. I recognize you, since I was in the same boat 14 years ago when I joined this site. I chose to learn instead of trying to teach.

Calling someone a troll is a moderator call. We're sort of like the police, don't you think? Feel free to report anyone you think is trolling you, and if we agree they'll be banned as a troll. See how that works? How is it a personal attack when someone points out something they think you're ignoring? That's not rational, and I think you know it. For the rest, you have a different definition of personal attack, one that seems to include those who simply question you. Our differing definitions may be irreconcilable. You decide and let us know if this is the case.

! Moderator Note This is NOT a personal attack, as he is pointing out an error in your reasoning. I would, however, point out to beecee that the term "god botherers" is a slur against a group, and should be avoided here. ! Moderator Note Again, not personal. He's attacking a paper not held in great esteem, and pointing out behavior that keeps you from investigating further. ! Moderator Note All of this is observation. When we talk about personal attacks, it isn't about the ideas you're espousing. A personal attack would be to use language that disparaged you as a person, not the ideas you have, or the behavior you display. Calling someone ignorant points out a gap in their knowledge, but calling someone a moron is a personal attack. Does that make sense? I think what you're experiencing (perhaps for the first time) is critical review of some of your deeply held ideas, and it's not going the way you thought. Sorry about that, but science works hard to remove as many emotional attachments and cognitive biases as possible.

! Moderator Note Hijack about the truth of theories (for which Reg already had a thread) and responding posts have been split to the Trash. The topic here is the validity of undetermination in science.

! Moderator Note Hey, we attack ideas here, not people. Civility is the #1 rule. Knock this off right now!

Have you watched any of the upmarketing and restoration shows? I particularly like Find It, Fix It, Flog It. They go around to junk yards and storage sheds/barns to find old items that can either be upmarketed (repurposed to make something completely new, like turning an old plow into a chaise lounge) or restored (clean up something old that has new value as a relic or memorabilia, such as an old automotive oil can or antique signage). This way you use your skills on projects where you set your own pace. You create a new lifestyle that matches your abilities. I also think these shows miss the mark by not looking for customers beforehand. If you know any retail business owners, many are looking for restored pieces or anything interesting that will catch the eyes of their clients (not necessarily for resale - I think you'd get more money from something they would display). One creative piece was a bunch of old suitcases secured on top of each other. They cut the fronts (tops? the side with the handle) off the bottom four and glued drawers onto them, leaving the top suitcase to lift open as normal. Easy sale to a retail shop for display, especially a luggage or leather store.

Never mind, I saw how you treated Arete's evidence that you were wrong. You seem to be pretty happy in your ignorance, and that makes it hard to discuss anything meaningful with you. It's a shame. Exactly. Gimped. Hobbled. You can't get around the knowledge very well because you don't have vital pieces of information that are keeping you from understanding. And since you could easily study what you're ridiculing, it's willful ignorance, a self-imposed set of blinders, or a ball and chain you locked on your own leg.

Except if you go back in the thread, you can see where people have corrected some of your misunderstandings during our open-minded discussion and presentation of (mis)information. Nothing about being open-minded suggests I need to listen to you when you're wrong and it can be shown you're wrong. Open-minded people weigh the preponderance of evidence regarding an explanation of phenomena, as Arete has stated. If you don't understand what you're talking about, how gimped are you in a Google search to determine the validity of a statement?

Another example where lack of knowledge fools the ignorant into believing "each side of a discussion" are arguing equally. You don't know what you're talking about (sorry! but true), so you don't have the tools and knowledge necessary to critically judge the validity of both sides of an argument. Ergo, they look the same to you. And of course, lack of knowledge often leads one to make things up. It's almost impossible to dissuade a person who fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've carefully tailored to make sense (to a single person). I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but I trust morality derived from reason much more than religion. People's faith can waver, but I think a person is much more likely to be consistent if they've decided what's right and wrong intellectually rather than emotionally. I think the wisdom of compassionate cooperation and communication is a stronger argument for moral behavior than "You'll go to hell!" If you aren't supposed to do something because your god(s) won't like it, historically we've seen many people either lose faith or decide that they're an instrument of their god's wrath. Emotional stances are often overridden by a more emotional one (indeed, that's often the only thing that will work). Parents might decide it's OK to kill to protect their child, even if they're killing the police to avoid capture.