Phi for All

But you're moving the goalposts from observable deities to observable claims which prove a deity's existence. The former aren't present (though there remains a possibility that they will manifest) and the latter are easily explained by natural means, or refutable as you've pointed out. I'd be open for a sub-forum that allows religious discussion, but it would have to be completely different from how we've done it in the past. Intense moderation failed because it was too stifling for most, and anything less would allow more of the same. A moderation queue might work, but many would cry censorship. I've given up thinking it's even a possibility here. Mostly it doesn't work because the people who shouldn't post there can't leave it alone.

In a scientifically measurable way?

How... convenient. Did his friends tell you this? That's not really peer review, you know.

Yeah? Where are they, again? I don't see them.

Two things really keep religion from being a measurably meaningful topic here, omnipotence and a lack of observable deities. The idea that a deity can work outside the physical mechanisms known to science keeps any scientific relevance from happening. And ultimately someone will explain a religious discrepancy with the phrase, "God is all-powerful". The only response is, "Prove it". Oh snap, nothing more to discuss. The fact that deities choose to remain unobservable means science can't even form any meaningful speculation. Supposed religious phenomena can be explained in natural ways, and where it can't, rational thought tells us not to leap to supernatural conclusions, and once again the discussion grinds to a halt.

"... cited for disorderly conduct" is how I heard it. Probably the same kind of citation they'd get if they were being disruptive inside the restaurant. I don't know, I think it was a mistake on the part of the McD's employee. In the video it says the employee felt threatened, and if the guys did say anything threatening when their rap fell flat, then I can see why the cops were called. On the other hand, if this is a viral thing and it happens every day, I can see store owners not wanting to slow down dinner sales so some kids can be funny. I commiserate because this is just the kind of thing I would have done at that age.

We've even launched sister sites centered around the origins debate and religion in general, using the SFN style of respect, rigor and rationality, but they all failed miserably. As ydoaPs said, one side or the other inevitably lost it and nothing meaningful was accomplished. It's difficult to respond scientifically to matters of faith, and equally difficult for those of faith to have sacred beliefs held up to scientific scrutiny. Natural and supernatural are poor instruments to measure each other by.

I'm fairly certain that Mr Skeptic was replying directly to your assertion that a liberal version of FOX News would create less controversy. I read his post as a simple disagreement along with an explanation; he hates liars on his side of the argument more than liars on the other side. I agree with him, too. A liar on my side taints the whole perspective and weakens my stance too. A liar on the other side of the argument can be revealed and denounced, and ultimately that's what we're doing here, pointing the finger and highlighting the deceptions. No personal attack, no libelous opinion, no problem.

I think you mean censured, which is a harsh rebuke rather than editing, banning or blocking what they say. Well, then I am guilty of attacking FOX News for their twisted, lying ways. Are you suggesting we stop attacking lies and deceit where we find them just because our accusations are true? I joined MoveOn.org when they first started, but stopped reading and responding to all they had to say to me because they were unwilling to acknowledge the good things that Bush was doing. It would still bother me if there was an alleged "news organization" that only pandered to the left. Like I do with FOX, I would watch occasionally to see what they were up to, but their lack of objectivity would quickly put them in the "take with a grain of salt" category. That should be a whole new thread. How can doctored videos and outright lies be beheld as accurate in any way? When FOX's Bill Hemmer claims that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory" rape case involving an underage student but didn't report it, when in fact the student was past the age of consent, why is my neighbor down the street justified in declaring that the student was underage? Because he heard it on FOX News, so it must be true?

A statement I never made. And how is it an attack when it's true? Are you denying the evidence put forth that FOX News organized anti-Dem rallies and then covered them as "news" on a "grass-roots movement"? Would you approve if they strapped a bomb on someone they suspected to be a terrorist and then dropped him off in a public square so their "reporters" could show everyone how dangerous this guy is? What does liking it have to do with it? I watch and read lots of opinions I don't agree with, if only to keep my perspective honest. But how does listening to half-truths, outright lies and deceptive "news stories" help keep me informed? And this is a danger, as I mentioned before. People who watch FOX News exclusively are being misinformed and lied to by what they are told is an objective "news organization". When so many get so much bad intel, how can they make informed decisions about anything? Remove the "state-run" part and you've got FOX News, imo. I agree totally. No argument. An equal *accurate* voice would be nice. The news shouldn't lie, and when it does it's not a voice, it's propaganda. Excellent. Then I'm not as worried about you as I am those who *only* watch FOX News. Just as I worry about those who only vote the way MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh tell them.

This reminds me of the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in Intelligent Design promotion. They themselves make the claim that science is wrong in certain aspects, then make it sound like it's a big controversy, so it's wrong not to "teach the controversy" in public schools. It's a bit like me purposely running a red light and causing an accident to prove how unsafe the intersection is. What FOX does is not news, it's carefully rigged deceit.

Because FOX is, imo, far more blatant about their slant than anyone else. They seem more like a television version of right-wing talk radio pretending to offer a fair and balanced view. They've become the masters of the far-right strategy I call "The Alzheimer's Gambit", where they accuse the left of doing (or not doing) something the right has been doing (or not doing) for years. Like former VP Cheney did recently, accusing the Obama administration of not honoring a military request for more troops in Afghanistan when the request sat unfulfilled for the last 8 months of the Bush administration. The Alzheimer's Gambit assumes the listener won't remember what happened all those months ago and will be too lazy to check it out. Including you. I'd be curious to hear what other "news organizations" you think put as much spin on the news as FOX does. I agree that they all have some spin, but FOX is head and shoulders above the crowd in that regard. And, as has been proven, they literally distort and lie about the news, which removes any journalistic credentials they may have had once. I think FOX is excessively biased because they are more of a political organization than a news organization. *I* am excessively biased about them because I think most (not all) people who watch FOX News exclusively want their opinions formed for them because it's too much work to look at different sources, and they really only want to hear views that coincide with theirs anyway. And I hate that kind of compound mentality and consider it to be detrimental to democracy in general.

Evolution is just the change in allele frequency in a population over time. It has nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. What are you looking for? If I say that it's possible some higher power designed the current physical mechanisms of the universe, then bowed out of the way to let it all play out, will you then use that as a defense for ID? This would be a mistake. If you just want to know if it's possible, well yes, it's possible. It's just not scientifically very *probable*. Why does complexity require a design, and thus a designer? I once saw a license plate by the side of the road that had been run over many times and it looked like a piece of art. It wasn't just flat, it had obviously been hit by front tires, flipped up then nailed by back tires repeatedly. I could see the outline of a face in the wrinkles, and the whole thing looked like a bow-tie designed for the Tin Man from Oz. It was extremely complex, but no one designed it. It had just undergone multiple pressures from multiple tires and weather over time.

Let's be sure to make the distinction between Intelligent Design (in caps, to denote the whole concept as it's being promoted) and an intelligent designer (lower case, some power with greater knowledge/power but still bound by physical laws). That distinction made, an intelligent designer is a possibility. We have no way of knowing scientifically since, if It exists, It chooses to remain unobservable. Evolutionary mechanisms aren't concerned with origins, so it really doesn't matter. Intelligent Design, however, is not even remotely possible, since it contradicts known science in many instances. ID only works if you allow for omnipotence, a designer who can transcend Its own laws (which also seems contradictory, no?).

Ideology really doesn't come into it for me. I don't want a left-right, pro-con spin to my news, I want the facts. Sort of a Jack Webb approach, or the way witnesses are encouraged to testify in court. I don't want my judgments made for me, not even when I might agree with them. Especially when I agree with them, actually, because how can I trust the perspective when it was forced upon me?

I define news as an unbiased reporting of important or interesting events. By that definition, there probably hasn't been a true news program for decades, if ever. Bias in journalism is very hard to avoid. I appreciate it when a "news organization" feeds me the news, but allows me the freedom to chew on it myself, so I can decide whether to swallow it or spit it out as *I* see fit. FOX is like having a feeding tube forced down your throat. They are practicing gastrostomy, not journalism, as if they wanted to make sure to bypass the brain and go straight to digestion. Very unhealthy, very controlling and it very much upsets my tummy.

You're welcome, rockhead. The real reason, of course, is that there haven't been enough pure geology threads started in the General Sciences forum to warrant splitting Geology off into it's own sub-forum. Perhaps you can start enough interesting Geology threads to correct that?

You said, "There is evidence that members have been killed, but no evidence that they all died from being 'killed'". You seemed to require a single source. Honestly, I don't know why the several known answers for the Cro-magnon and Neanderthal demise, taken in toto, aren't good enough for you. You seem to have a reason you're not sharing why you think the evidence is wrong. Extinction doesn't have to be ultimate. There is a male Pinta Island tortoise in the Galapagos that is the last of his kind. When he dies, the species will be extinct. Do you understand the fact that if a species has fewer births than deaths, it will die off eventually even if it keeps reproducing? At some point, the last female gives birth and there is no opposite sex to reproduce with, sealing the fate of the species. Now how are we going to have concrete evidence of an event like that?

Why do they *all* have to die the same way? Isn't attrition from various sources, including predatory higher Homo Sapiens, sufficient for extinction? I'm not sure why you are being so picky here. Not all extinctions are as "single-source" as the Dodo.

You don't think a predator superior to Cro-magnon and Neanderthal could have wiped them out, leaving evidence of superior weaponry marks on their crushed bones and skulls? Do you have a better answer than, "Nope"? It was mentioned before and you ignored it. There *is* evidence that Cro-magnons and Neanderthals were often killed by superior weapons, so it's not unlikely they were killed by superior Homo Sapiens. Yes, it would. You said it yourself, it wasn't that they didn't reproduce, they just died at a faster rate than they reproduced. Their have been studies that show that more modern humans killed them.

Predators who are more successful in the same niche would. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If we didn't have historical documentation, what kind of evidence would be left behind to tell what killed the Dodo?

To me, this all hinges on what Gates did as the officer was exiting his home, presumably ready to let the matter drop. I'd like to know if Lucia Whalen and the University police corroborate that Gates continued to scream at Officer Crowley as Crowley was leaving the house, and if Gates really did ignore Crowley as he warned him he was becoming disorderly and took out his handcuffs. If Gates continued to yell at Crowley when Crowley was willing to drop the matter, then Gates is the one who "acted stupidly". As Pangloss said, law enforcement, at that level, requires complete cooperation so they can control potentially dangerous situations. De-escalation tactics are for inside the house, but when you're outside in public, even if it's on your property, raising your voice in anger is not something the police tolerate for very long. It's the kind of thing that can quickly stir up a mob of people (either for or against the one yelling), and the police are NOT fond of riots.

I'm pretty proud of the way we handle it most of the time. We try to be patient, we try to inform, we try to remain objective. If we can try to avoid labeling someone too quickly, and let the system handle persistently poor arguments (report these posts rather than bring up past threads in a current one), I think we can stay honest so "those darn deniers'" arguments will stand out as being poorly drawn.

Oh, I thought you meant since you posted last month.

I think GutZ is moving in the right direction with his idea in post #43. My only concern is that people get too easily marginalized with convenient labels here. I just think we need to be more careful how we apply them so we post intellectually honest discussions, even if they aren't always with intellectually honest people. Let's not resort to torture just because the enemy does it. For the most part, we do a pretty good job of laying out decent refutations of misunderstood science. We point out errors, we cite reputable sources and we don't stoop to the kinds of bad logic the opposition uses. But too often we throw out subtle well-poisonings ("anyone with a second-grade education would know X..."), or we reject evidence in a way we'd never be allowed to reject the person posting it ("That's a stupid article" rather than, "That article doesn't draw a proper conclusion because..."). Calling a spade a spade sounds like good old folk wisdom, but it's sort of an Appeal to Homily. It too often assumes that the person doing the calling is qualified to judge spades in every instance, and it poisons the well on any future evidence or discussions with that person. We can always get rid of someone who is persistent in their misinformation or in complete denial of facts garnered by using peer-reviewed scientific methodology, but while they are here, I would like to see them given a more than fair chance, even when they're being deceitful. Call it the scientific high ground. This is a lot like criminal justice. I'm not arguing that incorrigible criminals be set free, I just want each crime tried separately and fairly before we label them incorrigible and throw them in jail for life.