He started discussing the complexity of the atom, and mentioned the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment as something that could not be explained with modern science. He is a good friend of mine and this is the first time we have ever had the evolution old earth vs creationism new earth debate and it was a little awkward for me.

I felt bad asking him for evidence of a God, (because he can't produce any, ldo) but I did ask him why evolution and the big bang model are the most widely excepted explanations for the cosmos and mankind, and why no evidence for god has ever been published in a scientific journal of any kind. Then he starts discrediting science, and pretty much accusing the scientific community of downright conspiracy to hide evidence or knowingly not publish christian apologetics because I guess they are stubborn or something.

Very weird for me, I think this is going to turn into a awkward hookup situation and well just never talk about it again, like I said before very close friends.

For the Lol's, he also said quantum mechanics is science that cannot be explained. And that there is no evidence for macro-evolution. sigh, creationists gonna creationist.

He's right, in the sense that science goes so far then says "It's just like this, we don't know why. Accept it". Of course, "God made it like this, we don't know why. Accept it" is not much of an improvement.

That's not really true of the double slit experiment, though. There are plenty of explanations for why we get the results we do.

Yeah, I meant that ultimately it's 'small things do weird things' and there's no reason for why things are like that. (Not yet, anyhow).

I dont think science or religion qualify as 'an explanation' for why reality is the way it is. I dont think we have an explanation.

I think you have the mindset of a scientist a little wrong. In the cases such as the double slit experiment, they will say we can repeat this forever. We don't have an exact explanation of why it works this way, but we understand the mathematics behind it. Don't accept it, try to figure out why it does it.

What is the consensus with the electrons taking on wave like principles when it is being observed?

I also read a passage on a blog that said instead of the double slit experiment proving god, IE, someone who is watching. It can disprove God, if God is always watching then why would the electrons ever behave differently?

The idea that they can infract people for pointing out reality is ridiculous. If Charles Manson posted on RGT in his hay-day would nobody be allowed to call him a cult leader? Is that a personal insult or just an observation of reality? The lines on here are constantly blurred like that, and what madnak has decided to do is leave it up to the moderators to decide when to delete those posts and when to allow for them (Jibninjas does not have a good track record for being objective [again, insult or observation? I think we know which one Jibninjas will pick, so he can delete this]), and taking a look at my own posting history they haven't done a very good or objective job; recently a post of mine was deleted that merely asked Jibninjas if he agreed or disagreed with something I said. I guess he didn't want to have to answer that question, and didn't want anyone else in RGT to realize he didn't want to answer that question. That's the kind of out of line modding I see going on.

The rules and the way the forum is moderated drips of a couple dudes on a power trip. I was actually surprised that this whole sequence of posts hadn't been deleted by the time I got back from my run, I'm just going to assume they haven't seen it yet and these posts too will be deleted under their tyrannical and obsessive use of their special buttons. I don't think the forum is better off with these rules. There are plenty of other places I can talk about these topics on the internet, I'm going to go to a place where the rules actually make sense, where you are allowed to call a spade a spade. I'm sure I'll come back rarely and check up on MY images for atheists thread, the one madnak hijacked from me, since I believe it will have 1,000,000 hits in the future. Otherwise I'm done here until such a point as there are rule changes and more openness to speak about the modding that is going on.

Well, I'm pretty much with you in that I'm a big fan of modding the old way (ie minimalist). Nonetheless, there's not much point in public debates based on democratic principles since this isnt a democratic forum. It is a dictatorship - in my view, the best way to enact change in a dictatorship is to persuade the dictator to alter the rules. My unsolicited advice would be to pm the two of them (perhaps including Zeno) as to your concerns and suggested changes - I would think you'd be much more likely to get your way than public statements of grievances without any real constructive suggestion. (I'm not clear, for example, on exactly what you would want the rules to be).

FWIW, I agree that the rules as currently laid out arent being enforced uniformly - I think it's pretty much impossible to do so, given the interpretation required in enforcing them. (I have no problem with Stu Pidasso calling me silly, for the record - others might consider it terrible).

Eh, I don't know that uniform enforcement is even desirable. We're not here to enforce justice, we're here to keep the forums running smoothly. My approach is, if it's not going to cause problems then I won't bother enforcing it.

There are regular posters here who have pretty much never derailed a thread, alienated anybody, or contributed to a ****storm. They get plenty of latitude.

There are regular posters who consistently derail threads. They get most of their posts deleted. (Sorry, Splendour.)

There are regular posters who actually show up when drama starts and stir things up. They get infracted.

A playful insult in a friendly discussion is not the same as an insult that escalates an already tense situation. They're completely different even if they are the exact same insult, verbatim.

It's a business where posting is a privilege and the goal is pretty much to make money for 2+2 Publishing. It's not a small democratic republic where everyone has rights. Yes, the mods are allowed to be straight-up dicks so long as it helps the forum. That's the criterion that matters.

(And does it help the forum? That's a good question. It's an experiment, so basically the whole point of this moderating style is to answer that. So far it does seem like we have fewer derails and deeper, more consistent threads. But it hasn't been long and I, for one, can't really tell what the overall effect has been.)

Someone once said "it is the spirit of the rules that matter, not the rules themselves."
seems like the best way to judge a forum

bunny what does the motivational thing in your avatar say?

Good luck with that Madnak

Probably not to you, but that doesnt mean some of the regulars dont want it.

(I still desire hands-off modding even though Matt Sklansky probably thinks that's a bad idea).

I can't remember, sadly. Something like:

BUNNY - he will murder you and feast upon your soul.

Google knows everything, heh.

I thought Australians hated bunnies.

He's a bridge player.

The sound of church bells are beautiful and peaceful. Your mind is in turmoil, it seems. Soon you will be yelling at the chirping of the birds. If you can't abide it, one of you is going to have to move. There are still places where you can't hear a church.

While I think this is incredibly dumb and that each post should be treated independent of any other, if you guys are going to operate like this you at least need to make a solid effort to keep up with the posting styles of regulars.

For example, I took a few months off from posting in RGT. Before I left I'll be the first to admit that I was mainly posting one line insults and/or mocking style posts. I realized that and decided I should just stop posting here if that's all I could bring myself to post.

But after taking a break I'm back posting again, and the overwhelming majority of my posts are on-topic and free of insults.

Yet jib still treats me as if I never changed my posting habits for the better.

Remember that thread where the guy said he no longer believed in god? Jib said he was illogical because going from theist straight to atheist doesn't make any sense.

You made a post shortly after which was clearly mocking exactly what jib had just posted. I quoted his post and said "lol" because I genuinely chuckled irl. So on one hand, we have you who directly mocked him and your post stays, while my post gets deleted.

Going by what you're saying in your post above, I should be able to make a few "lol" posts here and there, as long as they are used sparingly.

So if you guys are going to use this method you better make it a point to keep up with the times and not just go off of what you remember from a years ago. Especially in jib's case because he rarely posts here. He needs to make an effort to keep up with the posting style of the regulars even if he doesn't want to post a lot on his own. And if he can't do that then he needs to step down because they way you guys have set this up requires that he be up to speed with who's posting what.

@loK2thabrain,

First, I cannot remember the last time I deleted one of your posts. So I am not sure what you mean by "Yet jib still treats me as if I never changed my posting habits for the better.
"

Secondly, I may not post that often, but I am still on reading over posts pretty much every day. I just don't post because I cannot get into long conversation

jib,

Fair enough. If that wasn't you who deleted my post, obviously I'd like to retract my statement above and apologize for jumping to conclusions. Since the post was directed towards you, and madnak has cracked a joke about the same post minutes earlier I didn't think it would have been him that deleted my post. If I was wrong, that's my bad.

Oh, I deleted your post alright. You've toned it down, but you haven't changed your tune at all. To clarify what constitutes a personal attack, here's a list of quotes from you today that are either full-on attacks or borderline:

"This is an extremely dishonest interpretation of what he said in the video you linked."

"Continuing to use the fact that evolution is a theory as some sort of point against its credibility is only serving to make you look less credible."

"Not sure why you would jump to the conclusion that he very well might be making fun of the bible. Kind of reeks of an agenda. "

"facepalm.jpg"

"At this point I suspect you might just be stopping by for some late night trolling."

"It's odd you'd think the worst possible motive when he did a reading of the bible in song form."

"Maybe next time try correcting me and giving me an opportunity to apologize before jumping to conclusions."

"Get off you ****ing high horse for once."

Thompson on certainty:
Certainty Is an Illusion
http://www.beingknown.com/2010/12/ce...s-an-illusion/

That's for sure.

I wish madnak hadn't locked up that Harold Camping thread.