Silent Dave

There have been several complaints about randman, but a couple of the most prevalent are that he refuses to answer the challenges put forth to him, and that he keeps jumping from thread to thread in order to make it impossible to keep track of him.

Several people have called for his being banned from the board, but as a couple of people have pointed out, he hasn't actually violated any forum rules or policies (yet), and his participation in the forum actually provides a good learning experience to those without more than a passing familiarity with the evidence for evolution.

So I have an idea.

First, we will ask randman to voluntarily confine himself to this thread for the time being. That is, he can post as much as he likes in this thread, but should not post anywhere else for now. This will make it easier to have a focused discussion with him. (If he does not wish to do so, we can only assume that he finds a rhetorical advantage in his verbal gyrations.)

Then, we will ask randman to state what he considers to be the top three problems with evolution. Not evolutionists, but evolution as a whole. He should agree to not give any links to outside sources, nor reference anything he may have said elsewhere on the forum (i.e. I already provided a definition of "kind' elsewhere). Once we have dealt with those three objections, he can either discuss our responses for a reasonable period of time, or post three more for us to deal with.

In return for doing this, we will promise:

* To treat him civilly, without insults or general denegration, even if he does not treat us the same.

* To provide solid, evidence-supported responses to his objections, even if he does not do the same.

* To not give him any positive challenges for the time being, such as asking him to define a kind or state a scientific theory of creationism, except insofar as they may be directly related to an objection he makes.

* To listen to him, even if he does not listen to us, and rather than assume we know what he thinks, to ask questions about what he thinks. (i.e. instead of foisting a definition of evolution upon him, to ask him what his definition of evolution is, and either work within that definition or give concise reasons for not accepting it.)

* Most importantly, to admit when he has made a good point, even if he does not do the same for us.


If all of randman's first, say, twelve objections are answered satisfactorily -- not in randman's opinion, for I don't believe that any evidence would in principle satisfy randman, but in the opinion of the board moderators, who have already demonstrated their objectivity by not banning randman -- then randman will agree to do one of the following: either post a concise statement of his own non-evolutionary worldview, including a criterion of falsification, for us to scrutinize . . . or leave the board of his own voilition.

I think that this would be to everyone's advantage. It would keep the discussion focused, as I said, and would serve the purpose of giving lurkers more familiarity with the evidence for evolution. It would also give randman a chance to present his case, hear what we have to say about it without the distractions of insults or complains about personal behavior -- and even if randman feels that he stands no chance against our vast numbers and sheer evolutionist dogmatic stubbornness, the experience would still give him something to brag about.

So, shall we?


Dave

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Dave ]</p>

Pomp

You know, I was going to suggest something like this as well. I'd further suggest that perhaps a limited set of posters be nominated to respond to randman so he doesn't get bogged down fielding challenges from half the forum.

One further suggestion for randman himself: Use your "Enter" key a bit more often. I have a hell of a time reading your posts with no paragraph breaks in them.

Silent Dave

That's a very good idea. How about we ask, say, three people to volunteer to respond to randman in this thread, and the other people on this forum confine themselves to just watching? The three should be prepared to abide by the guidelines for behavior I set forth above.


Dave

randman

Dave, you have some good suggestions though it is the weekend now, and my participation will be partially dictated by the weather.

However, the last part won't do. If ya'll want to stick to one thread in talking issues with me, and limit any outside sources from either side, that seems OK.
I am not going to submit voluntarily to any judgements by moderators of a site named Infidels. I think there is a clear bias, and nothing I can say would convince them of just about anything, and if it did, I don't see them saying, yep, randman is right. So as far as complying with leaving the board, or some such, no, I won't agree to that, but the overall idea of just one thread and a few posters rather than a dozen is a good idea. People feel like I don't answer them, but at the same time, they don't realize how many people are clamoring for answers and such.

I also will require that any subject I am not familiar with be kept out of bounds since I am not allowed to post outside sources.

One more too, it is not simply evolutionary theory that I am interested in discussing but the way this material is presented. For me, the methods used by evolutionists are as important an issue as whether the theory has merit.

So maybe you could revise some of the rules, and perhaps allow references to outside sources unless you want a clean debate on the ideas. You will get my opinion, and other opinions, but you can't prove the opinions in my view without referencing outside material.

I don't mind a clean debate by the way to inform of what each other beleives, but that is something for you to think about.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Must ... resist ... uncontrollable ...urge ...aarrgghhh ...

Malaclypse the Younger

I would relax this requirement a bit. If he has factual references it would be useful to see them. I would concur, however, with a request that he not copy or link to other's arguments.

Malaclypse the Younger

randman

With all due respect, you already have. Read the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">Forum Rules and Policies</a>

This seems like a legitimate topic of discussion that can be determined from facts.

Quetzal

randman:

You know, we've covered this quite a bit. I've even conceded that some of the ways in which evolutionary theory has been presented in the past were not very good. Others have said the same to you. I don't recall that you ever fully responded to my points. Unfortunately, of course, the thread(s) in question have now sunk into the abyss, including my last two(!) rather lengthy replies to your arguments - to which you haven't responded either.

I guess my question to you and those who suggest a more formalized debate structure is this: what on earth would be the point?

faded_Glory

We could do this in the Formal Debates and Discussion Forum here. This would allow us to only grant posting permissions to the agreed debaters, and stop any others who may have difficulties to control themselves from posting. I would be happy to moderate, in the sense that I would keep an eye on the proceedings and ensure people stick to their (self-imposed) rules.

Just let me know if this is acceptable to all.

fG

Silent Dave

As Malaclypse pointed out, you have submitted to the judgements of the moderators simply by registering and participating on this board, and as I pointed out earlier, the fact that you have not been banned or any of your posts deleted should suffice as evidence of their objectivity. But I understand where you're coming from. I brought the idea of judgement and leaving the board into the picture because I want to hold you accountable for your actions and ideas. In my opinion, there is a dearth of accountability among anti-evolutionists who visit this and other evolutionist boards, and your behavior to date suggests that you are no exception.

I suggest a compromise, then:

1) You will voluntarily confine yourself to the discussion thread while you present whatever objections to evolution you have, two or three at a time in order to allow your opponents a chance to respond, and you and they will continue discussing your ideas until you have decided the issue is settled, one way or the other. You may so decide whenever you wish, and we will at that point assume that you have presented the best attack on evolution that you personally are capable of.

2) Immediately thereafter, say within 24 hours, you will present a concise statement of your personal worldview (i.e. tell us what do you believe accounts for life, if not evolution) for scrutiny, and you will continue to voluntarily confine yourself to the discussion thread while you answer questions and respond to the objections of your opponents to your worldview (if any) until they have decided, say by a majority vote, that the issue is settled one way or the other. After that, or if there is no participation in the discussion thread for three days, or if a moderator releases you, you may resume your participation in the rest of the forum. (This makes it highly unlikely that events will conspire to keep you confined to the one thread forever.)

3) Before the discussion begins, you will post a public statement to the effect that, should you fail to abide by the above guidelines once the discussion has started, you agree to be suspended or banned from the forum. This is where the accountability part comes in, and it is key to my proposal. (I don't ask the same of your opponents because, depending on who they are, their accountability will probably not be in question. Besides, my proposal is structured in such a way as if they did turn out to be unaccountable, you will not suffer.)


I am strongly against that, since that would enable you to dismiss any given refutation of your objections by saying you are not familiar with this or that aspect of the refutation. If a concept is presented that you are not familiar with, just say so, and your opponents will agree to clarify.

As for outside sources, my main concern was that you would let AIG do all the talking for you, as you have done several times on this forum. If you would agree to not post links to argumentative pages, but only to factual references, again as Malaclypse suggested, I would be fine with you posting links.


If the three volunteers agree, I have no problem with that. (I myself will not be one of them, since although I am capable in discussing evolution, I am not as proficient as some on this board. I'm just the guy with all the good logistical ideas. )

If you agree, then ask for volunteers, post the public statement called for in (3), and have faded_Glory open a thread for you in FD&D.


Dave