# "Proper" use of mod powers to steer a thread in GD? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 23, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144 "2010-01-23T18:39:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/201 "2010-01-30T21:55:39Z")
If it is your opinion, then it is based on something or it’s something you invented to support your view. Which is it? I can’t see how you have ANY basis to form that opinion, except your own personal uninformed view of how the moderators act. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/202 "2010-01-30T22:55:05Z")
**magellan01** , your post boils down to “I can’t prove it, but it’s obviously true.” ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/203 "2010-02-01T16:32:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > For the warned poster I hope it corrected an error. If he already knew what he was posting was false, it doesn’t matter if I correct it or not. Oh really, so just what exactly is “false” here: > [@](#): > > The “Big Bang Theory”, is just that… theory. No, not disproven by scientifc rigor, just as the theory of creation has not been disproven. What was there before the Big Bang. How many Big Bangs have there been? The Universe is still expanding from the most recent Bang. Will it one day start to contract to the point that there will be another Bang? How did the first one come about? > > With evolution, like the Big Bang, there are unexplainable gaps, and you can only go back so far until there are unanswerable questions > > Hmm… there seems to be an aspect of religion to what science itself cannot “prove”. > > Faith. The answer is that there was nothing “false” with the statement, and how in the hell can you consider it a continuation of trolling? Because it may upset the sensibilities of someone who has a disdain for religion? Sorry, but it was a legitimate illustration of how a degree of faith is necessary to connect the dots within Darwinism/evolution. Not to mention that evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I’ll admit that there was a degree of “trolling” with my posting a link to a column, as a way to “chum the waters”, as that is a good analogy. Whenever someone posts anything here that is contradictory to the leftist ideology, the feeding frenzy begins. However, you were wrong to consider the above quote as a continuation of trolling. I was legitimately defending my position. All you accomplished was to confirm the obvious bias within SDMB. Keep it up, and all you’ll have here is the like-minded. You’re almost there now. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/204 "2010-02-01T16:55:34Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > The answer is that there was nothing “false” with the statement Actually, virtually all of it is false. And even without a direct admission that one was “chumming the waters”, clinging to those errors even after they’ve been cleared up for you is highly suspicious behavior. -Calling the Big Bang ‘just a theory’ while deliberately ignoring the difference between untested hypotheses and (so-far) supported theories in science. -Ignoring the wealth of proof for the BBT, including but not limited to background radiation, the Red Shift, etc… -Pretending that the untestable, unfalsifiable claims made in a bronze age document are at the same level as a testable, refutable scientific theory with a wealth of support behind it. -The claim that an honest appraisal of facts that leads us to say, at certain points, “we don’t know yet” is ‘faith’, but simply making shit up about it and saying “Well then, God did it.” is a scientific theory. > [@Paleface](#): > > Sorry, but it was a legitimate illustration of how a degree of faith is necessary to connect the dots within Darwinism/evolution. Not to mention that evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 1. No, it wasn’t. It was a pack of fiction designed to, as admitted “chum the waters”. The fact that it was 100% erroneous when the correct information is easily accessible makes it look worse than simple ignorance. That you’re lumping everybody in the world together as “Leftists” as long as they accept truth and don’t cling to an ancient creation-narrative which has been, thoroughly, falsified is… odd. Evidently the Catholic Church is just one great big megalith for Leftism. I guess. 2. No, “God did it!” is, indeed, incompatible with rational epistemology, scientific inquiry, the wealth of transitional fossils we’ve found, etc, etc, etc. That you do not know this suggests either that you have deliberately chosen not to learn the facts which would correct your errors, or that you do not care for the facts as long as your errors allow the “water to be chummed” for people who aren’t biblical literalists. ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/205 "2010-02-01T19:28:12Z")
Paleface was quite correct both sides depend on faith, and was silenced for saying he knew many would not agree here. What needs to be mentioned in this thread is the fact the board NEEDS people on both sides of issues for any debate to occur. They ought to be glad he would post on a board as nasty and hostile as this one and take the other side. Why not be glad you all can express all your scientific proof and wisdom in a debate, instead of saying it needs to be locked because he would not accept the other sides debate or knew many would dislike his view??? I bet many of you same people saying he will not listen protested the draft and Vietnam and the blacks being in the back of the bus, and all that was SURE churning the waters! I thought liberalism was supposed to allow for dissent? Don’t most marchers in Washington know also that they are churning the waters with protests, yet if it is so liberal here why are you all not for that? Do you want your ideas silenced because you “won’t listen” too? Think about that. Be glad there are people to take both sides of issues here. Let people speak on the other side. What good is a GD section without having 2 sides? You all allow as much freedom of ideas here as a Puritan village holding a witch hunt. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/206 "2010-02-01T20:37:52Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > You all allow as much freedom of ideas here as a Puritan village holding a witch hunt. Then you may post somewhere else. I’m suspending your account while the staff discusses whether or not to continue persecuting you, or to mercifully set you free. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/207 "2010-02-01T20:55:38Z")
Banned name! ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/208 "2010-02-02T00:56:15Z")
How long have you been waiting to use that one? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/209 "2010-02-02T02:05:54Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > The answer is that there was nothing “false” with the statement, . . . For one thing, there is no theory of creation. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/210 "2010-02-02T03:01:01Z")
Sure there is. We see stuff, something made stuff, we predict a Creator God. To test this, we see if there is stuff. Is there stuff? Yep, definitely a Creator God. Further, definitely the Christian Creator God (of the correct sect, naturally), and not one of those dirty pagan gods, or what have you. This is proven by the fact that the Christian Creator God is objectively, like, at least ten times more awesome than Zeus, and the Greeks had sex with little boys anyways. On the other hand, we have the Only A Theory Of Evolution, which uses such things as the fossil record, endogenous retroviruses, molecular clocks and a bunch of stuff that I don’t really understand. And since I don’t understand it, obviously it’s not very good theory, and it says that dogs turn into cats overnight and anyways natural selection violates the third law of thermodynamics, or the cosmological constant, or maybe the law of gravity. Look, the point is I’m really not sure, and that just shows what bad science it is and it all has to be taken on faith, because if I can’t understand it then nobody else can. So, there we go, I’ve proven that creation is a perfectly valid scientific theory _and_ that the Only A Theory Of Evolution is not science at all, but religion. Paradoxically I’ve also proven that religion is science, unfounded faith is knowledge and yet I’m still generous enough to place the Truth of the Christian Creator God on the same level (we have to Teach The Controversy, after all) as the Only A Theory of Evolution. And only an _evolutionist_ would dare deny the manifest rightness of my claims. QED. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/211 "2010-02-02T04:33:57Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > QED. _Nl nisi bonum mortuorum dixisti._ ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/212 "2010-02-02T04:37:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nl I still refuse to bring you a shrubbery. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/213 "2010-02-02T09:31:01Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Sure there is. > > We see stuff, something made stuff, we predict a Creator God. To test this, we see if there is stuff. Is there stuff? Yep, definitely a Creator God. Further, definitely the Christian Creator God (of the correct sect, naturally), and not one of those dirty pagan gods, or what have you. This is proven by the fact that the Christian Creator God is objectively, like, at least ten times more awesome than Zeus, and the Greeks had sex with little boys anyways. > > On the other hand, we have the Only A Theory Of Evolution, which uses such things as the fossil record, endogenous retroviruses, molecular clocks and a bunch of stuff that I don’t really understand. And since I don’t understand it, obviously it’s not very good theory, and it says that dogs turn into cats overnight and anyways natural selection violates the third law of thermodynamics, or the cosmological constant, or maybe the law of gravity. Look, the point is I’m really not sure, and that just shows what bad science it is and it all has to be taken on faith, because if I can’t understand it then nobody else can. > > So, there we go, I’ve proven that creation is a perfectly valid scientific theory _and_ that the Only A Theory Of Evolution is not science at all, but religion. Paradoxically I’ve also proven that religion is science, unfounded faith is knowledge and yet I’m still generous enough to place the Truth of the Christian Creator God on the same level (we have to Teach The Controversy, after all) as the Only A Theory of Evolution. > > And only an _evolutionist_ would dare deny the manifest rightness of my claims. > > QED. Oh no. The waters are churned again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144.md?page=10)