Fishteacher73 Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 While most here are open to ideas and questions from just about any point of view, we must also realize the purpose and nature of this specific site. This is a science site, devoted to the exploration and discussion of scientific ideas. This being said, this is not a soapbox nor a pulpit. I understand that there are theological theories and implication in some of the topics discussed here and there is a forum that is deadicated to that purpose (The Theology Forum). That being said, I feel that the remaining forums are not the place to continually have such debates. There are rules for this site and theologically backed statements are not really appropriate in the scientific realm. As a refresher for those that have forgotten or not read them... The bolded portion have been added by myself. These seem to be the areas in which many posters are having the most problem with. As a moderator, I will be enforcing these rules. Do not be surprise to find a closed thread or a deleted post for failure to comply to the above guidelines. If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum. If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on. Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get. It is generally a good idea not to spend all your time in only a few topics. Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned! Dark Mind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 hip, hip, hooray! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Some people should read Fish's post very carefully and wonder how close they are to getting banned. (No, not you Rocky). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 You so totally rock, Fish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 maybe there should be some warning sticky post or something in the theology section. I think that some people think it is for doing any type of bible discussion or preaching. They need to know it's just for theology issues related to science. I can understand that most poeple don't actually read the forum rules, it's kind of like installing a Microsoft product and actually reading the 50 page agreement before clicking the "I agree" checkbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 You mean you don't read your EULA? I tend to read all of it, mostly for amusement. The best I've found is this phrase, which is in most software EULA (this is specifically in the itunes agreement): THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 ha, yea, I've seen that before, not just in apple stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 When I was in the Navy, I wrote one for my department, since I helped do a LOT of computer stuff back then. It was the usual mumbo-jumbo, with the exception of the last line, which read something like "Failure to comply with any and all regulations set forth by me on this machine could, and very well MAY, result in the absolute destruction of your sanity. Forewarned is forearmed. This means YOU" I thought it was hysterical. So did everyone that knew it was there. Until the DivOff caught wind of it. He evidently did not have the sense of humor that the rest of us possessed. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 ha, that's funny. I had this worthless project manager who was always asking for more and more documentation and "pretty pictures for upper management". So once I did search and just picked a couple random flow charts and class diagrams from images off the internet, I figured he'd get a kick out of them since they were completely unrelated to anything we were doing. They actually ended up in some official documents for the upper management because he did nothing but glance at them. Nobody ever noticed except for the few other engineers I told, we all got a kick out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 ha, that's funny. ...Nobody ever noticed ....lol!!You'll have to ask nemo about "Operation Eager Beaver" sometime. :doh: :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 A SCIENCE site???? Now you tell me. Dark Mind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarak Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 Yheh...I completely agree with the terms and conditions...I think there should be a biography and science trivia section spomewhere on the main page easily identifiable by all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 In all do respect, bible quotes for some people, are their source of data and documentation for their points of view, i.e., rational treatment of a subjective subject. Their documentation procedure is scientific, just the data source is questionable to science. Religion which has been around since the beginning of civilization and is still firmly entrenched. It is almost a fundamental phenomena within human nature that somehow interfaces with the brain. Whether it is internal or external is subject to debate. Aliens are the scientific bridge back to religion; aliens are modern techno-gods who are considered a valid subject of scientific inquiry, even though their existance is based on circumstantial evidence and faith.That is why I do not understand why science is reluctant to address religion in the same openminded way. String theory, which predicts extra dimensions should open the door to scientifically addressing religion since religion has predicted continued life existance within other nonmaterial dimensions; unconstrained by just space and time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 In all do respect, bible quotes for some people, are their source of data and documentation for their points of view, i.e., rational treatment of a subjective subject. Their documentation procedure is scientific, just the data source is questionable to science. This is an argument about which I suggest you take up in the philosophy of science forum and not in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 That is why I do not understand why science is reluctant to address religion in the same openminded way.But we're not reluctant to discuss it. We'll discuss it all you want in Philosophy. We just don't want to discuss it in Biology because it's not biology. We have a Theology forum just for the topic under Philosophy where it belongs. IMO, theology is a valid topic under philosophy and to some extent, social sciences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 I am not fixated on theology. Sometimes I try to play the devil's advocate to bring out opinions on touchy subjects. Religious hypersensitivity and political correctness make it hard to start from the religious side of the coin. Science is more demoncratic and condusive to freedom of thought, but even it seems to reach its level of tolerance at religion. There appear to be two asymptotes of knowledge and tolerance stemming from religion and science. This might be the basis for a good social science experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 This might be the basis for a good social science experiment. So take it to the social science forum. This is the announcements forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts