Mark said:
2. Those threads stay open, but they will no longer appear in the ‘latest discussions’ parts of the site. (This allows us to show concern about circular discussions without stopping people from chewing gristle if they insist on doing so)

Hi Mark,
Sounds like a worthwhile approach to me.
Grace & Peace,
Terry

Mark suggested:

1. Your.sydneyanglicans.net continues to move threads to the DH forum as per its posted policy

2. Those threads stay open, but they will no longer appear in the ‘latest discussions’ parts of the site. (This allows us to show concern about circular discussions without stopping people from chewing gristle if they insist on doing so)

3. Any thread that turns toxic gets locked down wherever it it, as per our posted policy

Sounds like a good outcome Mark: I acknowledge the wisdom of the moderators.

(There is only one caveat I will add - that what I am proposing is technically possible. I will get on to ascertaining this right away).

I didn’t realise you were technically savvy as well! After you’ve finished that would you be able to come around and have a look at my computer? There are a couple of things that need…

Rob

Hi Danii,

1. I’m afraid I can’t see us making a blanket rule about any topic beyond the insistence that all threads be carried on in a manner that reflects our posting policy. I realise you’re probably having a good natured poke at Gordon but I think it would be good to underline the point in case the joke starts an unnecessarily divisive race to list ‘pet hate topics’ from those who don’t detect the humour.

2. The selected boards (forums?) sounds like an interesting idea but will amount to a major reworking of the back-end of our forums and an increase in the amount of administration our team will have to take on as people start asking the predictable ‘I did something and now I can’t find...’ questions. Consequently, I can’t see it getting a run.

Hi Rob,

It’s a well-kept secret; please keep it to yourself. If I know anything, it was all learnt at the knee of Jedi Master Luke. I’m sure he’d be happy to take any technical questions you have - he thrives on all such manifestations of the Force ;)

Mark Hadley - 15 October 2007 12:59 PM

2. Those threads stay open, but they will no longer appear in the ‘latest discussions’ parts of the site. (This allows us to show concern about circular discussions without stopping people from chewing gristle if they insist on doing so)

hey Mark,

what’s the news on this?

I put it to you that the current discussion on evolution has gone ‘round the roundabout enough times to be demonstrably circular and worthy of nomination as the first ongoing open Dead Horse.

edit: oops, just noticed this…

Luke Stevens - 17 October 2007 12:47 PM

In any case, thanks for reminding me of my moderating duties. Given this thread is now retreading the exact same ground as the previous monster evolution/creation theead, I’m going to lock it and send it to dead horses.

I’ll leave it open for a while so people can get their final 2c in, then I’ll put it out of it’s misery.

Can I suggest doing what you were planning to do—move the thread to Dead Horses—but then leave it open as an experiment in continuing debate along the lines that Mark H has suggested.

If the experiment fails after a week or three, you can always lock it down then.

I was wondering what the purpose of the dead horses forum was? Is it to place a judgment on a particular topic? Is it to stop a conversation on a particular topic? is it to corral the discussion away from the general horse population?

The feeling I get is that some people don’t want to talk about some subjects so they want to shut down discussion - that may be a wrong feeling. Surely there is a better way to control difficult subjects than simply say it is a ‘dead horse’ - such a judgment not only reflects on the subject but also on the forum.

I would like to continue discussion on an ID vs evolution theme - there are issues that have not been discussed. If this website is not a suitable place to conduct such a discussion then perhaps the moderators could explicitly say that.

Where to from here??

I can’t say I really approve of the latest closure, however as an aspiring Chengologist and I can understand why it was closed down.

Actually no I’m liaring again - I don’t understand much at all. Closing topics because people complain doesn’t sound like the solution (although I’m not even sure there’s a problem!) If I complained about all the pointless “sola whatever” topics would you close them too?

Derek,

I’m not sure how long you’ve been on the forums but I’ve been hanging about for the better part of 4 or 5 years and it gets really annoying seeing the same topics going around the same arguments just with different people. I’m all for open and vigorous debate, in fact I love it, but after a while, it get real tiring. There are certain topics that just go absolutely no where because they are contentious and people have views they hold onto dearly no matter what is said. It is those topics (YECS vs Evolution, Peak Oil, Hillsong) that should just automatically get sent to DH.

May YECS/Evoution be condemned to Dead Horses FOREVER!!!!!!

Edit: another benefit of open DH threads is that people can trawl though the billions of words already spilt in the pursuit of debate without having to sift through everything else.

Not everyone who gets involved in discussions comes out of the discussion with the same opinions and ideas, and it’s silly to claim that. If even one person had their beliefs challenged I’d consider the topic worthwhile.

Hi Lee
I’ve been on this forum off and on for maybe 2 yrs or so, and yes I know the evolution topic among others comes up again and again.However I would disagree to say that the topic get absolutely get nowhere, as I notice a development in my own thinking as this debate continues, and I dare say others do as well in theirs. Yes the evo topic is a difficult one to argue. If it is not one side who is extreme in some post(s), then well it may be the other side who is extreme. Problems in logic occur on both sides of the debate I reckon. As long as the debate is repeatedly suspended then the confusion will continue. Of course a poorly run debate will continue confusion as well!  Hmmm. However those who are interested in the genuine science have everything to gain by a genuine debate.

I am not convinced that the ‘dead horse’ forum is helpful. The term ‘dead horse’ to me is a ‘put-down’, and implies a value judgment that the topic is a silly topic. While the term might appeal to the Aussie sense of humour, it seems to me it is really a way of gagging debate about pesky topics.

How to have a genuine debate on this topic does intrigue me though. Can you tell me Lee why your thinking about this topic is so strong to say : ‘May YECS/Evoution be condemned to Dead Horses FOREVER!!!!!!’. I and some others like to discuss the science and theological implications, yet I know you and many others seem to have a very strong opposite view. Why is that can I ask? I am genuinely interested in exploring this. It seems to me it is rather difficult to have a genuine debate without understanding the reasons why some don’t want to discuss the topic.

Although discussion of some topics does often seem to be people restating their views, firmly fixed in their respective corners, people do find discussion useful, and it also leads to development in their views, as Derek has said.

Many Christians have never thought through the important and basic issue of God’s sovereignty, for example. Internet discussion has led many people to see things they never thought through previously.

My views on the role of men and women, Calvinism, the sovereignty of God and some other issues have been modified by internet discussion. My view on men in women in God’s world was changed quite considerably, and I became a consistent Calvinist [I think], partly through theological discussion on the net.

But I have to say that I have not received much interaction with my own views on the Creation/Evolution debate so far. People seem to be firmly YECS or Theistic Evolutionist, with few venturing away from the left or right, it seems.

But to me, both views have serious problems.

Derek,

I think there is some merit in discussing YECS/evolution because there are implications on how we understand the Bible. I have a few issues with the discussions that have taken place on the forums so far. Firstly, people seem to be sandbagging themselves into their respective positions and the ‘discussion’ ends up more like talking at each other rather than to each other, even if it is polite. Secondly, people don’t seem to be able to read what has been said before so the same arguments get thrown up every 10 pages or so. Thirdly, there only seem to be two camps - YECS and theistic evolutionists. I am one of a few people who are not happy either but if we step into the ring, we get painted into one side or the other.

I think some of this might be solved if we able to have some record, almost a primer, of what has been said so that people who want to join the discussion can read what has been said on both sides. Then maybe the debate can proceed. I don’t think the forums as they stand are a great way of dealing with large, complex issues (since every topic ends looking the same no matter how it starts) since you can only read so many points. Having people from both sides compile something that gives those new to the discussion a bit of a idea of what has been said so it doesn’t get said again might be helpful.

What I have seen on other forums is a ‘sticky’ thread (a thread that is always on the top of the first page) where you have a FAQ and you just put the arguments and counter arguments that have been brought up already. I think that might be a good way forward.

In regards to why YECS/evo should be in Dead Horses is that it is clearly a horse that has been flogged so much on these forums that it has been reduced to its constituent atoms. The byline for the forum is ‘a special place for all of those topics that have received an inordinate amount of flogging over the years’. YECS/evo definitely fits that criteria so it should forever more remain in DH, no matter what you think that implies about how worthy a topic it is.

Lee Herridge - 26 October 2007 03:03 PM

there only seem to be two camps - YECS and theistic evolutionists. I am one of a few people who are not happy either but if we step into the ring, we get painted into one side or the other.

I would like to see some evidence for your impression here, Lee. I also am neither a YECCIST nor a theistic evolutionist (at least in any committed sense). My impression is that the majority of active members on these forums have for the most part avoided the discussions in question, and that it is therefore not possible to form a reliable view of whether they fall into one category or the other.

In regards to why YECS/evo should be in Dead Horses is that it is clearly a horse that has been flogged so much on these forums that it has been reduced to its constituent atoms. The byline for the forum is ‘a special place for all of those topics that have received an inordinate amount of flogging over the years’.

LOL

Nonetheless, I believe the discussion needs a Harm Minimisation approach and should be allocated a place to exist and to further reduce its constituent atoms down to quantum level. At that point the arguements will attach to strings the other end ot which shall turn uop in the most unlikely places (as long as we aren’t paying attention to them) and then, the Strangeness, the Charm and Beauty of this discussion will form a wave of knowledge and enlightenment that will never collapse....

Gordon Cheng - 26 October 2007 03:25 PM

My impression is that the majority of active members on these forums have for the most part avoided the discussions in question, and that it is therefore not possible to form a reliable view of whether they fall into one category or the other.

I’m curious what you mean by this Gordon. Can you elaborate?