Complex?

[I Have Questions]

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Sci ... 1416542744

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."

Read the book.

Regards,
MG

I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.

I note that this report has been closed by Dr. Shades without any consequence for MG 2.0 being applied. So the above mustn’t amount to a link and run - in which case I’d like an explanation as to why it doesn’t (as I didn’t get an explanation when the report was closed).

For reference, the board rule states “Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.”

MG posted a link, but did not explain what was at the other end. Nor why it is important, nor what he hoped other readers/viewers would learn from it. But I'll be interested in why Dr. Shades sees it differently.

[Marcus]

I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.

I note that this report has been closed by Dr. Shades without any consequence for MG 2.0 being applied. So the above mustn’t amount to a link and run - in which case I’d like an explanation as to why it doesn’t (as I didn’t get an explanation when the report was closed).

For reference, the board rule states “Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.”

MG posted a link, but did not explain what was at the other end. Nor why it is important, nor what he hoped other readers/viewers would learn from it. But I'll be interested in why Dr. Shades sees it differently.

Especially given that the link was posted as the total response to the question "What do you mean by natural processes?"

Not the first time he's dodged a question, though, nor the 100th. This is why I still think he's just here to disrupt. He throws what he thinks is a wrench in the works, when asked about it, his invariable response is something like:

"Read this whole book about the wrench.

It'll change your life like it changed mine, I promise. You can trust me because I'm a believer.

And don't ask me if I remember anything from the book because I don't. I'm just here to derail and disrupt do missionary work."

That's the epitome of a link-and-run.

[yellowstone123]

I wish those who post video links would write how long it is and give a summary of what is said to demonstrate the person posting the link has watched the video. If not done, a moderator would put something in red that they have 24 hours to fix the issue or it will be deleted. If this means rewriting a universal rule then rewrite it.

[huckelberry]

I would suppose natural processes refers to the structures and relationships and changes studied by physics and chemistry. Is there a mysterious point for special clarification?

MG is trying to say that God had sex with Mrs God and Adam and Eve were born as we were born, but he doesn’t want to say it out loud because of the obvious implications.

He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.

Question, your presented scenario sounds like Brigham Young views. I thought MG was thinking standard evolution but I guess he is not committing to that view. I guess he can point to incomplete knowledge for a reason not to commit.

I think that there is variety in possible views of what the idea of God refers to. I have wondered a few times if LDS ambiguity let's the idea fade into simply chief political police power

[Morley]

I wish those who post video links would write how long it is and give a summary of what is said to demonstrate the person posting the link has watched the video. If not done, a moderator would put something in red that they have 24 hours to fix the issue or it will be deleted. If this means rewriting a universal rule then rewrite it.

This.

Same for books and articles.

[Dr Exiled]

I wish those who post video links would write how long it is and give a summary of what is said to demonstrate the person posting the link has watched the video. If not done, a moderator would put something in red that they have 24 hours to fix the issue or it will be deleted. If this means rewriting a universal rule then rewrite it.

This.

Same for books and articles.

I agree. Let's tighten up or continue to tighten up the posting practices of the population here. I have to justify each and every sentence when I am making my factual representations before the federal and supreme courts and any court for that matter. It isn't too much to ask a little explanation to videos or books or articles. If you haven't read or viewed the posted information, at least let us know. I don't care if people haven't done their homework. Post what you want but don't make it look like you are an expert when you aren't. Disclose. I don't want a devolution to just posting what someone quoting someone said. Hearsay is a legal rule because we want to see what the actual person said or observed unless there are certain guarantees of veracity. It exists to help to avoid rumor, the unfortunate political fuel.

[Dr. Shades]

I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.

I note that this report has been closed by Dr Shades without any consequence for MG 2.0 being applied. So the above mustn’t amount to a link and run - in which case I’d like an explanation as to why it doesn’t (as I didn’t get an explanation when the report was closed).

For reference, the board rule states “Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.”

MG posted a link, but did not explain what was at the other end. Nor why it is important, nor what he hoped other readers/viewers would learn from it. But I'll be interested in why Dr. Shades sees it differently.

I examined it very closely, and in my judgment he included enough information about it to figure out whether it was worth clicking on. To wit, he wrote:

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

So, he indicated it contained a response to the previous post that was something more than a quick TikTok or a snarky *gif.

I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago.

So we know the link is to a place regarding a book.

Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.

So we can tell who the author is and the opinion his book gives and that it contains the reasons why he switched opinions from his previous stance.

So yeah, he doesn't specifically state the name of the book, why the link is important, and what he hopes other readers / viewers learn from what's at the other end of the link, but he provides enough information so that the reader can make an informed decision as to whether it's worth his or her time to click on it, thus rendering it NOT a link-and-run. So I decided that what he posted complies with the spirit of the rule if not, strictly speaking, the letter of it.

Besides, it was a VAST improvement over what he's done up until now, so I gave him credit. It was also vastly better than what other people sometimes still post, link-wise, even now.

[huckelberry]

I thought MG response of a book was disappointing. Not much of a dilogue contribution but not rule breaking.

[Marcus]

I note that this report has been closed by Dr Shades without any consequence for MG 2.0 being applied. So the above mustn’t amount to a link and run - in which case I’d like an explanation as to why it doesn’t (as I didn’t get an explanation when the report was closed).

For reference, the board rule states “Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.”

MG posted a link, but did not explain what was at the other end. Nor why it is important, nor what he hoped other readers/viewers would learn from it. But I'll be interested in why Dr. Shades sees it differently.

I examined it very closely, and in my judgment he included enough information about it to figure out whether it was worth clicking on. To wit, he wrote:

Here is a good place to start if you're serious and not simply doing a quick 'gotcha' response.

So, he indicated it contained a response to the previous post that was something more than a quick TikTok or a snarky *gif...

Shades, come on. Here was the first exchange:

I think it was more than likely that God 'created' Adam and Eve through natural processes.

Regards,
MG

What do you mean, specifically, by the term “natural processes”?

In answer to that very specific question about a single phrase, mg linked to a book. A BOOK, for god's sake. And is the BOOK about what MENTALGYMNAST thinks the term “natural processes” means? NO IT IS NOT. It's part autobiography, part apologetics, part scientific memoir.

You'd have to comb through it long and hard to find anything related to the question.

Mg played you, Shades. He included just enough information to bedazzle your senses ("more than a quick TikTok or a snarky *gif") while glossing over the fact that he knows nothing about this book as it relates to the question, and could only post Amazon provided details.

...So yeah, he doesn't specifically state the name of the book, why the link is important, and what he hopes other readers / viewers learn from what's at the other end of the link...

which are all requirements of the rule, right?

...but he provides enough information so that the reader can make an informed decision as to whether it's worth his or her time to click on it, thus rendering it NOT a link-and-run...

That is absolutely incorrect. He did NOT provide information, within the context of the question asked, whether it was worth it to click the link. The information he provided was an Amazon author blurb, no title, some generic information unrelated to the question at hand, and he said it was a book.

It was a true link and run, and you fell for it.

[Dr. Shades]

Oh, I'm aware he didn't answer the question.

But what he DID write was (barely) enough to not be "link-and-run."

Could he have done better? Obviously. Would we all have preferred that he answer the actual question? Of course.

But he did give us enough to determine whether it was worth our time to click on it. The answer was "no, it's not worth our time to click on it," but he did indeed give us enough information so we would know that in advance.