Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

Let's be realistic for a minute.This is not an even debate.If this were a debate about taxation, then moderators could be "fair" to both parties. That's because one group favors higher taxes, the other favors lower taxes, but neither group is "right".It's just perspective, budgets and ideology.It would be reasonable to expect that each group present evidence to support their claims, and that evidence would need to be valid.But we aren't talking about a difference in opinion about taxes.We're talking about reality.One group believes that observable, testable, scientifically confirmed reality is real.The other group believes that mythology is real.One group presents evidence based in reality.The other group offers denials and more mythology.There can never be a "fair" moderator who will treat both sides equally, because both sides simply ARE NOT EQUAL.The moderators have to choose.
A) They stick to a standard for evidence, and then treat people based on their ability to meet that standard.
-OR-
B) They make sure that both sides "score points" whether or not they are valid or supported in fact.You seem to be complaining that the moderators have elected to go with A, just like the court system. You feel that having a standard for evidence unfairly prejudices the debate in favor of reality over make believe.You are right. It does.Tough.

Perhaps that's why Peter Borger and so many other desirable creationists haven't lasted long here at EvC.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Diminution? When were there ever many creationists here for any length of time? Perhaps some changes would be in order as to attitude towards creationists, so as to be fair and balanced in moderation. When has any creationist evidence involving the supernatural ever been acknowledged by any secularistic evolutionist here, moderator or otherwise? Case in point is the Exodus thread.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This misunderstanding comes from a misconception about how scientists, or humans in general, work in regards to evidence. The key concept to remember is this: evidence is always interpreted. Evidence never dictates anything, it never says anything, it never 100% forces a conclusion. Even in those rare cases where a set of evidence seems to allow a single interpretation, science must always allow a door open for future evidence that can come in and completely change that picture.Now, I know that you probably already knew this. It seems so obvious that facts are always interpreted. But I think you do not realize how far-reaching the consequences of this are: this is, in my opinion, the whole basis of the paradigm-shift based approach to the history of science developped by Thomas Kuhn. Einstein, in a conversation with Heisenberg, even went as far as to say that ''It is the theory which dictates what we can observe''. Said like this, it seems so wrong, but it is nevertheless true.Once we realize this, than the Dawkins' trichotomy of ignorant, idiot or wicked cannot be taken seriously, because at heart it is unscientific. Clearly, it was Dawkins the crusader, not Dawkins the scientist, who said this, because it seeks to stop inquiry, it wants to prevent people to question. In fact, as a student in a scientifc domain, I cannot imagine anyone saying something like this about any other theory. Not even relativity or electromagnetism, which, in my opinion, are the most supported theories in all of science.Dawkins is akin to a detective arriving at a crime scence, and after looked at the evidence, concludes that person A killed person B with object C. But then, when another detective, after having looked at the same evidence, comes to a different conclusion, he calls this person deluded, stupid, or a lier. Obviously, the real reason is that the data was interpreted differently, and each detective happened to come to different conclusions. Yes, in fact I do. I realize that you are interpreting the evidence in a wholy different paradigm then I am, and therefore you come to widely different conclusions.Nowhere is this more apparent then in the case when someone makes a complete 180 degrees turnaround, a complete paradigm shift, such as was the case of Dr. Sanford. He spent his whole career as an atheist evolutionists working in genetics, completely convinced that creationism was false. And yet, today, he sees evidence against evolution, and for creation, everywhere.Is he stupid ? No evidence for this, and in fact his PhD in genetics suggests that he is at minimum a perfectly intelligent person.Is he ignorant ? Unless it can be shown that you can remain ignorant of evolution while working in genetics, I would assume not.Is he a lier ? Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, I would assume not, since who would lie about believing in evolution, associating with creationist, and by this destroying his life's work reputation ?The only option then, is that he is honest when he thinks that the evidence supports creation more then evolution.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I don't see how the moderators could make the rest of us "acknowledge" your rather dubious "evidence". What are they meant to do --- make not agreeing with you a bannable offense?Really, it's not their fault. You should get some better evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Fearandloathing, this is a rare, but constructive, occasion, needing no special venue.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Dr Adequate, you're quick to make my point that no secularist evolutionist, moderator or otherwise would ever acknowledge any evidence whatsoever, implicating the supernatural.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

First you need to actually present some evidence instead of continuing to just claim to have done so.If you have ever presented some evidence please provide links to the posts where that evidence can be found.AbE:Also, it's time you stop misrepresenting facts. It has nothing to do with secular folk, and your continued false assertions need to stop.Edited by jar, : AbE:

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I wasn't being exactly serious, What I was trying to get across is that many times people will insult each other which never moves a discussion forward, only sideways. If it is going to be allowed to happen by the same people over and over then maybe they should have a special place to do it, instead of sidetracking a topic.Coffee house and free for all should have a little more leeway but other forums should remain as respectful as possible, or else carry it to an appropriate place to toss insults, or just be told to stop or suspension will follow. JMOEdited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

That's obviously not true. But I do think it unlikely that anyone will acknowledge your evidence, 'cos of it not being at all convincing.But this is by-the-by. My point is that you can't blame your failure to make converts on the standard of moderation. What rules could the moderators add such that with these new rules in place reading your posts would cause me to believe in the parting of the Red Sea?

Peter Borger wasn't a "desirable creationist," rather he was distinct from the current crop in that he possessed much more detailed familiarity with science. But he offered GUToB in every thread he participated in regardless of topic and couldn't be dissuaded from this practice. When I finally disallowed it, he left.--Percy

You can't even find natural evidence for the Exodus, let along supernatural. If you would like to resume the Exodus discussion then simply return to the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread and post a message identifying which mountain in western Saudi Arabia is Mount Sinai and describing how you identified it. After how long and loudly you've touted this wonderful evidence, what is so hard about doing this that you have to instead come to this thread and complain about how unfair moderation was over there?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

It is not the individual I hold in disdain; it is their abhorrent lack of want to garner knowledge and their despicable arrogance about their stupidity. Because that is not what this website is here for..... I see it as being here to engage in discussion, be it positive, negative or otherwise.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

As Buzsaw has just pointed out to you, there is a double standard here in your demands for evidence.Your sides constantly claims that the ToE is such a strong robust theory, that it should be obvious to everyone, but then when it is demanded that your side proves evidence for your theory with the same exactness that you are demanding of Buzsaw, you hem and haw.You say well we have already done so.You say well look at bacteria, they get bacteria resistance, if that can happen why can't new limbs grow, and new breathing systems, its the same thing.You say, well if you are too lazy to read a book we can't help you.And thus this becomes the standard for evidence that is used for all cases on the evolution side. And why you clam to moderate fairly holds no water whatsoever.Your side CAN NOT provide evidence for the ToE. You can provide fossil records that appear to show similarity amongst species, but that's all you can show. In fact, even your so called tree of life, when held up to the scrutiny of recent advances in DNA testing, has turned into a garbled mess of twigs and weeds, and undergrowth that no one can define any longer. Are we more closely related to Chimps or to yeast? Why is there more genetic diversity in one small clan of chimpanzees than in all of human population? Are Elephants in the line of whales or fern trees? It depends what your criteria for measuring is.The most tested theory in history! The most undeniable scientific fact you can ever want to find! No one who isn't *** or brain damaged could deny it.Evidence? "Oh, well, um, let's see, there were these peppered moths, and um, um well, they come in different colors, so.... Ok nevermind. There's the Coelacanth, this extinct transition between fish and...oh wait sorry its not actually extinct, and oh whoops, its a fish...but still..um ok. So you want evidence. Fine, well, there is a, a , a, dog breeding? Ah no, finches, I remember reading something about finches once. FINE, FINE, in that case it didn't show evidence of anything other than a variety of finches, but still, there is .....a.....You creationists are just so ***, how can anybody waste time giving you evidence, you won't understand it anyway!Belligerent assholes. You better stay on topic or you are going to be suspended for spamming. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

More precisely, we can not provide evidence for the ToE that creationists will accept.That's not a very important criterion as these things go, now is it, considering that the rest of the world has no problem with the ToE?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.