Summations Only

As we've seen on this thread. Buz, babbled nonsense and refused to accept any reply pointing out the fact as legitimate. Apparently creationists need us to pretend that they are making valid points even when they are being completely clueless. I don't think that the board can work that way and Buz's demands to the contrary are completely ludicrous.Foreveryoung isn't that much better. Apparently he feels the need to violently assault people who contradict him. He's confessed to violent feelings but hasn't pointed to anything that would justify his anger and hate.

quote:

---

I don't disagree with your comment. However you very rarely see Shapiro disparaged for his science. His opinions and choice of words seems to upset most critics.

---

My observation is that you don't agree with his science. Instead you take his misleadingly-phrased opinions and allow yourself to be thoroughly mislead. Which makes the critics' opinions very much on-target.

quote:

---

Right now, a current thread title on the main page reads What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? The new evolution/atheism forum could have a thread titled What variety of atheist is Panda?. Or What variety of atheist is dwise1?

---

In reality it should be noted that:1. The "front page" referred to is likely the forum list - it certainly is NOT the overall topic list. That thread has had no posts since May.2. The thread is in the Great Debate forum, and Buzsaw is one of the two participants.3. The thread was created specifically for Buzsaw to explain his views since he has his own special version of creationism and he was complaining about being mistaken for a Young Earther.Clearly we do not need a new forum for equivalent threads about people on the other side of the divide. If such a thread is needed it could easily fit into The Great Debate forum.

quote:

---

Maybe one of us should start a thread exclusively on that book list. Maybe you and a couple of dozen of your helpers could explain to me how the countless thousands of pages of those books don’t show any relationship between evolution and atheism, yet the few pages of the wedge document (written by one man) are complete proof that ID is religious. But I don't know if that would work for you, as we see above, many here seem to be a little shy about addressing that list.

---

Of course it is quite easy to explain why the Wedge Document is significant evidence while your list of books is not.1) Official document versus individuals
The Wedge Document was a product of the Discovery Institute, the leading ID organisation. It was intended for fund raising, thus it can be expected to accurately present the position of the organisation (if it significantly misrepresented it, that would be fraud).2) Listing books versus direct quotes.
The Wedge Document is frequently quoted to prove the point. You just list the books on the assumption that something that proves your point must be in there. Expecting someone to read even one book to check whether it really does support your point is going too far - and not worth it. Because if they find nothing, what useful discussion can result from it ?So clearly direct quotes from the Wedge Document are far better than your list of books. Your opinion that there MUST be something somewhere in one of those books is just your opinion. It isn't even evidence.I will also note that the lack of replies to Message 18 probably has a lot to do with the lack of content of the message. You seem to have missed the obvious point that how you attempt to USE the list is more important than the list itself.

quote:

---

It’s not worth much, because reality, and whom you’ve personally met, can be very different things. Here’s a brief description of Richard Dawkins turning.;

---

And if you read it, it says the only influence of evolution was to show that there was a viable non-theistic explanation for the diversity and complexity of life. And that was all that was keeping him in the Christian church.Here's the relevant part of your quote again: Evolution undermined the one argument that kept him believing in a God and THAT is the only link he makes between evolution and atheism. If Christianity really had a good case it wouldn't rest solely on the argument for design - not least because it does nothing to prove that Christianity is true, rather than some other religion (or none).

OK Buz can you really justify accusing others of hypocrisy simply for taking a different view of the Bible than you ?And since I found out early on that you are quite happy to misrepresent the Bible rather than admit to making an error, I really think that your claim to be a "Bible believe" is somewhat hollow. And yes, I CAN justify that claim.

Buz, in support of the proposal that Nuweiba was the site of the Exodus crossing you claimed that: Message 175With regard to actual observation is the Nuweiba site:The shallowest part of the Red Sea?The shallowest part of the Gulf of Aqaba?Shallower than any of the rival sites (the traditional Gulf of Suez, the Bitter Lakes preferred by modern scholars or even the Straits of Tiran proposed by others who choose to place Mt Sinai at Jebel Al Lawz) ?

Talking of bias, it's odd that you don't find Maddenstein's post Message 169 equally bad...

While a question concerning the modern synthesis might have been on topic (although it is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who's done any study of evolution) a rant accusing others of dishonesty just for using a term you don't know is not.Likewise your posting to the wrong topic to complain about moderation issues is simply a mistake on your part not a sign that the site is run unfairly.Finally - although there is more I could say - reserving the right to make insults and allegations of dishonesty etc. to people who's views you approve of is not even remotely fair. Yet that is what you appear to be asking for in the "name of fairness".I think we can all draw the conclusion that the primary problem in your interactions here is not the moderation.

While it may be a problem, it is one that can be alleviated a little through the Great Debate forum. And it is not the main thing that the creationists see to be complaining about.Buz and Bolder-dash, for instance, both object to moderator actions taken against them, and want restrictions on evolutionists that would not apply to them - in the name of fairness.In short, the greater part of the problem is that creationists do not want a fair forum, or even one with an acceptable level of bias in their favour.

RAZD, my assertion was that the Great Debate forum alleviated the problems of dogpiling and "jerk evolutionists". I did not claim that it solved or helped with any other problem.However I must disagree with you on the idea that creationist arguments proceed by reasoning. More typically they jump to conclusions based on a superficial - and often selective - view of the evidence, or argue from their own authority (which they expect to be accepted). Examples are not hard to find. What reasoning there is is best labelled a crude rationalisation.I would suggest that the major difference is that creationists take the apologetic mindset which starts with conclusions and has little regard for evidence, reasoning or understanding - and they often cannot understand why anyone would not be as heavily biased in favour of their beliefs as they are.

quote:

---

There is a giant elephant in the room, I don't know why its so hard for you to see.

​

EVERYONE who posts here could be considered to be insulting at times, and everyone could be considered to be off topic. The one difference is that ONLY creationists who rock Percy's applecart are ever suspended for this (don't go saying its equal). Its not hard for anyone who is honest to see why that is so.

---

This certainly isn't true. In fact I remember rather a significant purge of evolutionists. Many of them rather better behaved than you.More recently Hooah has received a couple of serious suspensions - the first without any clear cause being given at all (even after protests - on the CORRECT thread), the current suspension for an offence that doesn't seem to merit a whole four weeks.
Suspension notices for Hooah: Message 152 Message 166Any truly HONEST person currently active on the board would have checked their facts before making allegations.And of course it is not just a question of occasional insults or going off topic, it's a matter of the severity and the pattern of behaviour. Occasional off-topic posting will result in nothing worse than a post being hidden with an off-topic notice and no real sanctions at all. Likewise Alfred Maddenstein's rudeness to Cavediver has resulted in no sanctions at all.The biggest elephant in the room is the fact that you have NOT been permanently suspended despite a pattern of extremely bad behaviour - worse than many who were removed from the board in the purge. Even a fair moderation team could justifiably have removed you completely from the board.If the administration were really unfair to creationists - rather than creationists being problem posters who attract administrator attention - I think we would be seeing at least more questionable calls like the Hooah suspensions. But we aren't. You haven't pointed to a single one.

I don't think that we want just any creationists here at any cost. We want creationists who can make a overall positive contribution to the site. We don't want to destroy the site in the name of "saving" it.Moderation serves a purpose. Simply rejecting all moderation of creationists by asserting that it is unfair is itself unfair, unreasonable and unrealistic. Equally playing a numbers game without examining actual decisions - and the behaviour of the posters involved - does not tell us much about the fairness of moderation because - as Bolder-dash has been demonstrating - the creationists are often very badly behaved. We certainly can't conclude that unfairness is the problem when all we have is the assertions of someone who seems to judge things very unfairly himself.Moreover, I have to question if the opinions of the small number creationists who actually do post here says much about the opinions of creationists who don't. A small sample is always a questionable basis for a conclusion. And if the moderation is not "bad" enough to drive them away, we can't assume that it would drive others away. The more so since the better-behaved creationists - the ones we want - would not be moderated to anything like the same extent - which removes one of the major issues behind the alleged "unfairness".To put it simply, setting up a grossly unfair moderation that lets Bolder-dash run riot on the site while silencing his critics is so obviously a bad idea that it isn't even worth considering. If that's what it takes to keep Bolder-dash here - then good-bye and good-riddance.