The point, Kelly, was for you to take your time and think through what you are posting. You can reply to a particular point made by several posters duplicating each other and, if you think it through, finish it off.
It is better to make one thought out post every hour or 2 than to post 10 replies an hour that aren't making any progress.
If people are pointing out to you that there are unanswered questions you can take the time to try to figure out why they think you haven't answered and then post a reply to see if you can satisfy them. That would be making good use of the thinking time.
You think 15 minutes between posts is too long. I'd suggest that is much too short for what is needed.
The moderation is attempting to keep a focus on a topic. That is difficult by the very nature of the discussions of course but we try anyway.
No one said you can't use particular words. That is another example of your misunderstanding. But it does not support creation science to talk about evolutionary biology other than to contrast them.
For example, you might say that evolutionary biology suggests a specific pattern in the genes of more or less distantly related (by time or geography or morphology) animals but creation science suggests a different pattern. You don't then need to discuss the evolutionary biology reasons for it's suggestion of a pattern. You only have to explain
why you can derive the creation science pattern from it's model of the development of animals.
It is your lack of such discussion connecting an articulated CS model to predicted patterns that is stopping the threads from progressing. It appears you haven't yet grasped just what is involved.
If you wish to discuss the patterns of evolutionary biology then there is a thread for that and you can bring it up there. The patterns in genes might even make a good new thread all of it's own.
™ Version 4.2
