It is best not to make requests to a specific admin, but to allow any admin to respond. In any case, I responded.
I have suspended obvious Child for 24 hours, consistent with the warning of Message 178.
Had it not been for that specific warning, I would not have given the suspension. It seems to me that there were two people goading each other. However, only one continued after the warning, so the penalty in the warning has been applied.
To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
I would like to make a complaint about AdminModulous who on my opinion is preventing my new topic about descent of testicles to be released. My opinion is that it is due to the fact that my post contradicts neodarwinian explanation of the phenomena and AdminModulous wants to stop it. Is there any unprejudiced institute or board here that could solve the problem of my post? I would like - if possible - to hear also an opinion from an admin who is not a neodarwinist. Thank you. My detained post:
I read your post and AM's responses. He is simply asking you to flesh your OP out. This is standard operating procedure. If you are unwilling to work on your OP why should anyone think you will be willing to put a good effort into the discussion itself.
The requests are not terribly onerous. If this is such an important point why are you not willing to flesh the OP out with material that will be needed early on in the discussion anyway? It will just save a bit of time and stop using up some of the 300 posts getting to the point.
I have read the exchange of posts, and also the original blog argument.
In my opinion AdminModulus was too generous. Your argument is inadequately developed and as it stands does not constitute a valid challenge to accepted ideas. More work is required before I would consider it for promotion.
I think that Modulous knows very well that I will defend my opinion in open discussion. You know it too. At the discussion about mimicry I used arguments from many prominent antidarwinian sources that have never been transalted into English and you never heard about them.
I suppose it was you who forced me to rewrite OP about "German idealistic morphology" several times and there were no discussion to the topic afterwards.
Have I to copy&paste sentences from doctor Myers article? And then I should translate passages from Adolf Portmanns "Dualitat der Geschlechter"? But I think it is against EvC rules. We should use here our own words, not copy/paste/translate, or am I wrong?
Thank you for your support. I am fed up with neodarwinian admins here. They promote their neodarwinian stuff without hesitation. Or when you ask some stupid question a la 15 years old creationist they will open new thread immediately to show how stupid creationists are.
In the case they have no answer they will chicane you. The forum is obviously biased. I haven't read an admin opinion "Hello VMartin, I am admin and ID proponent, I think Behe and Davison are right, but I think that Modulous is right too and your post should be rewritten".
There is no rule against quoting - only a rule about relying on quotes to make your argument (rather than providing supporting evidence).
Since the problem is that your argument has not been adequately made, further quotes would not address the issue. And in fact the blog entry does not provide support for your argument - indeed it raises difficulties which it would be good to address in your OP.
And in fact the blog entry does not provide support for your argument - indeed it raises difficulties which it would be good to address in your OP.
I didn't claim it supports my argument. I claimed neodarwinism has no plausible explanation of the phenomena. Thats all. I don't need to address all neodarwinian explanation of phenomena, because dr. Myers have already done it in "the blog". All I needed was to address is the old "cooling spermatozoa" explanation. Do you think that arguments like:
1) moving testicles outside body is very dangerous solution for species 2) many mammalian species do not need to cool their spermatozoa 3) birds with much more higher temperature as mammals do not cool their spermatozoa either 4) darwinists themselves admit that "cooling spermatozoa" explanation is - I quote the research - untestable!!!
are not sufficient arguments for opening a thread for further discussion? What other arguments you would like me to bring?
In the light of the information given in the blog post, I would like you to show that your points 2 and 3 have any relevance. At present you have offered no reason to think that they have. Testability is important but it does not impact the plausibility of the explanation, thus your point 4 is moot. And your first point - the only one left - is not sufficient as it stands to carry your argument.
The points 2) and 3) are very clear and easy to underestand. I really don't know how is it possible that they have no relevance on your opinion. Obviously spermatozoa could survive also in environment with higher temperature if they are forced to do so by environment. If testicles are outside the body then spermatozoa adapted to lower temperature and probably higher temperature would kill them - but I don't know. For instance many female species with hidden gravitidy - roe for instatnce - keep males spermatozoa inside their bodies several months before fertilization. For instance they mate in september but fertilization with spared sperms take effect at november or december. I don't know if sperms of deers are cooled inside roes, but I doubt about it. So this is the another argument for open discussion, don't you think so?