General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

Faith is correct. You guys use terms like "prove" whenever it suits you, and yet bash Faith for doing the same when in context it's pretty clear what she is talking about.You are not being honest with yourselves on this stuff.Evolutionists here make unscientific claims that they cannot back up all the time with virtual impugnity, such as claiming IDers are motivated by a lust for political power rather than a love for truth.But if someone makes a claim like I did, that evolution is the result of indoctrination, you guys have a fit demanding peer-reviewed papers to support my contention.I never claimed there were peer-reviewed papers but do give evidence, and a whole lot of it, but it doesn't matter.The truth is talking with evolutionists reminds me a lot of trying to talk with a Jehovah's Witness. They had pat answers they memorized. They are indoctrinated, not educated.Now, there are exceptions in the JWs, and there are exceptions among evolutionists, but that doesn't change the fact of indoctrination being the MO, producing certain characteristics.

...

Uh huh? Ned, maybe what is really occuring is you didn't like the argument and points made.The bottom line is question after question and relevant point after relevant point are left totally unanswered by evos, and unsubstantiated smears, claims, etc,...are made by evos and sometimes with my appealing for them to be backed up, even asking for moderation from you or anyone, and nada.Then, you have the audacity to claim I am ignoring evolutionist arguments, which seem to consist of claiming I am merely operating out of personal opinion.Ned, you are piece of work.I suggest others intermediate and view the thread and see if my points were being answered, and see if there is justification of your mod behaviour towards me and other critics of evolution.It's clear to me that you are not enforcing rules by false using mod status to encourage the breaking of those rules.maybe someone else can intervene and view the thread who is not biased in this debate?This message has been edited by randman, 08-11-2005 01:13 AM

Percy, that may be "your experience" but maybe a more objective perspective is needed if you guys are genuinely interested in dialogue.I raised a very legitimate issue, namely that in the land mammal to whale transition, we see an abundance of whale fossils, but don't see hardly any evidence in the fossil record of the transitionals. I stated my aim was not to discuss the ToE per se, as a broader topic, but to discuss the evidence within the fossil record so we could see what it is and what it is not.It was narrowly tailored, and imo, quite relevant.However, the evos and one of the admins refused to allow the topic to be discussed in a respectful and genuine manner, although Ned did initially try with one post, but there was no censure of the evos at all.In fact, much of the argument with evolutionists consisted of them very early on claiming the topic was not relevant anyway. This was the first thread, mind you, and insisted on trying to force me to get into areas outside of the specifically narrowly tailored thread topic. Some other arguments consisted of denying speciation could be a valid concept, and insisting I define speciation event, which I did several times.Honestly, the behaviour of the evolutionists on that thread was just plain bizzare. I was seeking to find some concensus on the data itself, but evolutionists here would have none of it. The fossil data was irrevalent to them, or they merely refused to engage in any meaningful discussion about how many transitionals we should expect or how many would be fossilized.These threads were replete with evolutionists hurling personal insults as well.Now, all Ned had to do in the beginning is say that the topic is about the data, and that posts insisting the topic was idiotic or something should refrain then from spoiling the thread for those interested in what the data had to say.We could then have later moved to another thread on aspects of ToE, but we could have at least arrived at an agreement on what the fossil record indicates.I would challenge you or anyone to review the thread, beginning with the first one, and see that I am not lying here.I would also point out that this is not the first time Ned has insisted on me discussing my beliefs and views, instead of just the evidence, and yet he knows full well that my personal perspective entails some aspects of physics and has warned me not to speak of those on a biology type thread at the risk of being banned. In other words, he basically knowingly, it seems, tries to trap my responses so that either way, to answer or avoid answering, he could have an excuse to ban me, at least that's how it appears to me.This seems to occur if during a debate I raise an issue which others cannot answer or have resorted to claiming the answer does not matter anyway, as some did with the fossil record.Is that the type of thing you guys are encouraging? If so, clearly the rules are for selective enforcement and not an honest and straightforward attempt to make discussions fruitful.I raised a very good question specifically narrowed, and did so actually to do better as a member. I asked for moderating to maintain the thread topic and not get off-topic. Imo, the moderating of AdminNed was deliberately forcing the thread off-topic and into a hostile tone not reflective of what you guys claim the forum is all about.

I appreciate the comments, Percy, and I hear what you are saying about "old offenses," and being new to a forum it takes awhile sometimes to get a handle on the rules, and I had been too inflammatory at times.At the same token, ironically, I think I was probably censured and banned primarily for trying to stick to the OP and argue from the evidence, and that had I been more willing to abandon arguing from the evidence, things would have gone more smoothly in terms of not being banned.This message has been edited by randman, 08-11-2005 11:30 PM

It seems like a double-standard to me. Evolutionist posters can cuss, say outlandish, unsubtantiated things of the worst kind towards creationists, IDers, any other critics of evolution, and yet somehow it's the creationist/IDers getting banned because "they don't know what they are talking about."I haven't read all of evopeach's posts, but it really looks like he is more being banned for being vehemently anti-evolution than he has acted differently than many of the flame-baiting posts of evos on the other side.There needs to be parity, if the forum is to have the respect of all sides on these issues.This message has been edited by randman, 08-16-2005 08:23 PM

You mean like whole threads titled "When Will Creationists Learn" and entirely based on a false premise, namely the people that reject ToE do so because they do not understand it, when in reality they do understand it and that's why they reject it.

The thread is a crock of unproven horse manure without any redemptive qualities to it that I can see. I hate to use gross language, but it's the equivalent of an evolutionist's intellectual circle jerk.

Faith, my experience is the average creationist willing to debate the issue not only understands ToE, but often understands it a lot better than the average evo, who usually learned a bunch of incorrect data and assumptions in school and never questioned it.Plus, they even more rarely understand their critics.The premise that people just "don't understand" their theory or them is just absurd.This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 06:18 PM

I agree. Instead of "Understanding through Discussion", there seems to be sophistry, diversion, debating tactics, etc,....I even had one poster tell me the threads are not the people on them, but "for the lurkers".It's probably a waste of time, but we seem to get sucked in anyway. In terms of some areas, it takes a bit of work, but if you can get an understanding of the process, then you often find some evos are just arguing from terminology and ignoring the heart of the real process, imo, and irregardless, detailed knowledge of a field often is not that all germane to the other areas ToE is based on.Irregardless, the vile accusations levelled at you, me, and other critics are totally uncalled for.

As far as "doing better", I think the general anti-scientific and factual tone often resorting to personal attacks and outrageous accusations is pretty much evidence of the inability of my opponents to create a credible argument to refute the points I raise.But wouldn't it be better for some of you evos to take the time to actually understand what your critics are saying, and then answer the substance of their points rather than try to score debating points "for the lurkers"?

Never heard back. I guess the answer was "thanks, but no thanks."No harm, no foul. It's not a big issue.

I think my points do get through to an open-minded person willing to look into the facts for themselves without prejudging the outcome.