Randman has taken to repeating the "not enough fossils" rant everywhere he posts. In the couple of threads discussing that a lot of effort was put in to help him develop his idea and arrive at some support for "not enough" as a number and offer his answers to all the mechanisms which can make fossils rare or hard to find.He stopped working on the problem and left a lot of questions unanswered. I think we have heard enough from him about his personal beliefs on the issue and will require very detailed reasoning and support. It is reasonably clear he is either incapable or unwilling. There's been more than enought time spent.

Thanks for the swift response.

While working on the transition to a dedicated server I haven't been able to observe Randman's recent behavior very closely, but what Nosy says is fairly consistent with my past observations. What it boils down to is that he inserts his favorite opinions into every discussion regardless of topic. Unable to engage in any sustained dialogue on a topic to see any discussion through to a conclusion, he nonetheless repeats his oft-disputed assertions at every opportunity as if they'd never been challenged.The offense isn't major, but it is persistent and of long standing. He has been asked by at least four moderators that I'm aware to stop (myself, AdminJar, AdminNosy, AdminAsgara), and this doesn't seem to have affected his behavior at all. He's a huge moderator headache, and we're just trying to get his attention. He's more than welcome to remain here, we'd love him to stay, but he's got to reduce his moderator overhead to some reasonable level.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

it's a shame you cannot filter out questions or enquiries to mods as we could have an OP-overhead bar for each poster (I've seen a warning bar on other boards and it's only visible to the individual posters and the mods).

It seems Ned has resorted to insisting that if I don't "learn" (agree with evolutionists), I should be banned.The claim now is I insert my favorite arguments all over the place.....hmmm,...sort of like evolutionists do ALL THE TIME here!It's OK though for evos to assert false and unproven claims, such as claiming no one defines "kinds" when I provided a perfectly suitable definition here, or that no credible scientists are IDers or creationists, and all sorts of evolutionist argument on nearly every single thread they can where it is remotely possible.The hypocrisy is stunning, the more so due to the apparent blindness of those engaged in such selective rules-enforcement. Basically, evo mods think criticism is unfounded and unwarranted, and so after awhile ban people for criticizing evolution while evos can make any kind of wild accusations, even starting whole threads such as "Will Creationists Learn" or some such totally based on unproven and false premises.Ned complains I left the fossil thread, but it was only after my repeated observations were never dealt with by evos. No evo would define "rare" in the context of the discussion, and as such, the evos refused to back up their claims.What was I suppossed to do? I even tried offering some observations on the term "rare" but the evos just refused to engage the point. I had to conclude they were dodging the issue, and still see it that way today.It's silly after awhile to repost the same questions for them to back up their claims of fossil rarity with some empirical analysis based on comparitive studies when they won't detail the degree of "rarity" they believe exists.Fortunately the American public is beginning to see through the mindset of evos in their selective use of logic and poor sense of fairness.

Hi Randman,The moderators are fairly unamimous about you. You can conclude that we're all just biased evos, or you can try to see if there isn't something to what we're saying.The moderators want constructive, on-topic discussions that move forward. Demonstrate you can participate on this level and your privileges will be restored. It has nothing to do with your point of view.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

OK Percy, you made this comment. The next post down and same sentiment echoed in posts before your's on the same thread, states: And before that: Apparently, few do understand my position since had they read the threads concerning this issue, they would see where I already showed the following. http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlYou know full well in fact that I am well aware of where Pakicetus fits into the proposed evo-scheme of things, and you know full well the charges on this thread that I linked to above are totally false, that Thiesen, a very prominent evolutionist, does in fact call Pakicetus a whale.But you don't censure such lies, do you?Moreover, you make a total false accusation. Of course, maybe the evo posters I quote above are well aware of my views and position, and deliberately misrepresent my position?I prefer to think they just have never bothered to assess the criticism of ToE, and subsequently post dumb comments like those above which are easily refuted.But either way, it does not excuse you for countenancing such erroneous positions and suggesting they are correct by posting my position is well understood after such false characterizations of my position are given.But irregardless, this is what I have come to expect from evos. It's dishonest criticism, but there you go. It would be good if some evos were willing to stand up and correct these dishonest assertions.We'll see if that's the case.

Simply reiterating that you don't agree with the facts doesn't prove your point, Randman. You've been asked to present facts to prove your side of the debate over and over again, and yet you don't.You expect Evo's to repeatedly go over the same material for you, even though you refuse to even review it.Where's the evidence FOR what you propose, or are you only concerned with evidence against what others propose?

So you knew perfectly well that Pakicetus is real example of a transitional and that the reasons you gave for laughing at it were invalid.

PaulK, nope. I know perfectly well the bogus spin put forth in calling Pakicetus a whale. I can't get into it too much here, but the real problem is you assume that a similarity in a trait, such as a tooth or some other area, a skull cavity in this case, must be evidence of common ancestry. So we have a situation where a creature with very, very, very few if any similarities to whales is literally called "The First Whale."It's farcical.The slight features could have arisen via convergent evolution, or be mere anamolies of an extinct creature. But in typical fashion, evolutionists wildly overstate the data and insist this is a whale, and even came out with aquatic descriptions of the creature with webbed feet initially.

This is not a thread for you to continue spouting your ideas. We know what they are. The next such post in an inappropriate place will get you suspended from ALL forums.

---

editted to take out all content. Doesn't belong here. Off to the other threads. *Wave*This message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-01-2005 05:43 PM

Off topic. This is not a debate thread. Please do not reply to this message

Here's another fact for you to chew on. Biologists had already worked out that whales were descended from ungulates BEFORE Pakicetus was found. Molecular biologists had already worked out that whales were descended from artiodactyls - and that was confirmed by the fossil evidence.Pakicetus has an ear structure ONLY found in cetaceans. It's teeth are similar to those of fossil whales (and teeth are pretty distinctive among the mammals). And that's just the example features listed on the website you referred to.So the evidence isn't being overstated. Because of the crucila fact that the whale-like features are showing up in the right time in the right group of mammals to be the ancestors of modern whales.Te fact is that you were laughing at the idea that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor BECAUSE IT HAD THE FEATURES EXPECTED OF A WHALE ANCESTOR> That's not a rational objection - and if you knew it wasnt' valid as your earlier post suggested it isn't even honest.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-01-2005 04:55 PM

Hi Randman,I'm not going to address all your meta issues. You seem to have negative views of the people you're debating and of evoutionists in general, but you're going to have to work through those issues on your own. I do think your tendency to give frequent voice to these feelings is a distraction, for you and for everyone.The key point is that the moderators want constructive, on-topic discussions that move forward. Demonstrate you can participate on this level and your privileges will be restored. It has nothing to do with your point of view.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It sure seems to have a lot to do with my point of view. In fact, the standard MO of Nosey seems to be to ban me so that others can post responses with no chance of rebuttal.Take the thread on scientific studies. It was claimed by jar that it had no relevance so I explained that the relevance could explain a pattern of jumping the gun by evos, and listed a number of examples, most of which should be uncontestable, where evos jumped the gun and made claims based on very few studies and then later the claims were refuted but it took a long time for those claims to be corrected.As such, everything in my post was on-topic, but admittedly embarassing for evos, and so Nosey bans me ostensibly for being off-topic.But let me ask you something. Adminjar asked how it was relevant.How does one answer that without giving specific, concrete examples?Moreover, how is Jar's post on-topic anyway.The pattern is evos here divert a thread to what a mod can claim as off-topic such as repeated calls on nearly every thread even by admins to post my views overall whether YEC,OEC, IDer, or what, and then when an anti-evolutionist responds to such questions and stances of evos, a evo mod then comes in, blasts the critic, bans him or her and then allows the evos to post all their points without any rebuttal.If you think that's somehow fair, or even sensible, you have real problems and not just with an internet board. I am not going to just pretend that such behaviour is correct. I have been on-topic more so than my detractors. The truth here is some evos just don't like it when you post arguments they have no answer for, and don't like to be shown to be wrong.In other words, it seems you guys' definition of "constructive" is any debate where evos win, and thus when evo points are refuted, the reaction is to find a way to ban them. It may be an unconscious reaction, but that's what is going on.This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 03:44 PM