General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

The self-righteousness is far more evident in Faith's critics here than the other way around, imo.

absurd rant, as usual from Charles, making a vicious personal attack another poster with total abandon and ignoring the facts

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.

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.

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.

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

Adminjar demanded to know the relevance of the article, which therefore necessitated a response specific to the Theory of Evolution and the debate thereof. So I showed where initial or scant studies and papers were jumped on as gospel truth among evos and touted that way to the world, and then to make sure I backed up my claims I used several specific examples of where that happened.He and the mods know that, or should, that I was answering jar's demand. They are smart enough to see that I was responding to their requests, and yet they banned me for providing the specific and detailed type of responses they asked for.My conclusion is they didn't like the response not because it was against the rules, but because the argument was so accurate they could not answer it rationally.Edit to add: I even clearly referenced jar's comments and asked why they were allowed to stand to preface my comments. So what we have here is selective rules-enforcement by the mods. They demand answers that they consider off-topic and then ban me for answering their off-topic demands.This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 05:21 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 05:26 PM

Adminjar demanded to know the relevance of the topic and did so in an insulting manner. How is my response to this not appropiate. This is an evo/creationist/ID discussion forum, right? So I would need to show how this topic has relevance to the forum, and I did that, quite well imo.I specified a general principle of jumping the gun based on one or few studies, and then gave a list of specific, detailed examples of where that had happened, where false concepts largely no abandoned by evos were once touted by not waiting for more papers and studies to verify the claims. One of those examples have been challenged. The rest to date have not been, but honestly I did not expect anyone to challenge things like the Neanderthal and Haeckel examples, and went on to explain how this issue could be germane in genetics and paleontology.You tell me.How should one answer adminjar's demands replete with unsubstantiated insults without referencing the things which I did?I am continuing to post to perhaps enable some sort of self-recognition on your and the other mods' part that your behaviour is inconsistent and wrong, and to consider that continually banning critics of evolution here while pretending they are the ones being unreasonable is perhaps not so much that they are unreasonable, but something wrong with your sense of fairness and logic.My reason for doing this is to move the conversation forward, but as long as incredible insults, totally unfounded such as jar's are lobbied at critics like myself and not censured, and then when one answers with a total factual post showing a clear pattern and linking that pattern to the OP topic, and THUS SHOWING THE RELEVANCE, well, then you are not going to have anything more than an intellectualized evo circle-jerk here at the forum BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, but rather evos making unfounded claims, unreasonable demands, and then banning any critics who dare stand up to such.There's a reason you don't see too many anti-evos posting here, and it's not because they are unreasonable, unintelligent, etc,...That's wishful and deluded thinking on some folk's part here.This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 05:55 PM

If you are talking about educational standards or evos use of data, Haeckel's depictions being used so long is relavant.What is not relevant, which evos continually resort to, is bashing the Bible, bashing religion, bashing George Bush and the neocons or any number of arguments evos repeatedly trot out on nearly every thread on this forum.The simple fact is there are not that many IDers and Creationists posting here. So you may grow a little tired of hearing from some of the same people. My suggestion would be to realize that this thing works both ways, and if you want to discuss points on a scientific basis, attacks of creationist's or IDers motives that are unsubstantiated, or on any number of false claims bandied about, does not help.At least when I bring up Haeckel's drawings and claiming a single phylotypic stage as accurate, I am appealing to real scientific claims and practices, not fantasies that people reject ToE because they want to install a theocracy or some such.