Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

Hi Randman,Permanently suspended by the moderator most opposed to permanent suspensions? How *do* you do it? I guess it's a gift! Is there anyone out there who agrees with Randman? It doesn't matter whether you're a creationist, evolutionist or even a numismatist, if you can see what he's getting at and can put it in rational terms supported by excerpts from TalkOrigins, your contributions would be most welcome. To be specific, the point in question is whether TalkOrigins purposefully conflates the two definitions of evolution in order to promote an aura of certainty about long-term evolution that does not in reality exist. I suspect others here can put a finer point on it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Randman,You're already on record as believing that those on the other side of the debate are guilty of evasion and dissembling. If you insist on pursuing a course which includes assertions of malfeasance by the other side then I will return you to suspended status immediately. If, on the other hand, you decide to pursue a course that includes respect for your opponents and efforts to seek mutual understandings then your participation here will be allowed to continue.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm not debating as Admin, but if you'd like my general opinion from a "judging the debate" standpoint, I thought your post was very weak. The quoted portion was very difficult to understand. It was incomplete (picks up in mid-sentence), gramatically complex, referred to things said elsewhere, and there was no link to the webpage it mentions.In reply to your question, "How is this not a substantive point?" I would answer, "I can't even find your point." I know what you're trying to say, I provided a succinct summary in Message 267, but in my view you've been unable to provide any reasonable support or arguments for your premise.I know this is incomprehensible to you and that you believe that only purposeful lying and evasion could cause people to fail to see your point, but unless you begin to consider the possibility that there's room for honest disagreement then your return here will be a short one.Please take any moderation concerns to the appropriate thread and let the remainder of this thread be devoted to the topic. And I do mean the *topic*, not the meta topic about how incredible it is that no one will concede your point.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't think the topic of discussion is research quality. In fact, I would have thought that those interested in the topic would just be happy that someone who's apparently calm and rational has decided to take up the gauntlet for the "pro" side of the question.We're at the 300 message limit, but I've never liked the limit, so someone else will have to close this thread. However, given that the first 250 messages were mostly just the hashing and rehashing of an incredibly obtuse position (in this moderator's opinion), maybe they shouldn't count.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director