Where is the evidence for evolution?

To SLPx and peter borger,Please restrict discussion of GUToB, MPG, NRM, etc, to those threads opened for that purpose.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

One would hope it is not widely believed that the practice of bad science justifies the further practice of bad science. One would also hope that assertions of bad science would be backed up by supporting evidence and argument. And one would further hope that members debate in good faith and not throw red herrings into the ring.Quetzal supported his points with information and argument, and any rebuttals must do likewise. Please see the Forum Guidelines, particularly rules 2 and 4:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

Addressing Quetzal's rebuttal should be done in this thread. If you're interested in making a case against the science of Darwin and/or Dawkins then please open new threads. Thanks!------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Peter Borger,I would like you to give greater consideration to my requests. In order for you to have the opportunity to do this I am giving you a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

You weren't. Peter brought it up in a message he addressed to you. Sorry not to be more clear, but all I wanted was for Peter not to raise these topics in this thread, and I included you so you knew not to respond to Peter.It probably isn't clear to people how board administration views these topics. While not trying to assign blame, we have become concerned that discussion of GUToB is becoming mixed into many threads not originally intended to address it, and that this was happening while there wasn't a clear understanding of what GUToB is. In order to keep threads focused and in order to have discussion be informed we have tried to limit GUToB to only a single thread until such time as it becomes clearly defined.The inclination of this administrator is always to try to assist members in making their points clear, but my experience indicates that, perhaps because of my own shortcomings, this almost always deteriorates into arguments that I'm wrong and/or don't understand, and pretty soon I'm repeating the same debate other members were having, but as administrator, which isn't good.And so I leave Peter Borger to find his own way out. If he can make GUToB clear to everyone else then its discussion will no longer be limited to a single thread. By the way, that thread is: There's another thread where Peter Borger and I are attempting to develop a clear definition of GUToB: ------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Peter Borger,You're posting privileges have been restored.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Zephan,You've been here long enough to know the rules. You were banned under Ten-sai, then rejoined as Zephan thereby violating rule 8 of the Forum Guidelines:

8. Participating as more than one ID is extremely strongly discouraged.

I let your Zephan registration remain because when I banned you as Ten-sai several members expressed disappointment that they hadn't been able to complete the discussion. But you will only be allowed to remain for as long as you follow the Forum Guidelines. Rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines states:

4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

Since you didn't explain or provide any evidence for how Quetzal's analysis was irrelevant, you're in violation of rule 4. Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines states:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

You violated this rule by accusing Quetzal of deliberately withholding information to avoid embarrassment instead of just sticking to evidence.Finally, I see no indication that you're interested in debate, but simply want to take potshots at evolutionists, thereby violating rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

For all the above violations you're getting off rather easy with only a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. See you tomorrow.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Zephan,Your posting privileges have been restored.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I think this is as true of you and me and other evolutionists as it is of Creationists, particularly the part about resisting that which threatens our belief systems. But even the part about open inquiry is true of us. Would you be interested in donating to the "Search for Noah's Ark" fund? Why not? Because you know it is myth? How do you know that?We both know you have good reasons for skepticism about Noah's ark, but Creationists have good reasons for being skeptical of evolution. They're not usually scientific reasons, but they have reasons.I think what often makes these discussions take a frustrating turn is that thinking scientifically is not something that can simply be explained. It's a skill that takes a long time to develop, and just as some are gifted in music or sports or theology, others are gifted with a scientific outlook. Explaining science to those who have neither the background nor the gift is far more difficult a task than we often realize.I know we probably don't agree on all I just wrote, but I'd just like to ask you to go a little more gently on the judgmental stuff.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

The Change in Moderation? thread is discussing such issues now. It's an old thread, but a new discussion has developed in response to concerns about overmoderation beginning at Message 13.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator