AdminNosy banned?

Everything anyone says is an opinion, just some are better supported by evidence than others. About the best you could say about Nwr's approach is that he was sending mixed messages. To paraphrase him, "This is only my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to convince anybody, and I'm not claiming my views represent legitimate scientific criticism, but the Big Bang is tentative, Olber's paradox calls the CMBR into question, the tired light theory has never been rebutted to my satisfaction, and even the theory of luminiferous aether was better verified in its day than the Big Bang."So to you he was saying this in a way that put it off-limits to criticism. To me he was trying to sneak in crap under the radar, and besides, no one's positions are off-limits to critical examination here. As I said earlier, all any of us have are personal opinions, but this might be a good beginning. Could you rework this to instead say something about not stating positions you do not wish to defend, or that you wish to keep private?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I believe I would. I often listen to Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. Though I usually take the Hannity position I also turn him off or yell at the TV something like, "LET THE PERSON TALK, HANNITY!" Hannity either demands this "yes" or "no" from his liberal guest or fails to let the guest get a word in edgewise. Liberal Colmes with whom I most often disagree is by far the better gentleman. You don't seem to be reading me well, Mod. How does the IDist say "This is science" when the establishment has flat out declared before the debate that there is no ID science as an alleged established fact.Baumgardner cites plate tetonics, fossil observations, and other evidence in his flood paper, i.e. the same stuff evolutionists observe, yet the evo hypothesis is considered science while the other is not. So the establishment considers his hypothesis to be undebatable before he posts anything if he were debating, yet his profession is a doctorate degreed scientist. The evo people here in charge give him credit for absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Therefore no acceptible evidence is left for him to use in the debate. At least colleges and universities as well as other establishments allow ICR and other ID creationsts the courtesy to aire their views including the evidences they claim in science debates around the country.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

What I really miss about Ringo and Jar's absence is that they often taught people to think through questions rather than pronounce the absolute truth from a position of personal infallibility.Socrates has left the building.

So what solution do you offer? I put two solutions forward, neither tenable. Can you think of another? As of this moment, I've seen precious little ID science presented. If someone where to come upon any, they are free to say - 'hey look - this is science'. It will probably be another bunch of pseudoscience that ignores data and seemingly makes facts up or references facts that were abandoned by experts in the subject twenty years ago due to better evidence.It's not like we're stood here saying. ID is wrong, and you can't therefore debate it. I believe you current grudge was that you presented Baumgardner as scientific - it was debunked as pseudoscience and now you think we have declared ID as undebatable. Not so. Anyone can put forward a bunch of pseudoscience and attempt to defend it...as long as they do so in good faith, addressing rebuttals etc etc.The problem is, that that is a rare debate to be seen. Buzz, citing evidence does not make something scientific. I could say - the sky is blue, which is caused by silkworms stretching their cosmic tapestry. Night time is when they turn the tapestry over. When astronauts or rocks try and go through the fabric, it causes friction and things burn up. Lightening is caused by static discharges in the fabric.That cites the same evidence that meteorologists etc use - but it ain't science buddy. Its perfectly debatable. There is an ID forum where one can put forward one's ID hypothesis and watch it get refuted or not. Further support would be needed. If I said - why has nobody found a fragment of this tapestry, or the silk worms, and why does the sky not 'flip', but instead gradually change? That would need addressing.It could be addressed by saying, "It uses the same evidence metos use, its science! There are silk worms, see?" That isn't debate. That's repetition. Sure. Sure. But you get 0 points in science for ignoring data that refutes your position. Its called confirmation bias and it is a wonderful indicator that pseudoscience is afoot. I'm perfectly happy to discuss pseudoscience with you in greater detail in a thread if you'd like. This isn't a college, its a debate forum. You can air whatever views you like - but you have to support them or stop airing them. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't want to support a position, take it to Showcase. Better still: Get your own website. A blog.

---

If you have nothing else to debate but Baumgardner, then the debate with you is probably over. We know your position, and if you put it forwards you'll just repeat it no matter how often it gets taken to pices. Here is a hint about Baumgardner: Ignoring evidence from the primary literature in favour of a book on theology is not part of the scientific method.

quote:

---

Baumgardner cites plate tetonics, fossil observations, and other evidence in his flood paper, i.e. the same stuff evolutionists observe, yet the evo hypothesis is considered science while the other is not.

---

And that is BECAUSE of the evidence, not despite it as you would have us believe.If Baumgardner really does have solid supportign evidence it is open to you to present it. All you have to do is open a thread. So long as you just pull the same stunt you did with the Moeller video - claim that there is good evidence there without discussing it - then there is no reason to believe you.In fact there is good reason to disbelieve yopu. Do you remember citing an article penny stock website, an article about hurricanes as absolute fact ? Do you remember attacking people for not dealing with the "evidence" ? Do you remember claiming that you trusted the site because NOBODY ELSE agreed with its claims (!) ?. Do you remember that the main claim of an increase in hurricanes since 1948 turned out to be false ?Maybe you did learn a lesson form that incident - don't put your "evidence" up for discussion. That would explain why you are supporting nwrt here. If you can get away with CLAIMING to have evidence - but never presenting it for examination - then nobody can prove you wrong.

Well that's not quite accurate, and I have already pointed that out. There are many types of opinions, and sometimes there is no evidence required to hold them. The only IMPORTANT opinions, the ones where debate is reasonable for any party, are the ones being advanced as statements of knowledge or fact.You seem to have avoided (for the second time) my bringing up heliocentrism/geocentrism. That is a case where opinion is all anyone had to go on. Efficacy was not the same as explanatory power. If you are not willing to admit this distinction is real, then It seems you are advancing an opinion with little merit and avoiding debate on it.Now I am fine with you stating that all you want discussed are statements of knowledge or fact, but then I am uncertain how anyone is going to communicate anything regarding the cutting edges of any discipline. If such tentativity or opinions are allowed in ordert to discuss those issues, I am unsure how one can block personal discussion of noncutting edge issues.Personally I do not find much interest in debating mere opinion, and I have a pretty clear record of dropping any further discussion when it hits that level. That paraphrase is inaccurate. Something he appeared to try and tell you at the time, and I have been trying to tell you here. I can see why you would (for some of those issues) consider it sending mixed messages. You say "at best", but I would say "at worst" you can say he was doing such. Let's break it down... That's it. That's end of discussion. Its an opinion not being advanced as knowledge. I would add that your paraphrase conveniently leaves out the fact that he said he has not read everything and if he wanted to attack BB he'd have to read all that stuff. That's a big but, and you are the one putting it in there. Two pieces of evidence he used to support his admittedly uninformed opinion. That they ended up being wrong only highlights his original statement that he was uninformed. To be CERTAIN, you were absolutely correct in refuting these errors. They were factual statements and so open to criticism. I think this does not belong with the others. It may be a statement of fact that can be refuted, but it does not tie into an explanation for why he feels evidence is not compelling enough for him to accept BB. I think it is very clear he was not saying "because the theory of luminous aether was better verified etc, I have a reason (lack of sufficent evidence) not to accept it." That is what he WAS saying with the others, not with this. Not exactly. His statements of fact were open to question, his statement of opinion was not. And more to the point I don't understand why anyone would want to question the latter. He did not deny its utility or status as best scientific theory on the subject, nor did he offer anything other than "I don't know".That sounds valid, accurate, and allows you to move on to those who are opposing the BB theory. Remember I agreed with your specific knocking down of the factual errors he made, so that is not the issue.Also remember, I don't mind going for the jugular on an error. The problem is if one ends up going for the jugular of a strawman, and somewhere in the process the jugular of the person stating the opinion (and by this I am not just meaning insults, but tearing down the individual by overemphasizing the error). I thought that was in there, but I'll give it another go...All statements should be arguments which advance or attack a position, and that are themselves open to attack via logic or evidence. Do not post opinions based entirely on personal feelings, suspicions, and/or something one does not want debated because they are private and so felt beyond question.I will note in advance that this might have some problems in any faith related topic as well as any morality/ethics related topics. And I'm still curious how you intend to allow discussion on cutting edge issues in science.But the only solid problem for me is that you still appear to be disallowing statements such as "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I have some doubts". Those are all valid as opinion and as far as I can tell legitimately beyond question.Edited by holmes, : opinions

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I realized something after I wrote the above, and this is a bit more "spicy" of an issue anyway, so I am writing it separately.You have been explaining how you want only explanations of opinion that can be attacked and supported with evidence. I have been arguing that there are some cases of opinion where evidence will not be enough to solve the dilemma of what to believe, what to accept.Let's take a look at what you have said here... & Contrary to your claim to not wanting pure opinion, that IS pure opinion on your part. Many have reviewed the evidence and have come to different conclusions. It appears that YOUR opinion dominates or is in some way MORE in line with evidence?If you feel that is true then you are trying to sneak crap in under your own radar. We are all using the same evidence and explaining from our vantage points how we interpret it. That you don't like such an interpretation is a nonplus. Indeed you keep ignoring some of the "evidence" I present to you on that issue.I think it is safe to say that some will be of the opinion nwr was trying to have his cake and eat it too, while others will think he was not advancing a position and so you took him out of context in your replies, and others will say they don't know. Aren't these all validly stated opinions stemming from the same evidence, yet deadlocked?But that is just the case of equal evidence leading to opinions decided validly by a somewhat gut reaction (though of course I still feel mine is more valid than yours). What about advancing an opinion with absolutely no evidentiary support beyond innuendo, which is pure emotion? & Or what about advancing an opinion in a way that pretends to be neutral but offers evidence at the same time?... You told me to drop stating my opinion about your insulting nwr unless I was going to bring up evidence. What on earth is that above? "I have no evidence, BUT here's my innuendo."I'm particularly disturbed by the way you cast down other people's opinions which have equal validity to the evidence at hand, as well as moving to blacken the names of others without any evidence besides your opinion.My opinion is that nwr would never have been hit so hard except that he expressed a personal doubt that you don't like, that if he had expressed a personal faith he would have been given a free pass despite having no evidence, and that all the other posters you are treating like idiots or conspirators would be getting your full support and commendation except that they decided against you.I'd be more impressed with your claim for how you want this place to run, if you held all opinions to the same measure of critical evaluation, and admit your accusations are a matter of personal opinion which shouldn't have been made and will not be made again.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I would allow for a hypothesis to be debated which factors in the evidence some have such as fulfilled prophecy observed complexity of living things and other phenomena that support the possibility of higher intelligence in the universe than mankind is capable of achieving within himself, i.e. intelligent design. Let the debate itself and not moderator/admin intervention determine what hypothesis comes out the best in the end as judged by each viewer of the debate and not moderation administration.I'm not saying prophecy should be discussed in science but that it should be allowable for ID folks to cite as one of the reasons for their science hypothesis which may have some connections to the Biblical historical record. That's because you fail to recognized global flood evidence presented, Exodus crossing evidence and such evidences presented as evidence suitable for ID debates by IDists. I'm not saying you need to accept these evidences, but that they should be suitable for justifying debate of them and recognizing those who apply them to science debate hypothesis are indeed doing science in the research they have done regarding the evidences they are presenting such as alternative tetonics applications, alternative fossil application, on site data gathered et al. Are you sure Percy agrees with you here? I see what appears to be a substantial debate going on now in Showcase between Randman, Dr. Adequate and others. Too bad, imo, that it's tucked away from the public science fora. Citing tiny silkworms as making the entire atmosphere blue is a totally rediculous and unfair analogy, Mod. You need to acknowledge that a global flood such as the Bible describes would have a substantial effect on plate tetonics and that it would likely cause uplift on segments of the crust, et al. This is hardly silkworm/atmosphere grade stuff. Silkworm/atmosphere blue is not debatable and I'm sure you're aware of it. You need to be reasonable in your responses. Are you are thinking what is pseudoscience or actual debate of a pseudoscience topic? My understanding is that showcase threads are to be initiated by members consigned to showcase only. Is that correct? Fine. Tell it to the ones also who generate needful response such as is the case here. Are you suggesting you and yours should have the advantage of last word?Btw, Buzsaw has one z.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

So when you say 'ID folks' you mean creationists, its good to know we are all on the same page.TTFN,WKp.s. If you think the rendition of 'Randman's greatest hits' currently being played in Showcase is a substantial and scientific debate then you have clearly never come across an actual substantial and scientific debate.Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Just so you know that I'm aware that I'm not addressing everything you said, I'll just say that sometimes it isn't clear in discussions with you whether you're trying to have a discussion or pick a fight. I'm not really interested in a fight, so I'm going to avoid those parts of your posts that might take us down that path.Anyone's position is merely their opinion on the evidence they're aware of. This is always true, whether we're talking about heliocentrism/geocentrism or the Big Bang or evolution or the shortest route to the bank. We're using different definitions of "opinion". I'm using the word opinion to make clear that one's position *is* only an opinion based upon the evidence one is aware of. You don't seem to think opinions are much worth discussing, as if they had no supporting evidence. But opinions have various levels of evidential support. For example, the opinion that the world is 6000 years old no evidential support that I can think of, while the opinion that the world is billions of years old has huge amounts of evidential support. This is the purpose of EvC Forum, to let people critically examine the evidence for their opinions in debate and discussion.In other words, one's position is merely an opinion on the evidence one is aware of. One cannot get out of supporting one's stated position by calling it an opinion, because that is just stating the obvious. All positions are opinions on the evidence one is aware of. In the case of Nwr, his opinion on the evidence for the Big Bang wasn't of much value because he wasn't aware of much real evidence, and he seemed particular aware of false evidence.So when you say this: The fallacy behind this misinterpretation can be illustrated with the simple logic of contradiction. We'll assume you're right and follow the implications to their conclusion. So we assume Nwr's position is just an opinion while my position is not an opinion. Well, if my position is not an opinion then it must be a fact. But positions are not facts. They are opinions, interpretations if you like, of the evidence we're aware of. So it is incorrect to say that Nwr's position is an opinion and mine is not. They are both opinions.Nwr was trying to both state his opinion and put it out there for consideration while not having it subjected to critical examination. You can't do that here.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That happens. This doesn't seem to be a solution to the problem of a board being composed mostly of one side or the other though. I don't see it as a problem to have that as your starting point. That's the point, after all. The problem is supporting that position. It is all too common for creationists to say "That there was a flood is undisputable fact, there is no debating it, any evidence to the contrary is wrongly interpreted". That's not debate - it isn't a question of wrongly interpreting, its a question of debating in bad faith. Yes yes, of course. I also fail to recognize the evidence that the Kennedy shooting was done by a conspiracy of oil merchants and aliens presented by conspiracy theorists. The only way that anyone can come to the flood conclusion after being presented with all the evidence, is if they had already accepted the flood conclusion to begin with and they filtered the contradictory information from consideration.Obviously we both think the other side fails to understand the overwhelming evidence for the position - that is what a debate is for. I'm not obligated to look at pseudoscience as science, Buz, nobody is. We can discuss this in another thread if you'd like. Presenting evidence that confirms a hypothesis and ignoring evidence that refutes it is pseudoscience. Sorry. Well - why don't you actually present some evidence to the contrary? Percy and I disagree on plenty. I think that says quite a lot. I've seen some debates almost be substantial with randman, but if you think that particular debate is a substantial debate - you have a serious problem. They both require magic and ignoring a wealth of evidence that contradicts them. I see little difference between them, other than floodists have spent longer at it than I have. It's as debatable as 'god-father caused a big flood to kill every living thing but a small group of things which all got on a boat'.What we can debate is whether there is any physical evidence that that is the case. We can see how many extra entities are needed to be proposed (magic water, a 'no heat from friction' fairy, a 'radioactive disaster prevention elf' etc etc) and refer ourselves to the principle of parsimony. We can debate whether the evidence presented, as well as that which is presented by its opponents, still allows for the hypothesis. Either one might work. A discussion as to what makes pseudoscience, perhaps focussing on a commonly used agreed medium: astrology, and comparison with ID. I'm sure Percy wouldn't object - you can always ask. Not at all. The last word should go to the person who brought the last unresponded point forward. Repeating a point that has been addressed, is not getting the last word. I know, I know. I plead Firefox. New Firefox 2.0 has a built in spell checker. It takes a force of will to avoid correcting 'colour', but 'Buz' is a trickier one to miss. I've called you Buzz a few times now since I got it - but its no excuse. People call me Modulus - so I know the feeling

---

Hmmm...from Admin Nosy, to jar/nwr/Percy to the percieved shutting down of debate. I think the topic of this topic should be $topic.#

---

abe: I'm constructing two posts at the moment that will allow us to take discussion there. There might be a suitable thread already for one of them, in which case I'll bump with my post. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I fear that if we continue to talk about what happened any longer, more people will defect as a direct result of one or both parties feeling resentment towards the other. This is an awful lot of drama when there doesn't need to be any. What happened, happened. Its over and its time to move on.My take it on it is that Percy hastily jumped all over NWR for simply stating his opinion. At the same time, Percy really didn't say anything so egregious that should make any sensible person leave over that-- unless I'm missing some critical information. Perhaps there has been some Cold War brewing for many years and I simply wasn't around to see behind-the-scenes.The bottom line is this: This is Percy's forum. He pays every month just to have all of us convene and have a good debate about this or that. What does he gain from it? Nothing, really-- other than, perhaps, the personal satisfaction of making others happy by providing them a place to debate outside of the mindless nonsense that goes on in other forums. Percy is providing for us the ability to have met one another, good or bad. That means Percy gets to make the rules. This is his baby and he can run in whatever way he chooses. Having said that, perhaps we should caution Percy in not shooting down people that have evidence one way or the other, or a lack thereof. Afterall, as Buz stated, there is no point to this very site without some conflicting dialogue between evolutionists, creationists, and proponents of ID. The site would flop without it because that's its sole function. Well, there is also the minor function of theological debate.I take the stance that Percy can run his site however he chooses, but, for his own sake, it would be wise for him to let us debate in whatever way we choose, otherwise, everyone will leave if he tries to micromanage the site to suit his own ideology. This is the typical dichotomy for any leader. A leader, like a president or a prime minister, is the boss. But it is in that boss' best interest to keep his constituents happy otherwise they might rebel. Its a reciprocal/symbiotic relationship to be sure.Also, I think we should address how Percy feels about 'weak' posters. We all know there are some members that are not very articulate and they have trouble getting their points across with eloquence. That doesn't mean they're dumb or uninformed, necessarily. I don't think we should suspend or ban people like that because good dialogue might be waning. Perhaps we should, like nature, allow for them to weed themselves out. For instance, Faith. If her posts were really that bad, no one would have responded to them with the fervor we've seen. Her posts were always popular. I mean, isn't that what were trying to do?-- to generate revenue in the form of communication? If somebody can't post, Admins will not approve their topic. Its as simple as that. They will leave because they are frustrated. But supposing that we do promote their topics and its popular, let it be whatever it is. I don't think its in the sites best interest to demonize those people. Just let the chips fall where they may.Now, lets get back to arguing in peace. Sheesh

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Uh... I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm not interested in a fight. In this specific post you are replying to I ended on an observation that you appear to be insulting people either directly or through innuendo via opinions which cannot be questioned. And I do not like it, particularly when it seems to conflict with the code others should obey.You said your words were open to criticism, that is what I did. If criticism is now considered "picking a fight", I guess I would like some criteria on what is allowed. Although I realize that could sound sarcastic, it is meant honestly. How does one distinguish between criticism and picking a fight?In any case the heated portion was application and example of a rule set (and possible problems with it). The post previous to this was more important. From what follows it does not appear you read and/or understood what I was driving at. I am also not interested in a game of semantics. We do not need to be talking past each other on this. Let me define what I am talking about...From my own background there is a distinction between opinions which carry weight in an argument and those which do not.The former can be called "mere" or "personal" opinion and are related to subjective impressions such as taste and "gut" feelings. Though some evidence (in fact quite a bit) may be used to sway that kind of opinion, it ultimately hinges on the subjective impression rather than conclusive ability of evidence (or logic).The latter can also be called an opinion, but they are more conveniently identified as a claim of knowledge. These have weight in that conclusions can be argued to convince another, as well as be attacked. They hinge on the combination of logic and evidence, and preferably nothing to do with subjective impression.You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as the former category, that all opinions boil down to and hinge on logic and evidence, but that seems patently absurd. Again "Strawberries taste great" hinges on no logic and evidence (beyond subjective impression). Likewise confidence in and acceptance of something is ultimately a subjective state. You can agree that all the facts point to X, but still not be confident that X is ultimately true.In some cases there are competing theories (opinions if you want) that have equal evidentiary support. That leaves MERE opinion, subjective impression, to be the deciding factor. You continue to dodge the helio/geo example on that point. Was there or was there not a time where there was not adequate evidence supporting heliocentric theory such that geocentric theory was more supported and later equally supported by evidence? Weren't the people choosing to look beyond geocentric theory doing so based on a gut factor, a hesitation to accept geocentrism which had nothing to do with evidence?How about plate tectonics? How could such a debate as it stood in the 50s and 60s survived here? There was no definitive position in that debate. It needed more evidence to make the call in a definitive way, as a statement of knowledge.In the case of BB theory, one can easily use the rather limited immediate knowledge we have of the universe (as a whole) to generate a gut reaction that while it is clearly the best description we have so far, that it is not something one is confident will remain such. A person could theoretically demand that we need an almost omniscient point of view before that gut reaction changes. There is no logical problem with that. It is about FEELING and not STATE OF KNOWLEDGE. That has no connection to my position or definitions at all. Hopefully the above discussion clarified where the miscommunication is occuring.In my jargon... nwr was stating a mere opinion about the BB in general. You took some of his claims of knowledge (regarding state of evidence about BB) to mean his overall point was a claim to knowledge. You accurately used further claims to knowledge to rebut his claims. Unfortunately you continued to attack everything as if it was logically open to challenge. His mere opinion is not.That is certainly why I have no interest in arguing against them, and likely why you would not want to see them occuring on a debate forum. It just seems strange to argue that there are no such things, that all opinions actually hinge on some level of evidence that can be argued against. Consideration by whom? You asked him to explain a statement he made. He then prefaced that explanation with a clear statement: it was just an opinion, that that opinion was not based on full information, that he was not attempting to refute BB theory (which is to my mind saying "not for consideration"), and that if he did want to do such he'd have to look at more info.The only thing he advanced "for consideration" was a certain state of evidence regarding BB that helped form his gut reaction. But it was not "X is why BB should not be believed". It was a description of how it was not complete enough for him. That he was errant about that evidence (which again you rightly criticized) does not necessarily effect his overall state of confidence, and so his MERE OPINION. The fact that his errancy pointed up his original claim to lack of knowledge only shows that he was damn right. His knowledge could not be used to refute BB.And nowher did he say that BB was not a scientific theory, that it was not the best and most coherent theory we have, and that he knew of some other theory and was unwilling to believe BB would ever match it. All he said is that he wasn't satisfied ENOUGH with the state of evidence for BB to accept it at this time. Lack of acceptance =/= rejection.Edited by holmes, : eh

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think anyone that was going to leave already has. I agreed with your general assessment. It was the same bs that goes on allll the time, and not nearly as caustic as it can get. However, I could see how nwr might be personally disinterested in aiding a website run by someone he feels is an asshole. And in any case Percy's comments following his departure would certainly disincline my idea to return if I were nwr. I think debate here, at least from my corner is to figure out exactly what rules he wants. It seems fair to try and prize out what are best as guidelines.His insistence that all opinion is debatable, is itself debatable to me. That's not what I learned in philosophy class.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I mentioned in another thread that I am potentially interested in helping out with coding. Maybe you could contact me offline when you have some time to talk about it? I think you should have access to my email address even though I didn't make it public to the forum. You have my permission to use that one.By the way, I totally and 100% agree with your comments on this thread. Faith was also notorious for her unassailable positions and I think that eventually the board will be better off without people who chronically put their positions above criticism.The void will be filled in time and as long you keep that bar high hopefully it will be filled with higher quality.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)