General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

Origen seems no worse than the evos here, frankly. Did he get angry and fail to address the issues raised, sure? Par for the course for the evos here, imho.But I get the sense his anger was not that he hadn't written the first chapter of his book and couldn't produce it, but that he felt misled into thinking he was dealing with people with an open mind. Your denigration of the guy as deluded is ample evidence he is correct. I don't know what he has written, but he wouldn't be the first person to note the term "the prince of the power of the air" and refer to fighting between Michael and the prince of Persia, etc,....as evidence that some UFOs could relate to angels (including fallen ones).Personally, I find the skepticism among the typical evo towards UFOs being real, in the sense of possible alien craft, to be unreasonable. There is a ton of evidence, from rader picking up UFOs and chasing after them with jets in the 50s to more recent observations. Some of it can be explained, but pilots seeing and chasing alien craft repeatedly while they were picked up on radar, well, I think only someone willingly close-minded is dismissive of that.Could angelic activity also be involved in some UFOs? Yep.Probably not the crafts picked up on radar and chased off by jets though.

It always amazes me that the evos here will say stuff like "everyone says" and not accept that the fact is only all the evos say, and often not all of them, and that practically all serious critics of evo models that visit this site say the exact same thing. The site is completely one-sided in moderation to the point serious discussion is effectively prohibited by the admins here.Yet, we don't hear the evos admitting that "everyone says" that the site is too biased to generate real discussion, and that any critic of evolution that makes an effective argument is either hounded or shouted off the site, and if too rude to graciously leave and responds to such obtuseness of evos, then he or she will eventually be banned.

Admin, that's pretty much bull crap and you know it. Very few, basically evos without any intent imo to debate the topic at hand, were requested to be removed.....others who participated have been welcome to continue and generally those welcomed like wk were more knowledgeable and could argue the evo positions better anyway than the posters muddying up the water. Note as well that Mick and I had a decent discussion last night. It was a welcome sight to see an evo that was not sooooo brainwashed that he could read plain English and see what I was talking about with the TO articles, which the likes of PaulK and others defended to death.I have no wish to discuss issues with people that don't want to admit the sky is blue or what the meaning of is is. I actually thought you would consider it a good thing to restrict the debate to serious posters so the ideas could be discussed.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Bingo.Btw to anyone reading, who was adminchristian?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Where have I called someone a liar here? You guys get a lot of mileage out of something that happened months ago and conveniently ignore the frequent charges of "intellectual dishonesty", "lying for Jesus" or some other bogus crap levied towards your critics and non-evo posters, but somehow when you guys do it, it's just courteous explanations of where critics of evos fall short, eh?Regarding your comment: The simple truth of the matter all of these things are indeed allowed for evos in their smears of creationists and IDers and even encouraged by you whether you realize it or not. It's just that such behaviour is not allowed for your critics.I suggest a little more practicing what you preach and less lecturing others on civility.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Disagreements as smears?No, but when your position is continually misrepresented and whole topics are started accusing the IDers and Creationists here on this board of purposeful deception, lying, stupidity, insanity, ignorance, etc, etc,....it takes someone particularly blind not to see that as a smear.But hey, I understand....it's just courteous discussion when an evo calls an IDer dishonest, insane, ignorant, etc, etc,.....like this gem here: No need to respond. I can do it for you. "That's not a smear randman, but just someone politely disagreeing with you. If you would just try to obey the forum rules a little better, you'd see that."Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Percy, with all due respect, every single thing you accuse me of is par for the course among evos, and yet you don't see their remarks as rules violations. It's just blatant one-sided moderation, and I know I am not the only one that has seen that, and I know that there are people that have communicated the same thing to you afer reviewing the threads you guys claim I am the bad guy on.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Also, the reason for asking such questions as the following is because there has been no reasonable answer from the evo camp: You guys claim all the time that evolutionism is real and self-correcting science, and yet it took OVER 100 YEARS of sustained criticism from non-evos or more ID type evos to FINALLY get evos, and we are talking scientists in their peer-reviewed lit, to actually try to verify one of their data claims, and admit that they were wrong. This happened after the advent of the internet.Coincidence?Hardly. You act like that is conspiracy-mongering but it's just a fact. Books and internet articles had been hammering evos over the use of this fraudulent data and ideas, and so finally an evo publicly did a study and confronted the error.That's not self-correction. That's an extremely stubborn and non-fact-based ideological community being forced to correct itself via humiliation.

The problem is that if you say evos resort to politics to silence their critics and show an actual example of that where evos use the courts to keep ID out of public education, then this is seen as a smear. It's not actually a smear but a verifiable fact, but the evos here are so confused as to what constitutes a fact or not, that telling a fact which doesn't fit with evo impressions is seen as merely smearing evos, and in fact some go as far as to say as lying and smearing evos. It doesn't matter a whit that there is solid evidence that evos have and do in fact use the courts to try to silence their critics. That "fact" somehow is irrevalent.So in reality, what you have is a group of people incapable of reasoned discussion because when someone presents reasoned criticism, such as pointing out that evos do indeed resort to political means to control the debate, that's seen as rules violations, etc,....

I didn't bring it up. Percy did. Moreover, you guys are not actually allowing fair discussion in allowing your critics to present the facts to support their argument that they feel is necessary. Instead, you try to control what facts can actually be presented in an argument. Evos can, say, bring up natural selection on a non-natural selection thread as a point of evidence or part of a larger concept.I bring up evidence such as Haeckel or other errors of evos as evidence on a thread or a point as to why or how evos would have missed something or the evo mentality, and that's seen as a rules violation. It's not. It's using a set of facts to discuss the topic. The problem is you guys want to define what sets of facts can and cannot be used.If I bring up the fact evos discriminate seemingly against IDers, or use the courts to forbid the presentation of ID in schools, somehow I am smearing evos and so in a rules violation.The interpretation of the rules is such that they are basically a debating tool of evos here, which is why so few evos are willing to debate on Showcase, I suspect.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This is not a rules violation per se, except the rule that you must allow an evo moderator and debater to define the interpretation of the rule to his advantage. The Haeckel story is a relevant fact of the discussion.Frankly, rather than go over all this in detail, the quotes you take out of context are not rules violations, and had they been said by evos, you wouldn't count them as rules violations as such.

I am participating due to my name being mentioned upon perusal of this thread and also on threads I am not allowed on, and so prefer to set the record straight. Has nothing to do with requesting to be "allowed back" to the general forum which I have not done, and am not doing.If anyone wants to debate me, they can do so on Showcase. I just ask they actually present some factual material. They can even insult and break all the rules they want there provided they move the discussion forward, but if they don't move the discussion forward, I don't want to waste my time with them.

I realize you think quantum physics is nuttery and appreciate your defense until the insult part (but don't really take offense as I think you guys are just as wacko, probably more so actually), but don't assume the Big Boys are hanging out in the general forum.It takes someone of some intellectual courage to come over to the Showcase and discuss topics where they cannot run to the moderators to silence any particularly strong arguments against them....or so it seems to me....

Uh huh....I think any objective person on this site knows full well this is a false accusation....note I didn't say lie because it's hard to know the level of reason within another human being. But to pretend I offer no facts, data, argument, etc, etc,....is quite absurd. No useful discussion?Note a comment from someone in your camp the other day (I hope he doesn't mind too much me using his comments here btw) Any one of you could have taken the time to see my point where this was debated ad nauseum and acknowledged the obvious, but instead you chose to see my point as simply smearing TalkOrigins and somehow I was lying. Note Mick's other comment: http://EvC Forum: sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins... -->EvC Forum: sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins...Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

One thing I hope you will seriously take to heart. I absolutely have not silenced anyone with any strong argument whatsoever. Take WK. He is knowledgeable and makes a good argument for your side, and he's welcomed.The only people booted off are those that genuinely refused to debate the topic. Your comment that I have a history of booting people off for making a good argument is wholly and completely false. You need to review the threads where you think this has happened and look at the content of what was stated.