sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins...

Yep.At times with a site like TO, there is such an avalanche of this sort of thing that to wade through it, even to expose it, involves so many errors that is actually a daunting task to decide what aspect of error to deal with first, and yet most of the time I tried to bring this up, I was somewhat bitterly accussed of smearing without foundation the good people there, science in general, etc,...On whether it is option a, b, c, or d, as you laid out, I am not necessarily saying the author is deliberately deceitful, but rather something a little more ominous, which is the field in general employs such muddled thinking and erroneous logic in it's approach to data that TO is just par for the course, creating an indoctrination that inhibits clear thinking. So whether someone originally was deceptive or the author partly deceptive or just deceived and muddled in their thinking, the effect is still the same.You are actually perhaps the first evo, after arguing this exact same point here ad nauseum and elsewhere, that appeared to be even capable of grasping the points made in the OP......or at least the first willing. Frankly, I don't think it's just a matter of willingness, but that the indoctrination surrounding the teaching and advocacy of ToE clouds the mind.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

There is time yet.Just as a fyi, I will be travelling tomorrow and next week and so unless I come back on the weekend or tomorrow night, I may not be able to respond for a bit.Without naming names, let me just say the usual response I have garnered from posting this same stuff on TalkOrigins is more like: or There has been a consistent denial of what I think is basic fact in terms of what the web-site articles, and this article specifically says and does not say. Thanks for taking an objective look at it. I think the comment that most evos cannot even "find the point" perhaps should be taken at face value. Just about everyone else can see the point quite plainly, but here we have a group of people that cannot.Why is that is a question I think is worth asking?My real beef with evo advocates is not the conclusion but the approach. I don't agree with the conclusion, mind you, but that's not always the central issue as far as I am concerned. People do and will disagree, even when they have to make a judgement call on the same set of facts, but it's really the way ToE is usually or often presented, taught, believed, etc,....that I object to the most.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

in light of Crash's remarks on the moderation threadEdit to add and other comments such as DA's instistence he would love to debate here....where is he though?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

for the record......DA didn't show up here as requested

Here we see the same basic error that I pointed out TalkOrigins uses. It appears to me to be a foundational and basic error within evo circles, and a very deep and significant error at that. An introduction to evolution - Understanding EvolutionHere we see the classic bait and switch. They start out saying evolution is simply "descent with modification" and then go on to claim this encompasses universal common descent and state: So "evolution" is simply "descent with modification".....Let's insert that phrase into the later sentence."[Descent with modification] means that we're all distant cousins."The problem, of course, is that descent with modification does not actually mean we are all distant cousins.This sort of approach is why I say the reason I suspect most accept evolution is due to a indoctrination process that breaks down normal reason and logic within the hearer.

So really we see this deceptive logical fallacy used over and over again. It's part and parcel of the way evos think, for the most part, and has clouded the reasoning ability, imo, for most evos.

Hi Randman,I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my recent posts have had no effect, but I am anyway.Your last two posts contain many of the same litany of accusations that resulted in your Showcase status. How do you think a free and open exchange of information and ideas is going to occur if you're habitually accusing the other side of:

• Engaging in bait and switch tactics.
  ​
• Using indoctrination.
  ​
• Engaging in illogic.
  ​
• Being unobjective.
  ​
• Using deceptive logical fallacies.
  ​
• Being intellectually dishonest.
  ​
• Lying.

Even if you believe all this stuff, you simply can't maintain a civil dialogue if you give voice to it, especially continuously as you do.Is there a way to tell the difference between someone who wants to have civil dialogue but doesn't know how, and someone who doesn't want to have civil dialogue?I think so. The former should improve over time, the latter will not.I'm seeing no improvement, so what other conclusion can I draw other than that you're simply not interested in civil dialogue. Even if you were absolutely right in everything you say, you simply can't talk to people that way here. I've made this clear to you over and over and over again.I'm not yet sure whether I'll finally take action on Showcase, I'll have to think on this, but I think a lightbulb may have gone on for me. If you have anything to say that would help me see what you're doing as constructive this is the time to speak up.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So your view is that it is my attitude and not the tactics, attitudes and moderation of the partisan evos here oppossed to the content of my arguments that prevent constructive dialogue. Let's look at this claim objectively then, shall we?If this is true, you should not expect to see constructive dialogue taking place, correct? Especially in the past few days, correct? I kind of hate to defend myself and bring in someone else's comments because I am sure he would prefer not to be quoted in the position of defending me, but for sake of clarity, let's look at some comments by someone recently concerning their discussions with me on a controversial thread. http://EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet -->EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at BeliefnetThese are all comments made by Jazzns. I don't recall, but my recollection is we have butted heads in the past, and perhaps he has had even had a negative attitude towards me, but we had a fruitful, engaging discussion.Now, look at the same thread and see Crash's and adminnosy's remarks where they take a stance similar to your's concerning me and my posts. After my first post, this was nosy's asinine comment. Jazzn's perception though of the very same post was. Now, we see a very negative attitude from nosy over the post, and a very positive one from jazzns. What's the difference? It cannot be me because it's the exact same post. The difference is Nosy is provoking negative attitudes and feelings and potentially fouling up a good discussion. In other words, I am not the problem here. There wasn't really anything Nosy needed to be worried about. The post was well-received in fact, at least by someone interested in discussion.These are some of crash's comments on the same thread. Keep in mind this is the same thread where I had the same attitude, which you call unproductive, towards evos where a very constructive discussion was taking place. I wasn't pulling punches with jazzns. I wasn't especially nice or anything, and state some heated things as did he. http://EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet -->EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at BeliefnetWas I uncivil to crash? Nope. Did I avoid his points? Nope.Why did the same attitude and points work with jazzns and not with crash?It's simple. I am not the real problem here. If I were, you wouldn't have so many problems with other IDers and creationists. The problem, if you look at it objectively, is that you have a cadre of evos like jar, crash, nosy, etc,....that routinely spoil good discussions by breaking the rules and false moderation.Heck, I have observed absolutely no difference in upsetting these people if I respond with the utmost civility or not. They are upset and frustrated by the arguments being made most likely, and that's why if you ban me, it won't make a bit of difference to bringing civility to the debate.You say it's because of my low opinion of evos, but everything you say I beleive about evos is something openly touted here ad nauseum from the evo camp towards their critics.I could fill 10 pages proving that all the attitudes and beliefs you accuse me of holding towards evos are held by a good number if not the majority of evo posters here towards IDer and creationists. Heck, just read the thread on the tactics of creationists.You don't have a problem with that because you believe the same things, but for some reason, even though you think my negative attitude or beliefs towards evo thinking destroys good discussion, you think evos can believe that all creationists and IDers are essentially ignorant or intellectually dishonest, and somehow have a good discussion. This stance on your part is not consistent.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Percy, but evos espouse all these things concerning their critics publicly, repeatedly, and constantly at this forum in denigrating their opposition.How is it you expect a civil dialogue to take place when whole threads by evos dedicating to making claims that creationsists and Iders are liars, ignorant, indoctrinated, using bait and switch tactics, etc, etc,....are promoted on this forum?Have you considered that if you think holding these beliefs makes discussion unfruitful, that you probably need to ban over half of the evo posters here, perhaps even yourself?Also, what's wrong with pointing out the sophistry in evo beliefs?Note the following, which occurred on this thread. This is from an evo poster. http://EvC Forum: sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins... -->EvC Forum: sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins...Now, you probably realize that I have made these exact same comments before, but instead of a reasonable discussion, I was accussed of quote-mining, misrepresentations, rules-breaking, etc..... Can you see the pattern?There are evos here whose approach to facts and arguments they don't like seems to be harass the non-evo poster, make false accusations about them and seek to use biased moderation to force those arguments off the forum, imo. This is why I have never asked to return to the old forum. I don't see you doing much about the false moderation and inflammatory behaviour and accusations of evos....(though you did a little).Personally, I didn't see Showcase as a place to earn my way back to a forum which in my view is not even remotely evenhandedly moderated, but rather as a place where problem evo posters that frankly are not interested in civil discussion could be excluded and fruitful discussions could take place with those that are interested.Mick and Jazzns probably don't appreciate me using their comments of agreement here, but such it was, I think bringing up some objective facts here is important. You have an impression, percy, that somehow it's always the creationists and IDers that are the problem.It's true that you banned Dr A after awhile. I think a creationist of IDer would be banned after the first accusation of lying. But what's more relevant, imo, is the attitude you have fostered in giving so much leeway to folks like crash, jar and some others. This attitude was shown by some evos actually claiming Dr A was baited by me, and so should be forgiven. In other words, they really cannot see how the same behaviour in their camp is wrong, despite the fact they condemn anyone else for that same thing.You may not realize this, but you are doing the same. You list a whole litany of beliefs you accuse me of holding towards the other side, and yet you yourself and most evos here have openly admitted that you hold those attitudes and beliefs towards others.You are a Christian, no?Maybe taking the log out of your own eye would be a good, first start?I will try to do the same.Also, why not spend a little time praying and just ask the Spirit of God if I am telling you the truth, or mostly the truth, or not?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Hi Randman,We do not seem to be getting a closer to a common understanding.I've reached a decision. Because of all the discussion that has recently taken place by Showcased members in threads not in Showcase, and because that participation just made it more clear why they were Showcased in the first place, I'm going to cut back Showcased members to just these forums: I understand that you never saw Showcase as a means to regain normal status. I did think that you'd be interested in maintaining access to some of the Side Order forums, so it did surprise me that we weren't able to find any common ground.If you ever decide that you'd like to abandon your approach of giving as good as you get and then some, and to instead become a force for calm and reasoned discussion, please let me know.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Randman,It occurred to me later that my question that you were responding to, at least it's the question I assume you were addressing, was to help me understand how what you were doing could be construed as constructive. In case it wasn't clear in my previous reply, explaining how you are justified in your behavior because evolutionists are just as bad and worse is not a way to portray yourself as constructive. What you described was actually a rationale and formula for escalation and conflict, not for reason and moderation.When moderators are putting out fires, the difficulty of unraveling a thread to find fault is often too difficult to place blame on any single individual, but your offenses against the Forum Guidelines usually exceed all others to such a degree that assigning you responsibility is often very easy. This wouldn't be so bad if you'd honor moderator cease and desist requests, but you don't.You're like the guy who gets into a minor scuffle in a bar that the police break up. The police aren't really interested in finding fault and arresting anyone, they just want things to calm down. But if your behavior here is any guide, you'd say, "It's his fault," and you'd continue the fight right there in front of the police. The police have no choice at this point but to arrest you. You'd be dragged out of the bar to the squad car, all the while yelling and screaming, "After what he did you're arresting me? How is that fair? You police are all biased and dishonest."I notice now I forgot to answer your last question. No, I'm not a Christian. I'm a Unitarian, but there are almost no Unitarian churches left (they merged with the Universalists back in the 1950's and it muted the spiritual voice of Unitarianism) and I now euphemistically consider myself a member of the church of the Reverend Dorothy Kimble, a retired minister who I greatly admire.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

My behaviour of late hasn't really been bad, imo, percy. In fact, I have noticed that it seems to upset you guys more when I do have constructive discussions as with jazzns than when otherwise.Why is that?My post concerning all your accusations towards me was not say they are true, but the other side is guilty to, but to say they are not true, but that you yourself and many evos here are obviously and blatantly guilty of the things you accuse me of.Isn't it true that you guys consider creationists and IDers ignorant or intellectually dishonest?Isn't it true that you guys promote whole threads dedicated to the so-called bait and switch tactics, dishonesty, lying, etc,....of your critics?I am not saying, as you surmise, that your critics or I am guilty of holding the same bad attitudes as you guys. I do think evolutionism is a pseudo-science and semi-religion, but I don't think all evos realize that.I am saying you and many evos here are actually guilty of having the exact same bad attitudes your critics that you ACCUSE me of.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Also, on your example with the police, it's more like the off-duty cops start a fight and someone defends himself, and then one of them puts on a badge and arrests the victim.In no way is my behaviour near as bad as the evos here that are making the complaints, nor often as bad as some of the moderators making the "arrest."It's more like a black man at a Klan rally, and a Klan guy says the black guy raped his sister.....there is absolutely no objectivity on your part, and a lot of folks that have visited this site have noted that off-site, and prior to the last banning, I believe AdminChristian noted the same thing. You guys are just unwilling to moderate evos here, except for a very few cases, and even then, it has to be so obvious such as doing something like call me a liar 15-20 times before you do really anything. It's a joke.Let me just reiterate. I have noticed a worst reaction from the same evos when I have obeyed all the rules and had good discussions than when otherwise.

Even creationist moderators have admonished you.It is apparently not within anyone's power to help you through your acute feelings of paranoia and your kneejerk defense mechanisms. You're going to have to do that yourself.Evolutionists and Christians as groups are not much unlike each other. They're both just people. This is a site which stresses civil dialogue as a means of improving the possibility of constructive exchanges of ideas and opinions. You can be a part of these discussions if you choose to engage others civilly. It is really up to you.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Look at the exchange between me and jazzns and also crash and nosy, and tell me where I am too uncivil, please. You appear to have a little time, and it shouldn't take that long.http://EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet -->EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet