General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

Invulnerable logic says any Creationist that an Evolutionist approves of is not a genuine Creationist; and when anyone is branded a loon by an Evolutionist this measns the exact opposite is true since evolutionists believe apes morphed into men and other assorted unscientific nonsense. Could we expect a Darwinist to say or believe anything else?ToE = atheist philosophy packaged as "science."But Arach claims to be a Christian, if so, why does he believe the origins theory that all atheists believe?Logically, atheists would never embrace anything that was intended as supporting God, and since all atheists support ToE and TEists like Arach: this logically proves Arach is not a real Christian because atheists would never support a real Christian.Ray

All sentences begin with a capital letter and "asylum" has only one "s".Since you believe apes morphed into men your uneducated status is explained. So is your belief that those who do not believe in the miracle to be "lunatics."We (= creationists) do not run the EvC Forum. Persons who believe apes morphed into men run the EvC asylum.Do you understand?Ray

The issue was origins and only origins.Again, how could a Christian and Atheist agree on origins?Answer: One is not genuinely as such? You are mistaken.At issue was how could a Christian and Atheist agree on origins. Logically, the Christian is not a real Christian if they agree with the Atheist on origins.Christians believe a Resurrection miracle took place, if true, why not special creation miracles?Evolution says miracles do not exist.Are you saying a claim of Christianity is off limits to decide when the claimant believes in ToE?Ray

Admin:My last post was posted not knowing about this post, sorry.Ray

Arach:I have two questions:Since the Moderators that have restricted me are Darwinists, and I am a Creationist, can you not see that this is about as objective as a Judge deciding a case involving his ex-wife?Why don't you advocate a unrestricted status for me and show some objectivity? (a negative response indicates fear regardless of what you might say)Ray

You have misunderstood.The issue is why are we permanently restricted?This is why the restrictions are not as claimed, and are instantly explained when we point out that our captors are Darwinists. Only Darwinists claim this.Your comment is a predictable insult explained by your Darwinian worldview and lacks any substance, and it is a defense of third-world censorship practices. Remember, this is the Internet, and not Iran.Ray

I am glad you finally recognize the obvious nature of my permament restriction.The only reason they banned you is because you conveyed arguments that they deemed too difficult to refute. This is a compliment and an admission that my arguments are too damaging to your opinions - thats why you want me to go away. You are so angry and unable to obtain discussion satisfaction through intellect that this drives you to create Moderator issues to get your satisfaction.My overall point is that permanent restriction indicates rage caused by the inability to refute. The logic is invulnerable since you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist.Ray

You guys need to get your story straight. Below is the Showcase Forum description: Like I have been saying; the real reason for Showcase is viewpoint and not rule infractions. You are mistaken: this has never been an issue or in dispute. Defense of censorship; could we expect anything else from a Darwinist?Set a restriction expiration date or remain an angry Darwinist who cannot refute.Ray

Permanent restriction of a Creationist by Darwinists is about viewpoint and the inability to refute and the perceived harm the Creationist argument(s) might have on the undecided.This is invulnerable logic.No matter how much you attempt to mis-portray the issue to be over rule infractions, objective persons know the real reason is rage caused by the inability to refute.I only make these posts to point this out and to say I feel complimented that I am censored.Censorship exists to silence views that harm the status quo view.I exempt persons like Mick and Crashfrog who have said they oppose my restrictions.Ray

Thanks for reconciling the perceived descrepancy.If EvC administration does not want me around then I acknowledge the fact that they cannot help how they feel. I do not want to be where I am not wanted. My only issue is to expose permanent restriction for what it really is (viewpoint censorship and the perceived harm to the status quo). This is why there is a dearth of Creationists here at EvC. They see the way I am treated and they have no interest in wasting their time only to have an angry Darwinian Moderator save their own by poisoning the well (= asserting dishonesty and rule infractions).A long while back I remember a newbie who had an animated motion avatar of a woman kick boxer. She wanted to join EvC but only if PNT was dismantled. You and Ned sent her on her way. I tracked her down and found her at her own light traffic board. When I asked her why she did not join her response was: "PNT is Darwinian censorship; they would never allow smart Creos to take the agenda."Ken Demeyer does not post here, in part, for the reasons stated above.If you were to grant me full access I would, for the most part, disappear. If no one wants debate with me then, like I said, they cannot help how they feel. But as long as I am showcased or boot camped, regardless of what Darwinists say, objective persons know the real reason.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, lifelong student of Dr. Gene ScottEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Randman: There is no sting or truth in being called a liar by a person who believes that apes morphed into men or that the appearance of design indicates a blind and mindless process instead of invisible Designer.Ray

Dr Adequate and CK haved been banned. I protest: these persons should not be banned.AdminModulous is drunk on "power" and should be relieved of his duties. He makes no sense and seems to be the stereotypical college type kid attempting to impress his older Darwinian handlers who have taken him in at the expense of EvC patrons.Ray

Reasonable and rational persons are more inclined to view your disagreements with Randman based upon the fact that you are a Darwinist and he is a Creationist.Ray

Most mentally ill persons do not consider themselves as such. Case in point: Darwinists believe the appearance of design corresponds to mindless process; inhabitants of nature descend from a common ancestor, and that apes gradually morphed into men; and they think these miracles are rational and reflect scientific investigation.Ray

Very "reasonable and rational" position you take: agree with me or you are mentally ill.Ray