Some thoughts on moderation & banning

Get used to it.They have already stated here that their goal is to try to convince the fence sitters to convert to their religion of atheism with whatever type of scheming works best, so forcing critics on evolution into virtually impossible debate parameters is one of the ways they try to do that. They have no interest in science or truth.For instance, Dr. A can just vomit on his typewriter, over and and over that "You are wrong, and I am right, so go read a book stupid.", whereas if you respond by saying something like, "Well, no actually that experiment only shows that some type of mutation may have occured, it provides no evidence whatsoever for the complex interplay of a series of mutations, which gradually brought about a macro-evolutionary change, much less providing evidence for the mechanisms of that mutation"- and they can respond by saying-"Provide evidence for your nonsense, you have continually been warned not to veer off topic, your positions are unsupported, we only do science here, if you can't understand biology don't comment here...you have been warned."They feel that constantly proclaiming their superiority is one way to fool suckers who aren't paying attention. They have no respect for the intelligence of the fence sitters they need to convince (even though polls in America repeatedly show that most people aren't convinced.)Of course you can't win here, but what you can do is make it obvious how unsupported their own positions are, by showing the fence sitters they are trying so desperately to convince the ridiculous standards they apply here; and that's worth something.