Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

There's no moderator bias, there's a half-dozen creationists we're talking with now, including you, ICANT, Marc9000, and perennial favorite Buzsaw.If anything, moderator action continues to be harsher against evolutionists than against creationists.

Just to correct the record - I don't want to be thought of as any more qualified than I am - I'm about 95% through a BS in biochemistry, which I expect to complete in the fall.

I guess, but what could possibly be the basis for this conclusion? You've opened plenty of threads where you challenged us to explain how evolution could evolve this or that, and we've done so in every case. Rather than respond in those threads you've simply tried to change the subject to the next thing you think evolution can't explain, as though all that's necessary for evolution to be disproven is for you not to understand it.All those threads are still open, Bolder, any time you want to get back into them. The only obstacle to the fair hearing of your arguments is that you won't present them. We have a theory based on more evidence than for any other scientific theory, any verdict of any courtroom, or any medical diagnosis, and that's a fact, not a boast. We've even done you the favor of trying to show you some of it and you just spat it back in your face.Oh, well. Naturally, your concern is that if you actually learned any evolution it would be much harder for you to attack it. Perfectly reasonable, since the evidence is overwhelming and convincing.

Marc, I've continually reminded you that you're free to ask that replies to you be limited to whatever participants you like, and you can go so far as to request a Great Debate thread with any participant or participants of your choice, where others than those you nominate are specifically enjoined from responding to you.Indeed several weeks ago I directly asked you which participants you would choose for such a debate, and you have yet to respond. You've been repeatedly reminded about the enormous latitude you have to prevent the "piling on", but here you are again, complaining about it.Is there some reason you detest "piling on" so much, but you refuse to avail yourself of any of the options that would eliminate the problem? Can you explain this inconsistent behavior?

Oh, so "piling on" isn't actually a problem, then, is it?

Except for the one you nominated for a POTM? Thanks, by the way, very big of you. It's "doesn't", "doesn't fly here" and I assure you - far more of the participants here believe me than believe you. Even among creationists.That's because I generally - I'm the first to admit, not always - know what the fuck I'm talking about, and you don't. It's because I've made a study of the evidence for evolution for 15 years or more, actually came out of creationism by doing so, and have been so inspired as a result that I'm close to finishing a degree in biochemistry.On the other hand, you've elected to simply call anyone you don't agree with a "liar" based on absolutely no evidence for it. What, all scientists are engaged in the same conspiracy? Even the ones who don't like each other? Lynn Margulis regularly pisses of E. O. Wilson in the pages of Nature and Science, but somehow at the Secret Evolution Meetings she's able to lock elbows with him and sing the secret chant?(Actual imaginary footage from the Evilutionist Society of Stonecutters!)Regardless, it's hardly necessary for anyone to just believe me or believe you. They can easily locate the threads - because they're forever linked to your user account, there's no way for you to escape the shame - and observe that every single one of them ends with about a dozen posts refuting your last salvo of utter nonsense, and then no replies from you ever again. Boy, that's an awful long way to go just to say "you made an argument I can't refute, so you must be some kind of poopy-head." I actually made some arguments in the post you described as incoherent (or I guess you would have, if you had been able to actually spell "incoherent.") If you ever feel like responding to them, I'm around.

Nobody's angry. I'm just asking you why you continue to complain about the "piling on" issue when we've already taken steps to address it. It's so easy to avoid getting piled on, around here, that anyone it happens to must perforce have desired it. I don't even see it now. You'll have to be more specific.But regardless - I never claimed that you could demand that people participate in a one on one with you, I said that you could ask. You need to ask some more people, apparently. If you truly have so many interlocutors surely one or more of them is willing to go toe-to-toe, if you really wanted. The available evidence is that you don't want; you want to attract as much attention as possible and simultaneously martyr yourself as the hapless victim of a "piling on."

Trust me, Bolder, I got the point. You think I'm a mendacious idiot. It came through, believe me. You write with all the subtlety of a dump truck filled with bricks.Unfortunately, I disagree that I'm the idiot in this exchange, as do most people. There were actually good points in the post you declaimed was so stupid you couldn't even understand it. Actually it was a pretty smart post - that's why you couldn't understand it. I guess we can put down "parody" as another subject you're not able to comprehend. Nobody recognized your post as a parody of their own because nobody said anything like that. And, frankly, a tirade of abuse in lieu of any sort of coherent argument isn't much of a departure from the posts you make in earnest, so why would anyone think you were parodying anything?

A simple inspection of his book. I'll give you mine, which has never even been challenged by creationists in the four years since I first presented it: the astronomically unlikely convergence between the phylogenies of Geomyidae and Geomyodoceus. As you can see the thread remains open for discussion. There was some confusion of terms but no creationist has ever even attempted to challenge the findings of this research, which pretty much single-handedly demonstrates the reliability of molecular phylogenies and therefore proves evolution.

From everybody? If four of us give one each, that would seem to meet your requirement. Not at all, but why should I hog all the fun? I'm just going to stay with the one and let the others come up with the other three. Looks like they already have, actually. Now that we've provided your four, are you convinced by evolution?If not, then what was the purpose of asking for 4?

If you can genuinely debunk this single piece of evidence I've produced I'll become a creationist again.No, seriously. I'm aware of an enormous boatload of evidence for evolution but what I've given you is the best example that I know, and if you can disprove it somehow it strikes at the very core of the science of evolution. I'd have to look at everything else with suspicion.Understand, however, that I don't consider "debunked" synonymous with "didn't convince Boulder-dash." Frankly, it's likely you won't be able to understand the argument put forth.

You know, Boulder, this I actually agree with you about.I've long been critical of the absurd notion that moderators can preserve objectivity and moderate threads they participate in by having two accounts. In the past it's led to some truly ridiculous exchanges where moderators actually argue with themselves as though they're two different people.In your way, you've blundered right into a genuine criticism of the moderators at EvC, and I believe that as the board culture settled in on the conceit that the moderator account and the regular account were actually two different people, it actually was corrosive to creationist participation.

No, I'm happy to put this forth as the best I have to offer. (That's why I keep it bookmarked, I think of it as my "greatest hit.") Understand that I have a relatively high bar for what I will consider a "rebuttal" compared to what you seem to think suffices, but I'd genuinely love to have you participate in that thread.I'm fine with the one.

Baby steps, Boulder. If you can't handle even a single piece, you're not ready for the list.Seems like you already have more than two, though. Is there some reason you're ignoring all but a single item on people's lists? The lice thing continues to be the best I've ever seen. The convergence between phylogeny of Hawaiian species and the geologic history of the islands is pretty good, too, but like I said: baby steps.

One's what I feel like giving you. I've made that choice, and I promise not to renege on it. What I presented to you is the single best piece of evidence I've ever encountered for evolution and if you can successfully demolish it then I'll most likely retire from EvC Forum forever, and you will have defeated the Great Crashfrog, which will doubtless earn you the admiration of your peers (and probably most of the evolutionists, too.) Believe me when I tell you that if you're able to rebut the case I've made in that thread then I'll be far too ashamed to ever show my face around here again. Yup!