Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

Another title could be, 'What happens when all of the debaters are gone?" , but I guess we are already getting the answer to that question.What happens is you end up with topics like, "Atheists have better sex lives", and "What happens after the oil is gone?"Now that all of the dissenting voices have pretty much disappeared, and there is no one left to debate, as a result of the severely biased and foul moderation policies, is there much left for the site to do? Can it really continue under the present paradigm? I guess if you have enough atheists who simply need a comfortable place to feel at home with their brothers it can.But seeing as how there really aren't any more debates, because there isn't anyone left who is willing to put up with the nonsense involved in participating in the site, the name might need to be changed.How many are left, one? Is ICANT the final survivor? A website such as this relies on a variety of ideas from volunteers to give it interesting and stimulating editorial content. Unfortunately the admin hasn't seen fit to be respectful of all voices, and thus he has gotten what he wanted. A soulless echo chamber. Can you hear yourselves?Is there anything left?

So you are an engineer who studies construction materials, and you feel that make you more qualified to make assessments about the validity of arguments than someone who studies philosophy, or logic, or even say classical literature?I think this is part of your problem, your background gives you no intellectual advantage to understanding the doubts of the ToE. And not only that, but even studying standard biology really doesn't fully qualify one to be able to judge the theory as a whole. because, as we have seen here on numerous occasions, biology alone can't answer many of the fundamental problems of evolution (such as how the heck it happened). The answer of the origins of life does not lie solely in understanding how any specific biological function performs, or writing down any math formula, as surely you can understand. It is one of connecting a whole series of dots, of looking at so many forms of evidence, and drawing conclusions that can't be seen and instead must be inferred.Inference is not an exclusive domain of any one profession. So the whole premise of scientists being the only one who can logically understand the ToE problem is itself bullshit.But even if you were right, that its only "scientists" who understand the problem, what ever the heck that means, here is a list that took me about 2.3 seconds to find, of scientists who DON"T believe in the contemporary ToE:Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Byl, John
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Sarfati, Jonathan
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, HenryThe list is of course simplistic and totally incomplete, but that is besides the point. Any scientist can disagree very easily with the ToE simply because all we know about the ToE is based on assumptions and little else. Now at this point I am not going to even get into arguing with you that this is true, (at least I am not gong to on this forum), because as I have said and I repeat, I don't feel this forum provides a fair platform for that argument to be made. As Percy has shown once again, he will jump right in and immediately admonish Dawn, claiming that she didn't address the topic, while he says absolutely nothing about all the other ad-hominen nonsense that has been thrown out in the 20 posts previous to hers. Its business as usual here.So you can claim to have some superiority of knowledge on the subject, and claim to have logically beat back the so called creationists to the point that they have no reply, but that argument is nothing more than an empty boast. It is not possible to have that discussion with you or anyone else on this forum.You have a theory based on inference more than evidence. The problem that many people have is not in understanding the evidence as you claim, but rather of interpreting that evidence in a critical and objective manner. Every proclamation your side makes of having won any arguments is really just another demonstration of the attempts at muffling the discussion and trying to control every aspect of the discourse-how long did it take Percy to unwittingly demonstrate that so quickly once again?So yea, I can tell you ten ways that your theory doesn't hold up so well to evidential scrutiny, but as soon as I did, Percy will claim I am off topic,or allow the discussion to become mangled by personal attacks, and one sided brow beating, or claim that I am solely not following the rules, or what have you, so...carry on as you like.

Yea right.And you immediately jumping on Dawn and saying that she didn't address the topic, while at the same time allowing others to call her stupid, ill informed and illiterate without even batting an eye, has absolutely nothing to do with creationists leaving this site!And we are the irrational ones? Right

Oh the great Percy has spoken, I am the one trick pony. The problem is me (and of course every other one of the creationists that has left). Its all our fault.Don't worry Percy, I won't ever expect you to admit to being wrong about anything, I don't see that in your character. You are a one trick Percy.You claim to be all about open honest debating, and then you say that you are handling the others who break the rules by sending them private messages. so has the private messages done the trick? Have they stopped doing the inappropriate behavior? Has Dr. A starting addressing the issues instead of the posters. Ha, what a funny concept.Do you remember what you suspended me for last time, for one month? What was my post? What was the topic? You are going to try to tell me that was worse than the crap that goes on here everyday? Present the evidence, let everyone decide.You have got to be joking or else just completely delusional. You don't like me, I get it. Who cares Percy. Your feelings about me are irrelevant.I don't believe you for a minute when you say your goal is to promote open, spirited neutral debate. You scheme about the best ways to influence the fence sitters who might be watching. You want to control the national discourse on evolution. You want every other theory gagged in schools, and you want the public to be persuaded to accept your version. You don't want open debate, you want to win public opinion. You act like Karl Rove with a liberal hat on. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Crashfrog, crashfrog, crashfrog...you *** ***, misinformed, confused, delusional, ***, wicked, deliberately ***, *** imbecile-your posts are all full of ***, and make no *** sense whatsoever. Do you think that people will believe your crap, that shit don't fly here. You sit here and whine and *** about evolution and expect to get away with it? If you are a fair sample of evolutionists posting here its no wonder most creationists wouldn't waste their time replying to you. Can't you even man up with a somewhat coherent reply?I mean you would think that the odds are that you would be right about something sometime, but I guess this is not so in your case. Do you even come here to debate at all, or are you just a troll? This is about as *** of a post as you have ever made, and you have certainly made a lot of *** posts. If you don't want you post called *** then perhaps you should not post such *** assertions. I am sorry, but *** should not be coddled. I am always happy to discuss evolution with anyone that is willing to actually hold a discussion. Unfortunately, based on the whole body of your posts you don't fit that description. This is just a statement of fact.* Well, I am sure glad at least this is true, because an evolutionist on this site could NEVER EVER get away with saying all these things.*source-all the other posters in this thread. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Apply word censoring.

Crashfrog, unfortunately you completely missed the whole point of the post I made. You were looking at small details and you missed the entire picture. Even when I tried to spell it our for you with a little asterisk.The post wasn't my words get it? They weren't my sentiments. It was a conglomerate of statements all made by other posters (all evolutionists) on this very thread. It was a parody to show you just how silly and preposterous the tactics used by the posters here are-and to show you by example just how ridiculous your premise is that evolutionists on this site are held to strict standards of conduct.But you didn't get it at all, because as I have said before, many people's tendency is to be so focused on the trees that they don't see the forest. And this is why I can't give you credit for being able to make sense of the logical disconnects that exist in the present theory of evolution. In order to be able to see those disconnects you have to be able to look at the entire big picture, and see how it all ties together.I really thought my parody was pretty darn obvious-but some people only see what they want to see. Oh well.And I completely agreed with all your posts on police misconduct.

Oh my heavens Percy, were you laughing your head off when you wrote this? Do you remember what you suspended me for a month for (of course you do). It was exactly for me asking evolutionists to present their evidence for how the mechanisms for evolution worked, and you accused me of spamming. Do you want me to go back and quote the exact last messages I wrote before you suspended me, because I would be happy to do so if your memory really is failing so bad.In fact this last statement by you is so preposterous and that I am just amazed at what you could possibly be thinking. You spend a awful lot of time here 9as you are doing again) telling all of the creationist posters of their failings, of their lack of understanding, of their inability to be coherent, of their refusal to address things (its what you constantly do) and now you say something that is so overwhelmingly untrue, and so blindly biased that it defies belief.You suspended me for demanding real evidence when all your side wanted to do was say they presented it or say good read a book! That is exactly what happened Percy. How can you possibly say anything so patently false. The thing is that I don't really care that you suspended me, I have already seen enough of how this site is being operated and I know that it will never be a level playing field. But for you to now say that is something you would never do is just too funny to pass on.

Well, there is one other possibility.You could call yourself Granny Magda and come on this thread and claim that it is creationists who are the belligerent assholes, and give everyone who reads your slapstick the biggest chuckle they have probably had in a week. And then you can go back to your day job of shaving pentagrams onto stray cats and using them to scare the devil into your neighbors kids going to Sunday school.

Yes, yes, I know just what you mean Granny. They are everywhere those evil creationists just waiting to get their claws into us. Like the other day these girl scouts came to my house asking me to buy their blessed little thin mints. So when I told them that I would never allow those religious sacraments onto my doorstep, the belligerent little girl scout said to me, "Ok, then have a good day." But I know what she meant to say, she meant to say have a God day! So I took her little box of holy cookies and I smashed them all over the sidewalk, and I told her if she ever said have a good day to me again I would take a red hot cross and burn her little sisters eyeballs out with it.I thought you would be proud of me Granny.

Oh sorry about that.I just assumed you needed more bile for your 'Cooking with a Cauldron' classes at your AAI get togethers. .

Yes, Percy, I know you said the reason I was suspended was for spamming thread. And as you have just shown, what you called spamming was me saying QUOTE: This is what you called spamming!!!And now you have the audacity to say you would never suspend someone for asking for evidence! Now I see how you can say that, because you simply call it spamming!!!Or was my crime simply not responding to a couple of posts that i didn't feel have enough merit to respond to? I am sure this must also be a first, the first person suspended here for not responding! Amazing. That's right Percy, you don't see it (either intentionally or otherwise). Every creationist still on this site has responded to you and said it is a factor, and yet you STILL continue to try to argue that it is not a factor-even when those it effects are telling you the exact opposite. But you know better what the people feel than they know themselves apparently. How pompous could you be?Every single one of the creationists here has told you yes, the moderation does seem a bit of a problem, and you just plug your ears and say, well, no no, that's not it. Its like a comedy skit. What a riot. Maybe now you can tell me what the topic was meant to be about.

As Buzsaw has just pointed out to you, there is a double standard here in your demands for evidence.Your sides constantly claims that the ToE is such a strong robust theory, that it should be obvious to everyone, but then when it is demanded that your side proves evidence for your theory with the same exactness that you are demanding of Buzsaw, you hem and haw.You say well we have already done so.You say well look at bacteria, they get bacteria resistance, if that can happen why can't new limbs grow, and new breathing systems, its the same thing.You say, well if you are too lazy to read a book we can't help you.And thus this becomes the standard for evidence that is used for all cases on the evolution side. And why you clam to moderate fairly holds no water whatsoever.Your side CAN NOT provide evidence for the ToE. You can provide fossil records that appear to show similarity amongst species, but that's all you can show. In fact, even your so called tree of life, when held up to the scrutiny of recent advances in DNA testing, has turned into a garbled mess of twigs and weeds, and undergrowth that no one can define any longer. Are we more closely related to Chimps or to yeast? Why is there more genetic diversity in one small clan of chimpanzees than in all of human population? Are Elephants in the line of whales or fern trees? It depends what your criteria for measuring is.The most tested theory in history! The most undeniable scientific fact you can ever want to find! No one who isn't *** or brain damaged could deny it.Evidence? "Oh, well, um, let's see, there were these peppered moths, and um, um well, they come in different colors, so.... Ok nevermind. There's the Coelacanth, this extinct transition between fish and...oh wait sorry its not actually extinct, and oh whoops, its a fish...but still..um ok. So you want evidence. Fine, well, there is a, a , a, dog breeding? Ah no, finches, I remember reading something about finches once. FINE, FINE, in that case it didn't show evidence of anything other than a variety of finches, but still, there is .....a.....You creationists are just so ***, how can anybody waste time giving you evidence, you won't understand it anyway!Belligerent assholes. You better stay on topic or you are going to be suspended for spamming. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

I can give you plenty of examples of scientists studying evolution who WANT to find particular conclusions.That is all you are doing when you pick out some creationist website and try to show that they have an agenda, and then use that to paint every objection to evolution as having an agenda. If PZ Myers makes comments about needing to reaffirm his atheism, does that mean all of science therefore has an agenda?When Michael Behe says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Simon Conway Morris says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Michael Denton says its wrong... When a thousand other scientists say it's wrong, why must we look for a motivation for their saying its wrong-unless you are also going to look for a motivation every time a scientists says its right?If those saying it is wrong are in the minority, so what? That's not very surprising at all. The majority of astronomers looking for alien life believe in alien life. the majority of shark researchers like sharks.Anyone who is honest knows that the scientific community is an old boy kind of network. Counter theories are not giving the same access to resources as the paradigm. Atheists have also be shown to be very afraid or at least antagonistic towards those of faith, Hitchens, Dawkins, Myers..should I continue?So you claim intellectual dishonesty, and I also claim intellectual dishonesty on your side. Do you have the moral superiority? Does Wikipedia have the moral superiority when they intentionally censor the truth and bias all information on their site. Do Universities have the moral superiority when they banish scientists with opposing viewpoints? If your side was really honest why wouldn't they encourage classes in school which teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Why wouldn't they explain more clearly to all students exactly what they know and what they actually don't know about how life operates. What they can show in a lab, and what they actually can only speculate about because they don't have true answers. The more your side fights transparency, the more obvious it is that it is they who are not operating in an honest fashion.You can get down off your moral high horse, because you were never on it to begin with.

Thanks for the tip Percy.Or I guess the other possibility is I could actually believe you when you say- No no, on second thought you are right this time, I better just spend more time telling evolutionist moderators that evolutionists aren't presenting any real evidence for their theory. I am sure that will really get me far.Or, one other possibility. I can discuss the fact that the moderators never ask the evolutionists to provide evidence for their theory, but constantly harangue the creationists about not giving evidence on a thread that I started discussing the fact that creationists don't like to participate here for very long precisely because the moderators only force the creationists to give evidence.Hmm, let me think about this?Option 1.) Believe what Percy says when he claims he will always step in and force all sides to provide evidence.Option 2.) Whine to Percy to tell him that he is not doing what he has said he would do, and never has done it.Option 3.) Discuss what is wrong with the moderation and why creationists are leaving this site on a thread I started to talk about what is wrong with the moderation and why creationists are leaving this site.Well, Percy, I have thought it over. Its a tough choice because the options are so varied. But... I am going to, I am going to go with Option 3.By I am happy to know these other options are available, at least theoretically, in some alternate universe where none of the current rules apply.WAIT, WAIT WAIT I thought of one more option!!I can refuse to respond to those who refuse to back up anything they say with any evidence.Oh, no no no, that option won't work at all. I will be suspended for spamming if I do that. I forgot that technicality.Ok Option 3. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Well said Buzsaw.