Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

I'm going to join the debate as Percy, so I will not be playing any moderator role here. Any comments I make about moderation or member behavior are as a member, not a moderator.It has always been my hope that EvC Forum could serve as a haven for informed, dispassionate and constructive discussion, something rare on the Internet. I think we do a better job of that here than most other debate sites on controversial topics, but for the most part my original vision remains unachieved and may be an unreasonable expectation.It has been my position from the very beginning that bad debate pushes out good debate. I'll bet if you do a search that you find me saying that way back in 2003 and 2004. Back then I used to permanently suspend members who were irrational and/or incoherent and/or abusive, and their threads were quickly replaced by others with higher quality dialog.I no longer observe this happening. As compared to the first half of the first 2000's decade there seems to be a paucity of creationists here, informed or otherwise. If anything moderation has become more lenient in tolerating irrational/incoherent contributions, so I can't see that as the reason.What I have observed is that the creationists coming here now are both more uninformed and more insistent. Just look at Intellen over in the Who designed the ID designer(s)? thread where he tries to explain how he proves that Jesus Christ is the intelligent designer (his messages begin at Message 183). Intellen is unable to produce any recognizable chain of rational argument, and even worse, is completely unaware of this inability. He sincerely believes he has persuasive arguments. He has a series of over 20 slide presentations over at YouTube.While it is true that creationists are unable to support one another in discussion threads because they all believe different things (e.g., Intellen: Jesus Christ is the intelligent designer; Marc9000: Intelligent design is not supernatural), this has been true since before this website began in early 2001, so I don't think that's a factor in the diminished creationist participation.I continue to believe that Dover represents a line of demarcation. The impact of Judge Jone's decision was profound and very nearly immediate. In the aftermath participation by ID proponents reduced drastically, and there was a sudden spike in advocates for traditional creationist positions like the shrinking sun and a Grand Canyon formed by Noah's flood, and finally overall creationist participation began to diminish, too.But whatever the cause, I don't think there can be any doubt that creationist participation here is less than it has been in the past. However, I don't believe moderation is responsible. I know creationists like Bolder-dash and Dawn Bertot strongly feel there is moderation bias, but I see it as creationists refusing to take responsibility for or acknowledge or even have an awareness of their own ignorance.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

I think I see part of the problem. Since you joined EvC Forum has acquired new features that allow moderation to take place in the background. Private Messaging is one of them, member-specific word censoring is another, and there are others. The fact that you see no moderator messages does not mean no moderation is taking place. Trust me, moderators are often as dismayed at Jar's contributions as you are.But you're starting to come across as a one-trick pony interested only in complaining and feeding your own sense of outrage. There have been some thoughtful contributions to this thread, it would be nice to see some thoughtful responses.--Percy

Hi Bolder-dash,When your own behavior is just as bad or worse as those you're discussing with then it isn't possible for moderators to single anyone out. I've told you this a number of times. You seem to think your feelings of outrage justify bad behavior and ignoring moderators. If you would follow standard procedure by bringing discussion problems to the attention of moderators by posting a note to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 and then leaving moderation to moderators instead of going off the deep-end behavior-wise before anything can be done then I think you'd have a much better experience here. You're your own worse enemy.As I said, I think there have been a number of thoughtful comments in this thread, it would be nice to see some thoughtful responses.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo!! Geez!!Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Evidently not my day.

I can't agree that the attitude of evolutionist members is causing a decline in creationist participation, but I do agree that our side exhibits deplorable behavior much more often than I feel comfortable with.EvC Forum exists to make possible productive debate between evolutionists and creationists. The forum itself takes no position in the debate, but that doesn't mean it takes no position on anything. In particular, the normal definitions of words are in play. Anyone who wants to debate the definition of, for example, science or geology or Christianity can propose a thread for that purpose so that other discussion threads can avoid being distracted with arguments over terminology.--Percy

You fall into a different but not uncommon category, Dawn. It often isn't possible to assess your level of knowledge or lack thereof because most of the time your arguments are incoherent or unintelligible. We can tell by how earnestly you engage in discussion that you believe you're making powerful arguments, but most of the time no one can figure out what you're trying to say.Also, English is your not your primary language. This wouldn't be as severe a handicap as it has become for you if you would believe people when they tell you that you may not be saying in English what you're thinking in your native language, but you don't.That being said, there were a significant number of occasions where it was clear you were wrong and unaware of the current state of knowledge, and your habit is to ignore almost all attempts to bring correct information to your attention. With so much knowledge available through the Internet today one must maintain stiff walls to keep it out, and the reinforcement of doubt and distrust that most creationists possess of the same science that makes modern civilization possible enables them to do this.--Percy

If this is true then it has been true all along. How could it account for diminished creationist participation today?There were times in the past when we had more than 10 evolutionist moderators and 0 creationist moderators. Today we have 4 evolutionist moderators and 1 creationist moderator, and this has been true for maybe the past year or so. In the couple years before that we had 3 or 4 evolutionist moderators. Recruiting creationist moderators has proved to be a significant challenge.While discussing various other things, on several occasions I suggested to the moderators at EvolutionFairyTale that we should have some discussions about working jointly to create a combined and more balanced debate environment. They never responded to or even acknowledged the suggestion. I think it's because they consider themselves more a ministry than a debate site.We also added features to the forum software that have at least the potential to make moderation more fair. At one time suspensions had to be rescinded manually, and it was easy for moderators to forget to restore someone's privileges after a suspension. Now suspensions are timed automatically, and suspension periods ranging from 1 hour to 1 month to permanent are possible, and suspensions are never forgotten. The private messaging feature allows private dialogs with moderators.I don't know why you're using Bolder-dash as your example. Bolderdash is his own worst enemy because he ignores almost all moderation, and he is nearly always giving just as good as he gets, making it impossible for moderators to single anyone out. I've told him this many, many times.Creationists believe moderation here is biased because that is the easy and acceptable answer for why they perform so badly here, but most often the real reason is that everything they "know" about evolution comes from creationist sources, and they compound the problem by never quite believing that creationist sources, originating as they do with other Christians, would lie.But these creationist sources are not lying, at least not that they know of. In most cases they're just passing on what they themselves have been told. Many of the traditional creationist lies (shrinking sun and moon dust kind of arguments) originate with creationist leaders who were and are brilliant men, and as is well known, brilliant men are the ones most able to convince themselves of what they want to believe anyway. This is as much true of scientists as it is of creationists, as the examples of Fred Hoyle and Halton Arp attest, but the power of an idea isn't how strongly it convinces you but how well it convinces others, and in science evidence plays a key role in convincing others.But none of this science stuff affects the religious faith of those evolutionists who, like myself, are not atheists or agnostics. Their religious beliefs are based upon faith, not evidence, and no facts from the real world can challenge that faith. True faith needs no real world validation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Hi Buz,What brings you to moderator attention is when threads devolve into constant exchanges where everyone else is asking where your evidence is while you respond that you've already presented the evidence.An example is the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread. It looks like Message 574 is still the last post, waiting for an answer from you for over a month. All you need to do is describe which mountain in the Google satellite images of Saudi Arabia is Mount Sinai and how you identified it.I understand that you're unhappy that I requested that you not post until you responded to my requests for evidence, but I only did that because you were ignoring everyone else's requests for evidence. Your silence in response to this request says that what was already obvious to everyone, that you were avoiding the issue with claims that you'd already presented the evidence, is true. If the evidence doesn't exist then just say so and move on, then the discussion can continue. Moderation is not preventing you from participating in that thread. It is your inability to support your claims, perhaps combined with a pride that prevents any such admission.Anyway, you can be sure that moderation is not going to stand idly by watching threads that consist of little more than one side asking, "Where's your evidence," and the other side saying, "I've already presented it." Whenever this happens be assured that moderators will never step in and say, "Hey, you guys asking for evidence, stop it!"--Percy

Hi Buz,You appear to think that asking you to follow the Forum Guidelines is biased:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

I can't think of any evolutionist who has ever been anywhere near as obtuse about the nature of evidence as you, or as obstinate about presenting it. I treated Dawn in a very similar fashion. He was given an entire thread to explain his position, and when he was unable to do this he was not permitted to use it as a basis for argument in other threads.In any event, this doesn't represent a change in moderation. I did the same thing with Peter Borger way back in 2004. This thread is about the reasons for the recent diminution in creationist participation.--Percy

Hi Bolder-dash,You were not suspended for requesting evidence. Here's the suspension message from Message 237: As I recall you were ignoring moderator requests to stay on topic and were doing hit-and-runs on threads, meaning that you'd pop in for a post or two at one thread and ignore the responses, then do it in another thread, and then another.In the Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) thread you posted a single message, Message 171, that drew 2 responses, you made no reply.In the The accelerating expanding universe you posted 5 messages that drew 1 response, you made no reply.In the Cell Division thread you posted 3 messages that drew 5 responses, you stopped responding about the same time you began spamming the other threads.Your primary problem is that you ignore moderation, pretty much going your own way no matter what moderators say. Over time you've become well known as someone who tries to make trouble for moderators, and that you're now on a fairly short leash can only be blamed on yourself.But we already know you're unhappy with the moderation here. The topic of this thread is whether moderation is responsible for the diminution of creationist participation, rendered the board irrelevant in your own words. But I would have taken the same actions 10 years ago that I did earlier this year, so I don't see how the way you're being moderated could be a factor.--Percy

Given your behavior in other threads at the time and your history I believed you had no intention of responding, and when you post and don't respond that's spamming. Hit-n-runs, also known as drive-by's, are a form of spamming.As I said before, I would have taken the same action 10 years ago, and creationists and evolutionists have been accusing each other of bias since before time. Do you have any evidence that moderation at EvC Forum has changed in ways that have caused a diminution in creationist participation?--Percy

Peter Borger wasn't a "desirable creationist," rather he was distinct from the current crop in that he possessed much more detailed familiarity with science. But he offered GUToB in every thread he participated in regardless of topic and couldn't be dissuaded from this practice. When I finally disallowed it, he left.--Percy

You can't even find natural evidence for the Exodus, let along supernatural. If you would like to resume the Exodus discussion then simply return to the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread and post a message identifying which mountain in western Saudi Arabia is Mount Sinai and describing how you identified it. After how long and loudly you've touted this wonderful evidence, what is so hard about doing this that you have to instead come to this thread and complain about how unfair moderation was over there?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi Bolder-dash,If you're having problems in a discussion, for instance someone making empty assertions and refusing to provide supporting evidence, then the proper course of action is to bring it to the attention of moderators by posting a note to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Change author.

Hi Buz,The message you posted yesterday in the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread, Message 576, contains no evidence, only claims of evidence.The standards are the same for everyone. If you find yourself in a discussion with someone who is posting claims of evidence but never posting the evidence itself then you should bring to it the attention of moderators by posting a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0.--Percy

By the way, when someone responds to one of your messages it gets a "You have not yet responded" link at the bottom of your message. If you click on the link it changes to "You have acknowledged this reply." In other words, you do not have to dignify unworthy replies with a response. But if you do reply it changes to "You have responded."On my "todo" list is to provide smilie-style acknowledgements. Instead of just being able to acknowledge a reply you'll be able to include an appropriate smilie: happy, sad, angry, bemused, etc.--Percy