Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

How many times has been Percy told you to leave the moderating to the moderators? You are off topic ***!Don't worry, Percy will be biased enough in deciding who is off topic without your help. It is anyone who disagrees with him!

Ah welcome back A! Where have you been?Your side desperately needed you. Don't leave them alone like that for so long. They can't cope very well without you. There is really only one you if I am being honest.

Percy, plese note, in message 166 from azpaul, responding to slevesque about what the evidence means Here azpaul is making the argument that the evidence points to the ToE as the only real conclusion.Now this is a statement he made ON THIS THREAD!Now I should think that any reasonable person would agree that one counter argument to this statement is to ask for that person to show that evidence they are referring to, and allow it to be judged as to whether or not this evidence does in fact point to an inevitable conclusion of the ToE. And thus I ask for that evidence.And so you see my request is entirely on topic. It is a response to a comment, made here that I am asking him to back up with evidence.So when you say: So when you say you will support this, where has that support been?All of your little groupies can back you up, and keep screaming that it is me who is out of line, but the fact is one of the posters makes an unsubstantiated claim-that the evidence clearly points one direction- I challenge that statement, and you see what happen? On your site? Based on your words?And you continue to allow your members to say it is my problem. Does this help you at all to see why this is such a joke?Do you think I care that 20 evolutionist use this as a (failed) opportunity to attempt to throw around their garbage insults. I don't care (aside from lacking much to back up their bravado scientifically, your side also has a tremendous paucity for making even nominally clever insults).But be clear, any neutral party who reads this whole exchange can see that when I asked legitimately for evidence for unsubstantiated claims-you all ran and hide under Percy's skirt.And Percy, you welcomed them in there with open arms and open legs.

It sounds like what you are saying is that in virtually any thread, an evolutionist can pull out their same tired debating shell game of claiming that the reason every creationist is wrong about science is because they have facts on their side, while creationist can prove nothing. But as soon as that claim is challenged, that the real evidence points at the ToE, then you will jump in and say any response to that is off topic, and it must go to another thread.And so the evolutionists just get to keep repeating the same thing over and over in virtually any discussion, that they have facts, while others have mythology, and despite Percy's silly assertions that he would demand proof, they will run into the shadows and hide after making this specious claim.You of course try to argue that taking it to the proper thread to argue it solves this problem, but it doesn't for two reasons.ONE, the evolutionist get to make the claim on ANY thread they want; while the creationist is limited to challenge this claim on only very limited places.TWO, even where creationists are supposedly allowed to debunk this false claim, evolutionists are allowed to use insults, to use diversions, to challenge the meaning of every word to the point that no word means anything unless Percy says it does. So Percy can say well that's not what random means, and if you try to argue what random means, once again you will be shuttled off to still another thread... and round and round it goes.The evolutionist can say what they want, but the person who challenges them now has to face the roadblock.So, if what you are offering is take it or leave it, I say leave it. And clearly others who have my viewpoint feel the same. And that is why they have left. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

GDR, you were responses were considerate and well thought of, and they deserved a decent reply. Only to be honest I felt doing so would really be off topic, and more importantly, I only came back here to make a point that is so obviously true that only a liar could deny. That there is a double standard here that makes it useless for any one to wish to come here and actually debate. Its not a debate forum. There are real debate forums on the internet, where there are actual moderators who do actual jobs, and people have real debates. This is not that place.So I would be happy to respond to you on a better run website, but I won't do so here.Regards. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Percy, until you can explain how every other thing that was said on this thread, like you talking about the Exodus, and all the other nonsense was on topic, and ONLY my REPLY to a comment that made extraordinary claims about evidence was off topic, everything you say here is just *** to try to save face.I can give you 10 examples of things that were much more off topic on this thread than my replying to someone else's unsubstantiated claim. You ignored them all and continued to try to blame me.Shame Percy, shame shame shame on you, you are morally bankrupt. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Have you not noticed the tone of Hooah, of Rhavin, of Theoderic, of Dr. A, of Granny, of Huntard, of Anglagard or Jar?Just because Percy says it is me who is causing a problem doesn't make it so. Read the posts. Read about Taq calling all creationists evil, about Granny calling them belligerent ***, read about the 50 posts of nonsense, and then explain how you have such blinders for them? ead what hoohah writes. read what AZpaul writes. You act surprised that someone would call them on their bluff, because you are so used to people being able to abuse creationists here and them just taking it or leaving.Read the posts. Pull the wool off your eyes.

Yes you are right Dr. A, Aaron is very polite. He backs up everything he says with hard facts, he knows what he is talking about, and he is not sarcastic. And yet you do none of those things. Isn't that odd?Come to think of it, sleevesque is polite Marc is polite. Dawn is polite. Buzsaw is polite. And just about every creationist who has ever come on here is polite.And yet so many of the evolutionists who post here are not, isn't that very strange? You don't consider your self polite do you A? Does granny? Does Azpaul? Does huntard? Does hooah? Does taq? Does anglagard? Does Jar? Does Rahlvin?Why aren't you polite A? You want everyone else to be, but you simply are not.So what is the matter with so many of the evolutionists here? What has got into them?Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Maybe you could elaborate on this a little more? Because I happen to agree with you, calling creationists liars and cry babies is very germane to the topic and should be explored.And of course likewise you would agree then that calling evolutionists liars and cry babies would be relevant to the topic and should be equally open for discussion, since if evolutionists are bigger liars or bigger cry babies than the creationists who post here, that could change the whole premise of your statements.Ah, but of course, we are not allowed to determine on this thread if the evolutionists are *** when they state they have abundant evidence for the ToE because that would be off topic.So I guess all I can do is say evolutionists are liars without being able to substantiate that claim. That is a right we equally share in this debate, correct?Or is that another ones of those rights that only evolutionists get here. I just want to make sure.I would of course love to explore the evidence that evolutionists are liars, and yes maybe even cry babies, right here in this thread in fact, but apparently that is not "germane to the thread's stated topic" as you say.

I have to admit I found this rather amusing that you would say this, as if it was some kind of new concept or something. You do realize that on most sites, especially science ones (this isn't a site for heavy metal or WWF enthusiasts you realize?) that is precisely what moderators are for? They are not there simply to brow beat everyone who they think is off topic or decide what the definition of words are.What is more detrimental to open discussion on a discussion and debate website, tangents of topics or calling someone evil *** belligerent ***. I have my opinion about which is, but I can see you have yours.But it makes it even more hard to fathom when you say things like: What behavior are you talking about-asking questions for evidence of evolution where you feel it doesn't belong, or being insulting? Which of my crimes is worse than everything else that is going on here. Do you have a good story about how I am the one trashing the place?Isn't it quite bizarre that you are so up in arms about MY behavior? "Oh that terrible Bolder who goes off topic all the time asking for evidence for the ToE! He is evil I tell you, pure evil! "

malcolm,My very first posting ever on this website was a topic I started where I asked: As I questioned whether or not NS was really as tested and verified as claimed, I of course brought up the mechanisms which make NS work (random mutations). I then had to spend the next 100 or so posts listening to posters telling me that I couldn't discuss the mechanisms of NS because when I asked the original question in my OP they didn't understand that when I said Darwinian evolution I was not talking about Lamarkian evolution, or babels evolution or some kind of UFO ray controlled evolution. Apparently discussions of natural selection had to be limited to "some animals die and some don't" because without the variation of random mutations that is all NS is. And the Admin sided with all those crazies who said I was off topic for bringing variation into the discussion.So next I proposed a thread titled "What are the merits and shortcomings of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?" This thread was denied because it was too broad to talk about, on an evolution vs. creation website. I was getting a pretty good idea early on that something was amiss with this board but I persisted.I then proposed a thread called "New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet", because I felt that all anyone could ever come up with to discuss evolution was changes in bacteria eating habits or drug resistance. Since I don't feel this type of evidence does much to show the emergence of novel new body structures, not only in simple organisms, much less in complex organisms-so I wanted to discuss more sophisticated evidence. Percy began the discussion right away by saying it was a weak topic that probably should never be promoted.I was then subjected to listening to an onslaught of posters moan about why bacterial evidence should be ignored! Along with that, your side then proceeded to talk endlessly about fossil records, and attempted to say that the fossil records are great evidence for Darwinian evolution. For some reason my explanation that fossils are possible evidence of ancestry or relationships but not of the mechanisms of how they came to be. After going around and around I got this from Percy: This was Percy's "impartial" assistance to the thread, wearing his admin hat.cont'dEdited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

so I replied to percy (admin) Now this was met with quite a strong rejection from percy-you know the one that promised he would never stand in the way of anyone asking for evidence. he said I wasn't co-operating, yet he refused to point out what any of this supposed evidence that everyone was saying they presented was.At this point I had already seen quite a bit about how things get handled around here. So if your comment to me malcolm is to start an appropriate thread to talk about the evidence of the ToE, my response to you would be, I would, if the normal rules of English and sanity applied here.

Even if free discussion was allowed here (I mean in that other parallel universe where anything is possible), natural selection is not even a thing, so there is nothing to show. Natural selection is an adjective, like quickness, or funny, that people have mangled so badly as to make others believe its a real thing, and not just a description of one aspect of death. Its like attributing a cause and effect to surrealism or ambiguity. Its nonsensical. These are just descriptions of an observation.Variation-supposedly in the form of mutations- is really the only thing evolution has. Wrap your mind around that if you can.

Its a description of an observation, which dupes like you repeated often enough to make it become a noun. Do you know that OMG and 'muffin top" are words now too?

How would you know, I hardly used any numbers at all?