Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 14 of 355 (617058)
05-25-2011 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
05-25-2011 3:48 PM


I don't see how you can blame the moderators. You start a thread calling them "foul" and "severely biased" and they promote it for discussion. They're not exactly cramping your style, are they?
Still more willingly would they allow you to whine and lie about evolution, if you were still interested in doing so. Instead you seem to have arrived already at the final stage of creationism in which all you have left is to rage impotently against the people who have so firmly and so frequently handed you your ass.
If you are a fair sample of creationist thought, this might well explain the paucity of creationists willing to man up and discuss the actual issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-25-2011 3:48 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 355 (617078)
05-25-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NoNukes
05-25-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Bolder-dash may be right...
I would suggest that the responses show quite the opposite. Twelve quick response to this nothing of a topic shows that we're starving for some real debate.
On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent him from supplying it except his own unwillingness to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2011 6:24 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 54 of 355 (617456)
05-29-2011 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 3:49 AM


Re: To educate.
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.
To summarize:
* You wish to have the luxury of stating your half-baked dogmas without making even the faintest pretense at justifying them.
* You wish to pretend that your inability to justify your opinions is the fault of the moderators rather than of the inadequacy of your views and your impotence to argue for them.
* You are in fact well aware that the moderators are so indulgent towards creationists in general and you in particular that they will let you get away with this cowardly and dishonest behavior even when you aggravate it by attacking and denigrating them as you did in your OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 3:49 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 355 (617552)
05-29-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
05-29-2011 4:52 PM


Exactly right, and then (I've recently been accused of) Gish Gallop as a debating method;
The height of irony, don't you think?
Only if you equate a lot of people telling the truth about a single topic with a single person telling lies about a lot of topics.
And apparently you are confused enough to do so.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 05-29-2011 4:52 PM marc9000 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 355 (617614)
05-30-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Bolder-dash
05-30-2011 12:00 AM


Re: Forest thru the trees
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.
Seeing how it all ties together is, precisely, seeing that it is not disconnected. Those would be antonyms. Still, it's a familiar cry from creationists: in effect you're trying to pretend that somehow the fact that we're right and you're wrong about everything in particular is an argument for believing that you're right about things in general.
It isn't, of course.
Presumably you won't argue for this bit of nonsense, either. Would you like us to blame the moderators for your inability to do so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-30-2011 12:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 355 (617683)
05-30-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Buzsaw
05-30-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Perhaps some changes would be in order as to attitude towards creationists, so as to be fair and balanced in moderation. When has any creationist evidence involving the supernatural ever been acknowledged by any secularistic evolutionist here, moderator or otherwise?
I don't see how the moderators could make the rest of us "acknowledge" your rather dubious "evidence". What are they meant to do --- make not agreeing with you a bannable offense?
Really, it's not their fault. You should get some better evidence.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2011 2:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2011 3:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 355 (617695)
05-30-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Buzsaw
05-30-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Dr Adequate, you're quick to make my point that no secularist evolutionist, moderator or otherwise would ever acknowledge any evidence whatsoever, implicating the supernatural.
That's obviously not true. But I do think it unlikely that anyone will acknowledge your evidence, 'cos of it not being at all convincing.
But this is by-the-by. My point is that you can't blame your failure to make converts on the standard of moderation. What rules could the moderators add such that with these new rules in place reading your posts would cause me to believe in the parting of the Red Sea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2011 3:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 251 of 355 (617917)
05-31-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 2:56 PM


Re: Dr. A Impersonators
Look if you are going to come on here trying to play the spoiler role of Dr. A you are gong to have to come up with something a lot more annoying and excessively wordy than this.
For instance, the real Dr. A would have said:
To summarize,
* You don't know what you talking about, but I believe it has something to do with God and creation and mind control of our children
* You a troll of the highest order and you can't be bothered to read a book.
* It is not the moderators fault that none of these brilliant evolutionists can come up with even a facsimile of a shred of evidence for our theory-but it nonetheless does not diminish for a fractitude the overwhelming plaxmity of our verisimilitude.
* Nananana..you have kudies.
You really need to work on your Dr. A. And the smiley face, are you kidding me. can you be more obvious?
Your lies about what I "would" have said are at considerable variance with the things that I actually say. Though I believe now that you mention it I would indeed subscribe to the proposition that you are "a troll of the highest order".
Perhaps you could now return to your self-pitying whining about the actual topic, which is moderation; I am not a moderator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 2:56 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 4:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 267 of 355 (617997)
05-31-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Dr. A Impersonators
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.
They seem to be doing a fine job of mocking your mendacity, hypocrisy, and inadequacy without me. But then, they have a large target.
But this is by-the-by. Do you have something to say about moderation? Y'know, the topic?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 4:35 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 276 of 355 (618046)
06-01-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Bolder-dash
06-01-2011 3:15 AM


If you wish to stop posting here, I'm sure no-one including the moderators would miss you. Fortunately we still have a supply of creationists with enough cojones to debate evolution rather than just whine about how butthurt they feel.
An example would be Aaron, with whom we've been having a nice chat about whale evolution while you've been busy blubbing over how sorry you feel for yourself. The moderators haven't intervened once in his threads, presumably because he's been providing articulate criticisms of evolution rather than screaming random lies, nonsense, and abuse.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 3:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 9:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 302 of 355 (618163)
06-01-2011 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Bolder-dash
06-01-2011 9:05 AM


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?
You are, of course, lying.
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.
You are, of course, lying.
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?
I am polite to those who merit it.
Why aren't you polite A?
I am not polite to you because that would not be compatible with being truthful. If, like Aaron, your fault lay in mistaking a medial view of a whale's pelvis for a lateral view, then I could say so politely, as I did to him. However, your fault is that you are a disgusting liar and a contemptible hypocrite, and there is no polite way to say so.
You want everyone else to be ...
Funny, I must have missed where I said that.
So what is the matter with so many of the evolutionists here? What has got into them?
Really, you're whining about people being impolite? You who started a thread to call the owner of these forums "a fucking pussy"?
See, this is what I'm talking about when I call you a hypocrite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-01-2011 9:05 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-02-2011 12:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 345 of 355 (618535)
06-03-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 11:59 AM


Natural selection is an adjective, like quickness, or funny ...
If you want to exhibit your ignorance of grammar, you could make this at least tangentially related to the topic by claiming that "bias" is a preposition or that "forum" is a conjunction.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 11:59 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 10:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 346 of 355 (618538)
06-03-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 12:54 PM


My dog weighs has curly hair.
What's "has curly hair" in metric units?
How much does natural selection weigh?
I seem to remember that it weighs exactly the same as bias does. Perhaps you could remind us all of how much bias weighs. (Please use standard units of measurement and not the "has curly hair" scale, with which I am unfamiliar.)
I know, of course, that bias must have sufficient weight that it is not "nonsensical" to "attribute a cause and effect" to it, otherwise you would have been talking nonsense when you suggested that bias "has made this forum essentially irrelevant". But what you think that that weight actually is, in pounds or kilograms or even in having curly hair, temporarily eludes me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 12:54 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 349 of 355 (618552)
06-03-2011 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Bolder-dash
06-03-2011 10:49 PM


I would again suggest that you try to make your ignorance of grammar more relevant to the topic. For example, there is still the vexing question of whether, in your opinion, bias weighs has curly hair. This subject offers a wide scope for you to display both stupidity and illiteracy; if you also wish to be wrong about natural selection that would be a subject for another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-03-2011 10:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024