Summations Only

I completely agree with this. The problem is not so much that we're unduly mean to them, but that creationists are such delicate hothouse flowers that they wilt under the mildest criticism.This seems to be a tendency amongst theists in general. There exists a certain subset of theists who simply cannot tolerate dissent. It's not all by any means; GDR and Catholic Scientist for example have thick skins and give as good as they get. It is a significant percentage who behave this way though. Any criticism of their beliefs is taken as an attack, an opportunity to "take offence", whatever that is supposed to mean. It's a useful way of stifling one's critics.I think that creationists show this tendency to such a ridiculous extreme because they are fighting to maintain such a huge personal well of cognitive dissonance. They have an inkling that there are problems with their beliefs, but they don't like to think about it too deeply. It's uncomfortable. The ones who can weather the barrage of criticism at a site like this tend to be the ones whose cognitive dissonance is so deeply entrenched that they're no longer even dimly aware of it. Sadly, debating these folks tends to be rather fruitless.Mutate and Survive

As far as I am aware, GDR is not a creationist.Mutate and Survive

How long have you been working on your thesis?Mutate and Survive

That's not what WK is saying. What he is saying is that it is useless for you to throw out snippets of scientific papers which you do not understand. It matters not a jot whether you are a qualified or practising scientist. It doesn't matter if you are an educated layperson. What matters is that you understand what you are talking about.If you understand the subject then fine, go ahead and talk about it. If you understand what the scientists are saying, then go ahead and quote them. But the reality is that you don't understand the topics you bring up. Then you try to debate them with people who do understand those topics. This is a waste of time. This isn't a jury trial though. You have to debate for yourself. If you are incapable of forming a coherent position, then the proper thing to do is either a) educate yourself until you do have an understanding or b) stop talking and leave science to those who understand it. After all, how are you meant to know whether the papers you cite genuinely support your position or not if you don't understand them?If you can't be bothered to educate yourself to the necessary level, that's fine. It's a tough subject after all and it would require a lot of effort. I certainly can't be bothered to put in the effort that would be required to completely understand this CRISPR system, it simply doesn't interest me that much. But then I don't go around telling the experts that they're wrong. I keep silent on topics that I don't understand. All that WK is telling is that you should raise your game so that you understand what you're talking about. If you cannot or will not do this, then silence is the only appropriate alternative. I can see how that would be annoying. I sympathise, genuinely. I understand that it must be frustrating to you. However, your frustration does not change the fact that you are pontificating on a subject that you do not understand. We see a lot of people, mainly creationists, on this board trying to discuss subjects that they plainly have no grasp of. Guess what? That's kind of annoying as well.Mutate and Survive

Whether or not you understand Shapiro is irrelevant to your understanding of CRISPR.Besides, what Wounded King said to you then was this; He's saying the same to you now. I agree with him. You could try reviewing the appropriate evidence in your own words, rather than just throwing out quotes and citations. That's a shame. If you genuinely feel that you have important points to make you should go ahead and make them. If you feel that you are being unfairly treated, I can only suggest that you try to rise above it and let readers draw their own conclusions. Don't get caught up in the meta-argument about whether your being maligned or not; just present your core case. If it's a good enough argument it will sink or swim on its own merit regardless of whether people are rude to you.Mutate and Survive

The only person on this thread to make an implied threat of violence is you. I suggest that you have a think about that. Actually, I think that I don't make threats of violence because I don't make threats of violence. Which I don't. And you do. Again, when you're feeling a bit calmer, I suggest that you have a little think about the merits of threatening strangers with violence over the internet. No. Not even close. Your mind reading powers really are off today.Mutate and Survive

No I get your point, I just don't think that it is a valid one.You are trying to demonstrate a pattern of unfair treatment, but you're doing it on the basis of a just two incidents; your Shapiro debate and your CRISPR debate. You can't demonstrate a pattern based upon two incidents and especially not on an incident that is so open to debate.In the Shapiro debate, the problem was not so much whether you understood Shapiro or not, but whether either you or Shapiro were making valid points in the first place. I never thought that Shapiro's rhetoric was justified in the first place, regardless of whether you understood him or not.You were told that you didn't understand the issues in the CRISPR thread because when you cited articles in that thread they did not say what you seemed to think they did. That is an entirely fair criticism.Neither of these debates proves that you have been unfairly treated. They may very well demonstrate that you have a history of making bad arguments though. That would serve as a fairly coherent explanation for why people keep disagreeing with you. We can both accuse each other of being bull-headed, it doesn't really get us anywhere though.The point of this board is to debate the evolution/creation issue. That's its raison d'etre. If you are not going to participate in that discussion, for whatever reason, then your course of action should be clear; leave this board and never come back. If, as you say, the reason for your "unfair" treatment is that your interlocutors and the board moderators are fundamentally unfair, then you have nothing to gain by continuing to debate us. In particular, you have nothing to gain by trying to persuade such unfair opponents that the problem is their own unfairness, that's a guaranteed non-starter. Unfair people are rarely willing to admit that they are unfair. Continuing to participate in the meta-debate about whether or not the EvC punters are bastards is going to get you nowhere. If you're wrong you'll look a fool, if you're right we'll never acknowledge it, because... well, we're bastards. I can imagine no more futile exercise.If you really believe that we're all unfair, you should tell us to go to hell and leave the forum. If you stay however, you should put forward your argument. Go ahead and argue for your vague, confused anti-evolution grumbling. Let the readers judge the merits of your arguments. Otherwise you have nothing to offer and absolutely nothing to gain by participating.Basically, it's lead, follow or get out of the way.Either post and argue your point, go into lurker mode or leave.Whining from the sidelines is always an option, but it's not one that I would recommend.Mutate and Survive

Well yes. That's because his "opinions and choice of words" are precisely the point at which he abandons the science and wanders off into a fantasy land.Worse, that's the bit you like, not the science, because you're not interested in that, but the unjusitifed hyperbole. After all, if Shapiro didn't use silly language like "intelligence", he would be of no use to you.Mutate and Survive

I originally posted this in response to Shadow71, but it applies just as well to Bolder-dash, so let it stand as my summation for this thread. Mutate and Survive