Post your short questions here. No need to start a thread everytime.

While I agree that a new thread shouldn't be opened when there is an inactive but fairly recent thread dealing with the same topic.But I don't think that a topic should be rejected simply because it is something that has been seen before, even a million times before. If it has been long enough in the past since it was discussed, then it is quite possible that some of the new members (and lurkers) have not really discussed it in depth. Considering that we will all see these same arguments again in real life (I know I have), it might be useful for some people to see what the arguments really are. And reading (and perhaps participating in) a current discussion is certainly more interesting than reading an old one.I certainly agree when the admins ask someone to think a little more about their proposal if they are posting a PRATT, but I think that allowing it to be discussed openly is more effective than simply saying its been discussed to death and moving on.

I'm curious about this myself. Placing the cursor over the icon gives no useful information, and there is no record of his banning on the usual thread. I even went to his profile to look up his recent posts, and I found little out of the ordinary, and nothing from an admin stating that any particular message or exchange was resulting in a suspension.So, what message or messages prompted the suspension? Who made the decision? This used to be public information; do we no longer get to see the reasons for suspensions?

Welcome to EvC, Vashgun.My favorite single web page is Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. I like it because not only does it give a brief description of several different threads of evidence in different fields of biology, but he also explains just what evidence means in science, and why these count as evidence in the theory-prediction-observation-confirmation model of how science works. I think this is important because many creationists don't understand what science is, how it operates, and why evolutionary biology fits into what is considered good science.My single favorite evidence (and, to me, most compelling - it was what made me say, "uh-oh," when I was still a creationist) is the nested hierarchical classification of the species.When you've read some of this page and digested it, join us in some of the other threads to discuss the issues.As far as good books go, I would recommend any of Stephen Jay Gould's earlier collections of essays when he wrote a column for Natural History: Ever Since Darwin, The Panda's Thumb, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, and The Flamingo's Smile. I also thought The Blind Watchmaker was decent.Added by edit:
I should add that The Blind Watchmaker is by Richard Dawkins.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

How long do you wait before you give up?It usually takes about 20-30 seconds (which seems longer than it is) before it finally completely loads up when I try it.In the meantime, it doesn't give you any indication that it's doing anything, so you can think that it isn't working.