My question is how come hoaryhead is permitted to roam the forums even though this guy uses personal attacks half of the time and present fake facts the other half? He's only been here a short time and he is worse than Faith.
I have pointed out the absurdity of banning me from those forums for something I wrote on a NONscience forum, as I think such a policy could use some rethinking, but beyond that I have not requested readmission to the science side.
As a matter of fact, I was very very close to pointing out that I thought AN suspended you from the science forum out of immediate frustration and anger. I specifically remember that AN asked you for some sort of evidence (probably science base) while you were discussing something with other people in a non-science forum. You refused and implied that he could ban you from the science forum if he wanted to, to which he did.
Like I said, I almost rushed to your defence, but your later posts indicated that (at least at the time) you had no interest to participate in a science based discussion with other people. Without your reassurance that you were still interested in discussing with people on science using the parameters of science, I decided not to pursue it.
With that said, I must admit that AN's decision really really looked like it was not a decision as an admin but as someone who favored scientific evidence over religious. If you had pursued this matter, I'm sure myself and others like myself would have backed you up.
As much as I appreciate your moderating powers, I don't think it's fair for you to limit people's responses down to a single line of thought. Christian demanded that the evo side show her a chain that was like biblical geneologies. Crash and others pointed out that such a comparason is rediculous. In a way, Christian is making a statement within her question.
So, it's not enough that creos are given some leniences? Now, they are allowed to assert improper analogies and the evo side is penalized for pointing out the improperness of the analogies?
But the point wasn't about geneologies. The point was the comparason between evolutionary lines and geneologies. Christian believes that something like tracing the lines of descendants could be accurate enough to write down the name of one person after another. With this preconceived notion, she demanded that records of evolution be put this way.
We can't get anywhere with Christian until we show her that even her geneologies are inaccurate by a long shot.
In other words, she presented what she thought was perfection and she demanded perfection from the other side. This is why others tried to show her that what she had wasn't perfection at all.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again, like I said, Christian claimed that her geneologies are perfect and demanded us to give her a perfect evolutionary "chain". It's like saying "why can't you be like me... all perfect and everything...?"