As such, everything in my post was on-topic, but admittedly embarassing for evos, and so Nosey bans me ostensibly for being off-topic.
The topic was the accuracy of published research reports. As best I can tell, the study was mainly based on research using statistical hypothesis testing, such as is common in the social sciences and pharmacology.
You seemed to be using it as an excuse to attack evolutionists. It sure seemed off topic to me.
However, I apologize for responding to that post. I hadn't noticed that you would be unable to reply.
I probably shouldn't be posting here, so I'll keep this short (and I won't debate it further).
Randman raises questions of evolutionists which they are unable to answer truthfully and then they call on moderators to lock randman out so that the dishonesty and propoganda of evolution can be protected.
Randman's questions have been answered many times. Yet he kept bringing them up, and ignoring the answers already given. Often he brought them up in threads where they were off-topic.
The moderation of this site is, of course, biased. It has to be. It is biased against the evolutionists. The moderators give a lot of latitude to creationists, but far less to evolutionists.
Nevertheless creationists are often being suspended, while suspensions for evolutionists are rare. This is because evolutionists are mainly giving evidence-based posts, while creationists mostly are not.
Because of this difference in suspension rates, there is an unavoidable appearance of bias against creationists. It is to counter this appearance that the moderators must be quick to react when they see a problem in posts by those on the evolutionist side.
On the issue of moderator participation in a thread, I don't agree with Modulous here. His proposed restriction is not practical. A moderator who is not participating in a thread is less likely to notice problems and thus will be a poorer moderator. You can see this on the faith-based side of the house, where the moderation is often poor. Threads wander badly off-topic, and moderators are slow to notice the problem -- presumably because the most active moderators are more interested in the science side.
Sure, moderating and participating in the same thread can cause problems. But, as we saw in the crashfrog case, these problem seem to be corrected. It appears that the moderators are watching each other and attempting to correct mistakes.
I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums?
I agree with you.
This sort of thread makes for good reading on how literalists think.
It seems reasonable to ask Faith some difficult questions. But it is surely foolish to try to persuade her that literalism is wrong. She clearly isn't going to be persuaded. But it is fascinating to watch how she deals with the questions.
I guess I am treating it as a case study in fundy thinking.
A comment from an observer (me) of Some mutations sound too good to be true. On my reading, Faith was mainly seeking clarification. When she brought up Noah's flood, I took her as asking what evolution would expect from the bottleneck that would exist, if the flood story were correct. I did not take her as using that to challenge the science. I took this as within the intended scope of the thread.
This is probably the wrong place, but I would like to compliment the several participants in that thread. Overall it has been, and continues to be, an excellent discussion. And it seems to me that Faith has learned quite a bit about the role of mutations. For that matter, I have learned a thing or two myself.