Showcase Forum Issues and Requests

Do you think there's something in there that I would find interesting?I assure you, Percy has assented to every request I have made to enter the Showcase forum - that is to say, all none of them. I love rummage sales!

The emerging fracas between Herpeton and JAD is particularly amusing. I love the part where Herpeton calls on "Darwinists" to handle JAD because he's "our problem"; according to Herp creationists are too busy handling their "own wackos." Exact words!Apparently nobody explained to him how it works in the Showcase? Boy, after they clamored for a place free from objection by the tyranny of science and evidence, it's pretty rich of them to demand that evolutionists step in to fix their mess. You just can't please a creationist, can you?

It's fairly simple; it's for creationists and cranks to put forth whatever nonsense they feel they have a right to promulgate at Percy's expense, absent the strictures of reasonable conduct and intelligent debate they find so choking.If it serves as a central clearinghouse for nonsense that would otherwise be clogging up intelligent conversation, then more power to it. The alternative seems to be posters who you just can't get to go away; who percieve suspension from the entire site to be such a slight that they come back under 50 different aliases to insult us all.It's a zoo. People need to understand that before they ask to post there. The creationists make the rules in the Showcase, essentially; as a result, real debate is impossible there.

Yup. Understand, though, that he's limited to doing so behind the bars of his little exhibit at the zoo, not in any thread where adults are participating.

That's great, Randman, we're all very impressed with your enormous opinion of yourself, but a considerable amount of evidence has been presented to you in that thread, and a number of us spectators are waiting for you to deal with it. Do you think that, now that the good Dr. is no longer there to distract you, you could get back to the evidence that you haven't addressed?

It's not on-topic in this thread, but I was specifically referring to messages 51, 53, 65, 80, 88, largely by Wounded King, but you also completely ignored Dr. Adequate's message 95 except to quote a largely irrelevant part of it and reassert exactly the contention that the good Dr. had just refuted.That's largely what I was referring to. A large amount of peer-reviewed information has been presented to you (contrary to your assertion) and many of us are still waiting for you to address it - in the proper thread, of course. Hopefully this message clears up your confusion; I'd hate to drag the suggestion thread off-topic.

There's no danger of that, Randman; I'm not interested in participating in the Showcase threads.

I don't think being ignorant is a "false motive". But it must be very interesting to live in your universe, Randman, where nobody is ignorant.If you approached your discussions from the perspective of "here's what I know that evolutionists don't; once I tell them they've change their minds" you wouldn't have nearly as much trouble as you do. But currently your approach seems to be "evolutionists are all a dishonest lot, and I'm going to show examples of that." What possible resolution comes from that debate? I can tell you, Randman, that dishonest people don't even admit to dishonesty when you catch them at it. Why would they? Doing so is a mark of honesty.We're all waiting for you to show the evidence that evolution - the scientific theory - is wrong. Showing evidence that some evolutionists are liars doesn't do that, but that's been your entire contribution to the forum in 5300 posts. And, of course, even if it did matter that a few evolutionists were dishonest, as many or more creationists could be shown to be dishonest, too. Perhaps even yourself could be exposed in a dishonesty.Would those things disprove God to you, or disprove creationism, or disprove the Bible? I doubt it. What experience do you have with the way evolution is taught and studied? It is evolution, not "Darwinism", that is the subject here.

Currently the topic is your personal debate technique. We're still talking about that. I never said you were belief-based. But what do you usually wind up talking about? Haekel's embryo drawings as an example of evolutionist fraud. The rest of us can probably make your arguments for you, simply by memory. You're on about it like a broken record. What does that have to do with the scientific theory? I would think that the folly of expecting a natural phenomenon to fit perfectly into one definition would be obvious, particularly a phenomenon responsible for as wide a variety of living creatures as are found on this planet.All of the different definitions are different ways of talking about the same thing. You accuse evolutionists of "bait-and-switch", but here you are baiting with "Darwinism" and switching to evolution.

Firstly? Please don't fork replies. One post should have one reply, not several. It makes it harder to reply to you. Well, that's the question, isn't it? Is it smearing someone's character to assert that they are lying? I don't see how you can make that case at the same time that you're calling your opponents liars, but maybe you can explain how it's a smear for you to be called a liar but not when you call others liars. I don't understand what you're trying to say, here. Would "too dense" be one of those "character smears" you were talking about? If not, could you explain why not?

"You are too dense" is what you said. Is calling me, personally, dense one of the character smears you were referring to, or not? Here, you even repeat it for me (thank you so very much): Is calling me "dense" a character smear, or is it not? Answer the question. So you use Darwinism to refer to evolution, because you think "evolution" gets defined as too many things? How does defining "Darwinism" as "evolution" not do exactly the same thing? I still don't understand.How about this - you tell me what you mean by "Darwinism" and "neoDarwinism", without using the word "evolution", because it doesn't make any sense to use an alternate term to avoid the use of the term "evolution" and then, when asked to define your term, define it using the word "evolution." Tell me what you mean by "Darwinism" and "neoDarwinism" without the word "evolution" being a part of that.Shouldn't that be nice and clear for everybody? Allow me to repeat the critical issues I'd like you to address:1) Tell me whether or not "you are too dense" constitutes the kind of character smear you were referring to.
2) Define your terms "Darwinism" and "neoDarwinism" without using the word "evolution" in your definitions.

I'm sorry? "Mean to point it out?" Are you saying I'm mean for asking? The way you've phrased this isn't entirely clear to me. Er, that's precisely what I asked you not to do. I'll ask again and try to be more clear. I want you to define those two words without using the word "evolution" in your definition.What you did, on the other hand, was provide one definition for two different words, using almost nothing but the word "evolution." I have absolutely no idea what you mean by those words, except that they have something to do with evolution. But, according to you, "evolution" means so many things that we can't even trust it as a word.I'm simply looking for a clear definition of those two words from you, Randman. Are you so dense that you're not going to be able to do that? (I trust you won't find that comment to be a smear against your character.)If you don't feel this is on-topic, then I'd be interested in seeing you start a Showcase thread on it. As stated before I would not participate but I'd like to read it, at least.

I'm sorry, Randman, I wasn't giving you an order; I was trying to explain to you what would best help me understand your position and your use of terms.If my understanding isn't something you feel is important enough to make even the least effort, that's fine, and you need merely to say so. "Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth via mechanisms that include, most prominently, natural selection and random mutation." Are these more of the character smears you were talking about? Does describing me as "incapable or unwilling to learn" constitute a character smear, or does it not?