I agree with nwr. If I'd been writing the post, I'd have used murder rather than sex with sheep as my example. It's not an accusation, it is, as nwr says, a reductio ad absurdum of the shifting of the burden of proof.
Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
Yes, I too believe that anything having to do with young Earth creationism can be shot down with some variation of a "but the Earth isn't young" argument. But for the sake of having a debate on some aspect of "floodism" and/or "flood geology", we need to set such a thing aside.
As I see it, the Biblical "one year flood" is a consideration in that debate. That it Biblically supposedly happened somewhere in the last 5000 years is not a relevant issue.
The OP refers twice to "the ark". Subsequent posts by creationists refer again to "the ark", to the Bible, to the "Biblical standpoint", to "the Bible account", to the Book of Genesis and "the Genesis record", to Noah, to "the Noaic Flood", to Peleg (another character in Genesis); and they quote the book of Genesis frequently, giving chapter and verse.
Meanwhile the evolutionists have been answering them by referring to the Bible, to "your Biblical deluge", to the ark, to Noah, to Adam, to "2 of every species", to "the Biblical Flood", to "the Noaic flood", to calculations made by "AnswersInGenesis", to "the 8 people" (in Noah's family), to the "Young Earth", to "4000 years" (since the flood), to "the mountains of Ararat", to "the Hebrew texts", to "the Judaeo Christian narrative"; and they too quote extensively from the book of Genesis.
And all the posts I've cited were made without a single complaint from the moderators.
And now Coyote is banned from posting in that whole forum because he posted on that thread on the assumption that we weren't talking about just any old global flood, but the specific global flood mentioned in the Bible?
When Buzsaw writes: "As for the Noaic Flood, 4350 years ago is likely close", you had no problem with that, but if Coyote challenges the flood on that same assumption, using exactly Buz's figure of 4350 years ... well, that's going too far.
And this has nothing to do with whether the Earth is young --- but the date of the flood is relevant to the question of what we should see in terms of geology, in terms of genetics, in terms of biogeography, in terms of archaeology, in terms of history, in terms of that hoary old creationist argument about population growth ... the date makes a huge difference.
Re: Ignoring the Y in YEC, and other considerations
The topic in question just got a restart at message 134. Both Jar and Coyote replied to that message. Neither of their replies addressed the content of that message.
Well, it does.
The date of the "global flood" is widely placed at about 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.
At that time period you are dealing with soils, not geological formations (rocks).
Also, you are dealing with bones, not fossils. All of your examples dealing with fossils and geological strata are rendered moot by this fact alone.
Now, this is a non-negligible point. You acknowledge the merits of my post, but one of its weaknesses is that I'm giving Jbr a free pass on this --- I'm seriously discussing whether or not the frickin' Coconino Sandstone, which is 260 million years old, is evidence for Noah's flood, which supposedly happened ~4000 years ago.
Coyote tells him that he should be discussing things which are actually ~4000 years old, and then tells him about some of them. It's a fair point.
Had a creationist pulled off this maneuver, the originator would be responding with something like "Did you even read my message?"
I am trying to think of a good analogy ...
Suppose someone said that the Gospel of John couldn't have been written by St John because he gets his head chopped off in Mark 6, then it would be reasonable for a creationist (or other Christian, or indeed me, 'cos I like accuracy) to reply that he should be talking about John the Evangelist and not John the Baptist. It would not be unreasonable to follow this up with a brief life of John the Evangelist per the Bible. It would be unreasonable to reply to that with: "Didn't you even read my message, it was about John the Baptist".
I think the next time anyone on this forum gets warned or reprimanded about being off topic, they should be able to just slap this load of crap post in response, and all accusations of ever being off topic should be thrown out immediately via the doctrine of Percy's Stare Decisis.
But devises charged with consolidated quodwrits of quitbar or seigny-poke subsist thereafter in fee of grossplaysaunce, notwithstanding all copyholds of mesnemanor, socagemoign, interfee, mortlease, grand bastardy in copygross, subescheats of scutage quousque, refeoffed disseisor of sub-seisin in seignyfrankalpuis and vivmain of copycharged serjaunty.
I don't know about "petty" and "vindictive" --- that suggests that there's something personal in it. But it does seem that Moose in particular is using his moderator powers to reprimand and suspend where he should just have voted to dislike the post or posted a response. The use of moderator powers should only be exercised in the case of a flagrant breach of forum rules or moderator warnings.
And it should be professional, not personal (moose seems like it's a little personal with some people, jmo), I could give a shit what a moderators personal opinion is about anyone.
I think the problem with (some) moderators are that they can make it impersonal. It's like a fundie saying: "You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with God". Some moderators find that some people are contrary to the Spirit of Moderation, which is in fact constituted by their own decisions, opinions, and actions, but they forget that.
This is just a hypothesis, and if we're talking about Moose in particular I disclaim any ability to read his mind.
Re: Some thoughts on my recent controversial admin actions
Well, what is the point of the forum?
Let us suppose that its function is to showcase evolutionist-versus-creationist debate. The problem is that the evolutionists who post here do not (by and large) do so because they feel some sort of obligation to the public to do that. They do so because they find the exercise agreeable and amusing. If they didn't, they wouldn't. To some extent you have to indulge the members, or you won't have any members.
A further problem arises when you try to decide what is good debate. You decided to suspend Coyote from commenting on geology because you didn't like what he said. I, on the other hand, thought that his points were apt. Shouldn't a moderator stick to deciding whether actual rules are broken?
Now I come to think of it, if an evolutionist comes up with a bad argument, does that not in fact gratify the dearest wish of creationists and so conform to your apparent desire to coddle them? If you "need to protect the creationist side", then you should start suspending people for posting arguments that are good.
And in fact you seem to be almost fulfilling this reductio ad absurdum when you write:
The debate works, at least best, when driven by the creationist side input. The creationists make their point(s) and the evolution side does their efforts to show why the creationist side is wrong. [...] This is why I really don't like topics that start of with something like "Hey creationists, how do you explain this?" Then it is the evolutionist side driving the debate, and that just doesn't work well.
Well, again, I'd ask what the forum is for? Are we to display the debate, or just the bits of the debate that creationists feel comfortable talking about? Why would we want to do the latter?
The Voice Of The Martyrs and other like organizations which I support are all indiscriminate, serving other than blacks. By and large the blacks in Africa, Haite etc are the most in need of assistance. The slaves in America having food, shelter and clothes etc were better off than many of them, who were often brutalized, enslaved and perhaps, eaten by fellow black barbarians.
Black people in Africa were brutalized and enslaved? Oh well, that's very different from the experience of black slaves in America, who certainly weren't enslaved, and would never have been brutalized if they were ... oh, wait.
And at least the slaves in America had food, unlike the slaves in Africa who were uniformly starved to death by their owners. The difference is very clear.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD
Since the moderators allow you to whine and blub about the moderators, it seems to me that a fortiori they would have no problem with you whining and blubbing about (for example) the fossil record. Why don't you give it a try?