You keep trying to engage with IAJ, so I want to finally say a few words about this.
The creation/evolution controversy has a long record of attracting loons. IamJoseph is just one of many here. Dawn Bertot, Robert Byers, Bolder-dash and John 10:10 are others who have posted recently.
Before Dover the presence of the certifiables was balanced by others who could articulate a position and argue it rationally, but after Dover their numbers gradually dwindled until today there are almost none here. ID disgraced itself at Dover and is no longer effectively promoting itself, and creationism has decided to keep a very low profile, refraining from any overt actions that might bring it into court but working hard to influence school boards and individual teachers. The result of the cessation of overt efforts to convince the public of their views is that the creationists who come here are either woefully unprepared, or they're seriously disconnected from reality, or they speak English so poorly they understand little that is said (by themselves or anyone else), or all of these and more.
There seems something about holding beliefs contrary to reality that forces disassociation. Just look at TrueCreation, an early and highly active YEC participant in EvC Forum's early days who performed his own intense and highly detailed research. He now says he is no longer YEC, but he can't answer a direct question and has become highly circumspect in all his replies, almost like he's waging an internal battle to keep himself from thinking about certain things.
What originally drew me in to the creationism/evolution controversy was creationism's inability to articulate a rational position while insisting it deserved inclusion in public school science programs. It was the legal battles that first garnered my attention. In the old days many creationists who came to sites like this could muster very strong arguments for their position that required careful attention, but today we get a lot of creationists who seem crazy right from their first post.
I've taken the long way around to say something simple: some of the creationists here who seem crazy really *are* crazy, at least in this discussion board context. Probably in real life they're not really crazy, but religious devotion and sincerity combined with a complete ignorance of science seems to produce the appearance of complete irrationality. Long experience has taught me, and many others here, that's there no point in arguing with a crazy person, and besides, onlookers often can't tell the difference.
There's one key sign, not always exhibited but still helpful, that tells you when it's time to disengage. When you find yourself explaining the interpretation of simple English, head for the hills.
I fully understand the impulses pressing you to engage with IAJ and straighten out his confusion, which seems simple and straightforward and easy to resolve. It appears to you that the presentation of a few simple facts and the walking through of a few logical inductions should straighten everything out. But it doesn't work that way with creationists. When they exhibit a few simple and fundamental errors it isn't because they've just accidentally picked up a few incorrect facts that can be easily corrected, but because they have a whole pathology that prevents them from ever connecting evidence to any ideas contrary to their central beliefs.
Quick, what's the topic this is posted under? Can you guess it right away without looking? Be honest.
Topic "The problems of big bang theory. What are they?"
Oh what humor Percy uses for his duplicity!
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.
Some words of advice for all readers to live by, if it ever appears that Dr.A has written anything whatsoever that might be considered funny, intelligent, creative, or even remotely unique or interesting...
You are writing this as if you believe that EvC actually wants a fair discussion of the topic of evolution. I think that is an assumption that has no basis in reality. I believe that you may want a fair debate, but I think the evidence clearly shows that this is not the case with the admin. Percy has, unembarrassingly, talked about his strategies to win over the so called "fence sitters" who read this forum. Those strategies include allowing limited input from creationists, but it doesn't include allowing them to get the upper hand in any discussions. The point of this site is not to engage debate, its to win over those fence sitters.
Virtually every creationist that has ever posted here has said the reason they do so little anymore, is because it became obvious that the moderation was completely unfair, and intentionally so. They all said that, and yet the evolutionists all say, no no, that's not the reason you don't post, its because you are losing, its because you can't follow the rules...Every creationist who says they have been treated unfairly and quits is delusional? If that's one's assumption, then of course you already don't have a level playing field. But as Eugenie Scott says, and shows, you can't win a debate with creationists so you shouldn't try. I am sure Percy agrees with this.
Take Percy's recent comment that I am on a very very short leash here. That's a joke. The reason I am on a short leash? Because I have questioned evolution, and been critical of the moderation here. I have given my opinion, which is a strong one, but no more so then every evolutionist here. My actions are worse than Dr.A, or Granny, or Theoderic- they just fling **** -->**** -->**** -->**** on a daily basis? Its their job here. My last warning was because I responded back to Dr. A in the same way he responds to everyone, even pointing out the hypocrisy of the software that allows him to use words like i d i o t, but doesn't allow creationists, supposedly like me to use. And I am not even a creationist, I have never mentioned one thing about religion in this forum ever, and yet that doesn't really matter, because I have questioned the validity of your science.
The National Academy of Sciences doesn't want debate on the topic. PZ Meyers doesn't want debate. Richard Dawkins doesn't want debate. The science community doesn't want to allow it to be fairly debated in schools. They all have said they don't want to debate this-but they still want a way to try and convince the fence sitters. Percy wants participation from creationists so that he can have a website. But he certainly doesn't want to allow them to debate fairly, without his deciding how the debate will go.
I am on a short leash because I question the status quo here, ha. Gee what a surprise. Is any serious debater going to want to come on here on discuss the issues. Why would they? For who's benefit?
I won't debate you here, because I now know this isn't a debate site, its a propaganda site. But thank you for confirming the notion that you don't want it debated either. I think one of the main reasons why your side doesn't want to debate it is precisely because they lack the evidence, so every time they debate it, they become stuck trying to hide from that fact.
Well, I can see more and more why you side likes to hide from real debate on the subject. Because its just so much easier to hide behind the name of a journal and call that evidence, or talk about dental microwear texture and anthropoid diets and say this proves evolution, than actually being called on your bluffs.
Perhaps Percy's strategy does make the most sense, don't allow debate allow propaganda. He has a lot in common with wikipedia.
Oh don't worry, they will find a way to ban me for this too. They just have to figure out how to do it and still make appearances of fairness for the fence sitters. Its a tricky line, that many dictators also struggle with. Like when Russia had to figure out how to close the independent TV stations but still claim they will continue to broadcast "real news". You know, like stories of Putin saving little kids from burning buildings, things like that.
Or when Percy assigns PD as a moderator and calls that objectivity. Or when he allows you to post anything, and says its to counter balance all the negativity from the creationists.
You know Aung San Suu Kyi is no longer in jail. You certainly can't claim the Myanmar regime isn't fair now, can you?
I think Percy actually learned his trade from Fox News. You know if you just repeat that you are fair and balanced enough, and you occasionally allow a black man on your network, or use Mary Matalin to counter balance Ann Coulter, you can get a few people to actually believe you are being objective. But I wouldn't recommend it as a good venue for a Presidential debate if you want to get to the truth.
Let's face it, if this truly were a fair place to discuss ideas, why would I be on a "short leash" as Percy calls it, more than say Dr. A. Some people are on short leashes here? Guess who all those people are? Oh they just happen to be creationists, bingo! And Aung San Suu Kyi was never put under house arrest because of her calls for democracy. It was because she was inciting violence. Or maybe she was off topic in her discussions!
Life is just full of coincidences isn't it? But its fair and balanced, belief me, its fair and balanced. Our motto is fair and balanced. Believe us yet?
Your recent posting history is that you complain about your past treatment and that you escalate the abuse in your messages until you get banned for yet another long period of time.
I thought people didn't get banned for here for being abusive. I thought if people took offense to abusive posters, it is because they are just too thin skinned, just ask Granny. Even Percy has said that is understandable and reasonable that sometimes people will be abusive, because they are so frustrated.
Or just creationists get banned for being abusive, but still the reason they don't participate is not because of bad moderation.
Do you have any evidence of any evolutionists being banned for a month being off topic? That would be weird wouldn't it.
So what am I on a short leash for? Who else is on a short leash? Theoderic? Dr. A? What they do is called debating? Who says?
Its just another coincidence that all the so called abusive posters are creationists? This thread is about the moderation-so isn't that what I should discuss here. I am on a short leash for one reason and one reason only, because I called bs to Percy's policies. You know and everyone here knows it.
Why sure Balders, I'd be glad to throw in! I think you're quite right, creationists do seem to be a touchy bunch. The phrase "thin skinned" would certainly be a fair description of a good many of them. After all, for over a year you yourself have been whining like a child who's lost his candy. It scarcely makes the creationist contingent look resilient!
Really though, I don't think that this is the biggest reason for creationist flounce-outs. I think that after a while, the strain of constantly being wrong about everything gets to the poor dears. After all, no-one likes being wrong, not even creationists, who've had so much practise at it. It must be wearing to argue a point so blisteringly ****** in a subject where you're so woefully out of your depth. I don't envy you your task.
Is that what you mean by off topic abuse that would get one banned for a month here at EvC? Or at least certainly get one on a short leash right?
Because I think the point you want to emphasize is about the fairness of the website, right? One might feel the rules are very restrictive, but at least they are applied fairly, isn't that right nonukes?
Perhaps there is some valuable lessons one can learn from this brilliant prose by Granny. Maybe on EvC its best not to use the word i d i o t , but instead opt for the more sensitive "blisteringly ******." And instead of saying someone is not schooled in their science, one should go with "woefully out of your depth." That is certainly topical, although topical to what is another story.
And "flounce outs" and "poor dears" are indeed very endearing phrases, as is turning the posters name into a cute rhyming homophone for effect, you know like calling a poster Grainy Smegma, for example.
Now I see why I am on the "short leash" I have been going around questioning the science of evolution and the fairness of how one is able to present their debates on this board, when I should have just been thinking of better pet names, and some synonyms for the word i d i o t.
Thank you for pointing out the fairness of this website to me nonukes. I was so wrong, everyone is indeed treated the same here.
* = s t u p i d
Edited by Bolder-dash, : Opps!, once again I failed to be aware that Granny is allowed to use the word s t u p i d in her posts, whereby there is some software issue (and I am sure its just a glitch) where I can't. I guess I have to work harder on my synonyms. But again nonukes, I get your point about the fairness of this site.
So, I am very glad that you are now open to the idea of finally discussing the true validity of evolutionary science. Let's be honest, we can't do that here if you keep hiding behind Percy's protective skirt.
I am so glad to hear that you are actively seeking new creationist moderators to apply some badly needed balance on this site. It seems you really are genuine about wanting to turn over a new leaf, and make this site about actual, honest debate.
As such, as a contribution to your earnest efforts to rein in the wild imbalance here, I volunteer to handle some of the moderation duties as a service towards this new found goal of fairness. I can start whenever you need me.
I am sure this is not just an empty promise, so I am waiting to hear from you asap.
Of course, if it is just a joke about you really wanting to establish some fairness here, you will come up with numerous excuses about why I and other creationists are not qualified. But, I am sure that won't happen.
THIS time I believe you truly you want to create a debate site, and not just the same old propaganda postings that this site has steadfastly been in the past. What a fresh new beginning it will be.
Your assessment of the moderating here is way off. This site is one of the most even handed that I have encountered.
Now talk about funny! Virtually every creationist that has ever tried posting here totally disagrees with you. What an amazing, amazing coincidence.
Its ok dogmafood, the secret is already out of the bag. Evolutionists have been preaching for a long time that its not a good idea to debate creationists, because they always lose. Why should here be any different.
Do you know that Emory University has decided to implement a policy of doing background checks on all award recipients or honorary degrees, to make sure they don't have doubts about evolution, even if they have nothing to do with evolution? They want to send the message that if you doubt evolution, you will be shunned from the universities, no matter what science field you are in. This is typical of your communities censorship-which is quite widespread.