Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

How are the moderators biased, and what is wrong with the policies?

When these scientists also agree to a statement of faith stating "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" it is hard to take them seriously.Moreover, it is not enough to simply state that evolution is wrong. You must take it one step further: actually showing that evolution is wrong. Let's use Behe as an example. He claims that there are no evolutionary pathways that can lead to irreducibly complex systems. His evidence? Behe can't think of one. He offers incredulity as his evidence. This is not the type of evidence that scientists are looking for. Personal incredulity does not falsify scientific theories.Even worse, creationism/ID is always shifting the goalposts. When we ask for the testable mechanisms of ID the ID supporter quickly deflects the discussion into "well, what is the evolutionary mechanism". ID/Creationists can't decide if they are anti-evolutionists or ID/Creationists. Imagine if evolutionists adopted the same strategy? What if every request for evidence supporting evolution was met by the reply "well, creationism has no evidence therefore evolution is true by default"? Sadly, this is the default position of ID, that disproving evolution makes ID true by default. Instead of claiming it, why don't you show it? This is the problem in many threads. There are claims of misdeeds, but no actual evidence of these misdeeds. For example, many claim that scientific journals have a bias that will not allow them to publish ID/creationist papers. I have asked again and again for examples of ID/creationist papers that were rejected by these journals. Guess what happens? It gets really silent. What I am told is that these papers would automatically be rejected so they aren't even submitted. They want to be Rosa Parks without having to bother with getting on the bus to begin with. Care to give an example so that we might better understand your sense of persecution? This worldview also causes strain in these discussions. Creationists view a lack of a detailed and evidenced evolutionary pathway as a weakness of the theory. Scientists view this same lack as a strength of the theory and an opportunity for furthering our knowledge. Creationists fully adopt the argument from ignorance while scientists look to do away with ignorance. This is why ID/creationism will always lose. We will always be gaining new information, and as we fill these gaps the ID/Creationist argument is shown for what it is, a God-of-the-Gaps argument.The way around this for the ID/Creationist community is to move away from anti-evolution towards pro-ID/Creationism. Show how your claims can be used to make hypotheses, and then devise experiments to test these hypotheses. Submit this work to journals, and if rejected show the world the referee's reviews and why you think they are unfair. Show us how the inclusion of supernatural mechanism in science can work. You know, do the science before complaining that scientists don't take you seriously. Who is submitting their work to peer reviewed journals? Creationists or Evolutionists?Who is engaging the scientific community at scientific conferences? Creationists or evolutionists?Who is doing research in labs to support their theory? Creationists or Evolutionists?Sadly, you wouldn't know what the horse looks like, much less straddle it.

When he offers his personal incredulity to write off the chances of an indirect pathway for IC systems. And the goalposts are shifted once again. This is exactly what I am talking about. ID/creationism has to stand on its own, but at the mere hint of criticism the argument shifts to attacks on the theory of evolution. If evolution is non-scientific it doesn't make ID/creationism scientific.

You started this thread to complain about bias that you perceive on this website. It was mentioned to you that moderators have had to step in because you drag things off topic. Guess what you are doing with this post? Dragging things off topic.There are plenty of threads open that deal with positive evidence for evolution. There are plenty of threads open that ask for evidence supporting creationism with little input from creationists. Pick one. No one is stopping you.

Threads with the evidence have been posted, and you have been asked to participate there. What is stopping you? Why won't you deal with this evidence in the appropriate threads?ABE: I am very familiar with the ERV evidence if you want to post there. I could help with any misunderstandings you may have as it pertains to endogenous retroviruses and how they evidence shared ancestry.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I will reiterate Percy's post:

• Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode I - endogenous retrovirus
  
• Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve: Part II
  
• AIG has an article up on the nylon-digesting bacteria
  
• Is the evidence concerning the Nylon bug being exaggerated
  
• Vestigial Organs?

I would be more than happy to answer your questions in the first selection. Will you be participating?

And this is why we can not have adult conversations with creationists.

There is no outrage whatsoever. I am simply trying to show you positive ways in which you can contribute to this site. If you don't want to participate in discussions on the evidence then just say so. If you think bad behavior on the part of others excuses your actions then perhaps you should rethink your approach to these forums.

Here they are again:

• Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode I - endogenous retrovirus
  
• Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve: Part II
  
• AIG has an article up on the nylon-digesting bacteria
  
• Is the evidence concerning the Nylon bug being exaggerated
  
• Vestigial Organs?

This is the second time I have posted them after Percy posted them. Any chance that you will participate in those threads?

So you admit that you shift the burden of proof when asked for evidence that supports ID?

Really? Let's take a look at what azpaul actually said:"The evidence does lead. The interpretations of evidence and thus the conclusions reached MUST reflect the reality presented by the evidence.
Science follows the evidence, interprets the results and draws conclusions."Nope, nothing at all about evolution. Nothing. AZPaul was talking about the difference in how scientists and creationists approach science in general and how it causes problems with moderation which is exactly on topic. Again, AZPaul was stating that scientists follow the evidence as a general rule. AZPaul did not mention evolution at all in the quote you used. We have already shown that creationist organizations, like AiG, do not follow the evidence. They start with the conclusion. This was done by citing their statement of faith. It is this approach which causes problems for creationists in science forums, which is what AZPaul was getting at.

We gave you multiple examples of evidence that we claim support the theory of evolution, and we even linked to the threads where you can discuss these topics with us. What is stopping you from participating in those threads?

We could discuss why NS does not require a single mutation in another thread if you promise to participate.

So you ask for evidence, but then turn around and refuse to discuss it. In my eyes, this is not an honest way to approach a discussion.

We could discuss all of this in another thread, or even in a one on one discussion if that would suit you better. You could even decide how the thread will be moderated, and by who (slevesque would be a good pick for you if he is willing to be moderator). Does this interest you at all?Edited by Admin, : Fix quoted text.