Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

Why should religion get a free pass for stupidity? How would you respond to someone who spouted nonsensical statements about everything and they were a Neo-Nazi or truly believed in Zeus? Why should xtianity or islam or any major religion of today get a free pass? You lot have convinced YOURSELVES of it's legitimacy, not us.The fact that they happen to be a creationist does not, and should not, give them a free pass to be a complete moron and say stupid things about everything.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This is what I am talking about Percy. I could care less about admin or moderator bias. provide the line where I have complained about it or concerned myself with it.I know it concerns Bolder-dash and that is his right and he does have a point.Now misrepresentation of my position is another story. That is a constant problemI would be more interested in someone pointing out some of the suggested ignorance in any of my points. That never seems to happenPlease by all means make me "aware" of said ignorance.It is interesting that if someone disagrees, continues to disagree and refuses to agree with you on these issues that they are necessarily ignorant and unaware.isnt it interesting that you and the other fellas could not even remotely be wrong on such matters? why is that never a possibility?Dawn Bertot

Just to correct the record - I don't want to be thought of as any more qualified than I am - I'm about 95% through a BS in biochemistry, which I expect to complete in the fall.

Panzy writes:You cut me like a knife Panda, you cut me deep. Do you realize at this very moment I am crying because I thought you and I had a close relationship. And after all those star lit nights and candle light dinnersSo you lied to me eh, when you said I meant the world to youI wish you could see my tears at this very momentOh by the way. Such examples as you have provided for me are a rare occurance, unlike yourself, in which they appear in nearly ever post on your behalf.Perhaps that is what GDR is speaking aboutDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I guess, but what could possibly be the basis for this conclusion? You've opened plenty of threads where you challenged us to explain how evolution could evolve this or that, and we've done so in every case. Rather than respond in those threads you've simply tried to change the subject to the next thing you think evolution can't explain, as though all that's necessary for evolution to be disproven is for you not to understand it.All those threads are still open, Bolder, any time you want to get back into them. The only obstacle to the fair hearing of your arguments is that you won't present them. We have a theory based on more evidence than for any other scientific theory, any verdict of any courtroom, or any medical diagnosis, and that's a fact, not a boast. We've even done you the favor of trying to show you some of it and you just spat it back in your face.Oh, well. Naturally, your concern is that if you actually learned any evolution it would be much harder for you to attack it. Perfectly reasonable, since the evidence is overwhelming and convincing.

I don't think it should automatically be assumed that because creationists don't usually support each other in these debates, it means they are unable to. I have often watched other creationists do battle with a half dozen or a dozen opponents, and don't join because I think they're doing just fine without me. And there is an intimidation factor in getting involved - two creationists against a group can give the group still another way to distort and side-track the discussion, by ridiculing that pairing alone, or teeing off on some minor thing the two creationists disagree on. Creationist number 1 may actually not appreciate the help, creationists are often confident enough in themselves to work alone. As far as your comparison to myself and Intellen; we don't necessarily have different beliefs, but we may have different ideas about how they should be applied politically. I believe that God the Father is the intelligent designer (Jesus Christ? - close enough) but I think the scientific discipline of Intelligent Design can be explored without getting near that belief. The same way that evolutionists believe that evolution can be explored without their personal atheist beliefs being involved.

Now to be completely honest with yourself Percy, you must admit that there is a glaring inconsistency in the amount of toleration you allow your cohorts and that you disallow for the opposition.That doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that discriminationIs there a criteria for the rating system. Im not looking for a higher grade, but was just wondering?Dawn Bertot

Exactly right, and then (I've recently been accused of) Gish Gallop as a debating method;

quote:

---

Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly.

---

The height of irony, don't you think?

Marc, I've continually reminded you that you're free to ask that replies to you be limited to whatever participants you like, and you can go so far as to request a Great Debate thread with any participant or participants of your choice, where others than those you nominate are specifically enjoined from responding to you.Indeed several weeks ago I directly asked you which participants you would choose for such a debate, and you have yet to respond. You've been repeatedly reminded about the enormous latitude you have to prevent the "piling on", but here you are again, complaining about it.Is there some reason you detest "piling on" so much, but you refuse to avail yourself of any of the options that would eliminate the problem? Can you explain this inconsistent behavior?

Oh, so "piling on" isn't actually a problem, then, is it?

Yes I read it and have read it previously. I have no problem with it.It is a point of view that a creationist would probably disagree with. I just think that instead of using the term "lousy theology" there is likely a more nuanced way of putting it if you want a productive dicussion.

Hi TazGood post and I get your point. I have known a number of creationists through the years and although they are likely to dismiss evolution based on what I believe is there erroneous view of scripture but I have known any of them that are opposed to, or wouldn't in fact applaud the type of work you are doing. (For the record I'm envious. )Incidentally, and admin forgive me for going off topic, but everything that I have read about early science indicates that it was Christians like Newton who were at the forefront. I don't think that it is fair to assume that fundamentalist Christians would control and discourage science as a few of the Arab nations do. There are a few issues that there are moral disagreements on but that is a very small part of the overall field of science.

First off I'm not a creationist, at least in the way that it is used on this forum. I'm not suggesting that they get a free pass. I'm only suggesting that they be treated with a degree of respect.

So, you decide to prove my implication correct by submitting a post that is nothing but ad hominems.
It appears that your god makes no requirements of his believers to be honest or polite.I think one less person believes in god each time you post.
Thank you. p.s.
"Oh by the way. Such examples as you have provided for me are a rare occurance"
So, you decide to lie. What a surprise.
I searched 30 posts and found 15 insults. I then picked the worst.
You seem to like lying for god.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Only if you equate a lot of people telling the truth about a single topic with a single person telling lies about a lot of topics.And apparently you are confused enough to do so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.