Summations Only

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Belated hide and off-topic banner. The forum was pretty much down last night, or I might have gotten here sooner.

Your comments were not deleted, they were hidden. You can still read them at Message 82 by clicking on "peek". I just read them again, they're still not on-topic. If you'd like to discuss the origin of and any subsequent changes to the modern synthesis then just cut-n-paste your message into a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

While a question concerning the modern synthesis might have been on topic (although it is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who's done any study of evolution) a rant accusing others of dishonesty just for using a term you don't know is not.Likewise your posting to the wrong topic to complain about moderation issues is simply a mistake on your part not a sign that the site is run unfairly.Finally - although there is more I could say - reserving the right to make insults and allegations of dishonesty etc. to people who's views you approve of is not even remotely fair. Yet that is what you appear to be asking for in the "name of fairness".I think we can all draw the conclusion that the primary problem in your interactions here is not the moderation.

This reply could come from Adminnemooseus, but I put on the full evolutionist hat and post it as Minnemooseus.The evolution side recognizes that the creation "science" side is armed with an empty gun. Still, the evo side demand is that they fire something other than blanks. Isn't that a variety of cogitative dissonance in itself?And we do have the problem of dogpiling the creationist, often by less than friendly evolutionists (evo-jerks). This is something that needs to be battled, and it's not an easy thing for moderators to sort through. So yet again I preach, "evo side, please bring up the friendly level".Dewise1 does many epic and devastating argument messages, but does he ever descend to being an evo-jerk? Very rarely if at all.My impression and recollection (being one of poor memory) is that Foreveryoung is a higher than average rationality creationist. He did some good discussions and I really do like the guy. Unfortunately, the combination of dogpiling and/or evo-jerks twice caused him to crack in an extreme manner. He needed a substantial suspension vacation for his own good.Even when civility is high, the evo to creo ratio means the creo is going to get pounded. A creo has to be damn durable (Buzsaw?) to take that pounding and still stick around.I think it should be an item of basic human decency here, but do we need the 11th forum rule of "Don't be a jerk"?Feel free to rearrange my sentences and paragraphs in better order. Or something like that.MooseABE - For reference, the existing "Dog piling" topic.Edited by Minnemooseus, : ABE.

Hi Minnemooseussee answer here Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs, cognitive dissonance and culture clashEnjoy

While it may be a problem, it is one that can be alleviated a little through the Great Debate forum. And it is not the main thing that the creationists see to be complaining about.Buz and Bolder-dash, for instance, both object to moderator actions taken against them, and want restrictions on evolutionists that would not apply to them - in the name of fairness.In short, the greater part of the problem is that creationists do not want a fair forum, or even one with an acceptable level of bias in their favour.

I think this characterization is wrong. Foreveryoung started good threads, but he did not follow up on them. His first blow up started when people refused to buy into his radical theory without some evidence.In fact, very few people participate in the physics discussions where Fy posted a good number of his threads. In a number of the threads he either stopped participating or when into loud profane rant mode in fairly short order. That does seem a bit silly, but aren't those the rules of the game here? In your opinion, what should the response to a creation science argument be in the science forums?

Except that the examples you've given really do seem to be off topic posts. We have had discussions about what constitutes the modern synthesis, so I doubt that you'd have had any problems generating discussion about that. But that point was pretty much irrelevant in the thread you raised it in. The Wright paper discussion was strictly about the evidence supporting the conclusion that mutations were random with respect to fitness. Yet your approach was to post questions out in left field. That is to thwart the discussion in the thread by directing it towards your own agenda. Completely bogus. If you challenge someone on doing that, and they don't pony up the evidence, that's a win. Those challenges work quite well on the typical creationist arguments I see on this board.But this would be a great thread for you to give a counter example. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Hi PaulKSee my reply to Moose re cultural clashes and cognitive dissonance. It seems to me that they - and other creationists - want a discourse environment similar to what they are used to in their culture, where there is less\little emphasis on empirical evidence and more emphasis on making what seem to be reasonable arguments, the "let us reason together" approach to reaching a decision.Going to a great debate doesn't resolve this culture clash.Enjoy.

RAZD, my assertion was that the Great Debate forum alleviated the problems of dogpiling and "jerk evolutionists". I did not claim that it solved or helped with any other problem.However I must disagree with you on the idea that creationist arguments proceed by reasoning. More typically they jump to conclusions based on a superficial - and often selective - view of the evidence, or argue from their own authority (which they expect to be accepted). Examples are not hard to find. What reasoning there is is best labelled a crude rationalisation.I would suggest that the major difference is that creationists take the apologetic mindset which starts with conclusions and has little regard for evidence, reasoning or understanding - and they often cannot understand why anyone would not be as heavily biased in favour of their beliefs as they are.

How many evolutionists on this site are suspended or restricted from posting in certain forums for supposedly being off-topic? I am pretty sure there are none.I know of at least 3 creationists who are-so I guess that is about 75% of all the creationists who post here currently. I think that kind of makes your theory about what they expect as fair treatment a little inaccurate.

Of course the alternative is that non-creationists either stick to the topic or obey instructions after being warned.So now you have two alternative explanations for your perceived issue; simply asserting that your hypothesis is correct isn't enough to persuade us - we need proper evidence. As all the evidence is available on this forum, you could fairly easily prove it one way or another if you put your mind to it. Then you'd understand how the scientific method works and how useful it is.[But be careful; you may not get the answer you want.]

Not quite.What happens is that we point out that if Creationists actually expect to achieve anything it might be smarter to load the gun with something other than blanks.No one demands that they fire more than blanks but Creationists might wish that the folk that support the FACT that evolution happened and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains what is seen were required to use blanks as well.

I discuss those definitions in the thread with reference to the actual data. Again, I urge you to participate in that thread.

Nobody gets suspended for being off topic. Although it is probably possible to get suspended for deliberately refusing admin direction for such, I don't know anyone who gets suspended this way.