Conservapedia declares victory over EvC Forum

This is a link that is on the front page of conservapedia at the moment.Question Evolution!I personally think it is funny that they measure success by how boring it gets when creationists don't show up to defend themselves.Edited by Admin, : Fix title.

I don't pay too much attention but I don't think the ban was recent. It must be someone from the past. Faith?What weird is that it seems like all most people have to do to be let back in is ask.

I have no idea. I wouldn't trust my comments to be left up on there anyway.

Thats hilarious. These guys are constantly harping their case that evolution is in its death throws and the creationism is storming the world.Their time horizons are all screwed up though. If you look at ~50 years then yea, MODERN creationism has probably increased dramatically but what is it really replacing. For the most part it is replacing other forms of creationism or other mythologies or just non-caring.Compared to the category of all-other-bullshit over the past few hundred years, the acceptance of real scientific cosmology, geology, and biology continues its steady boring march forward (at least so it seems).Also, I notice that they emphasize oral debate REALLY hard. They know what they are doing. They know that they can't hold down a slow and deliberate written debate. These guys are scammers who want the chance to play a crowd to win points.

Your right. They did loose a lot of debates. Until they got smart and realized that oral debate is a TERRIBLE format for engaging liars and swindlers.It takes less than 30 seconds to make a bad claim such as "evolution is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics!" But it takes upwards of 10 minutes to refute that claim despite the fact that it is a trivial claim.Similarly, those same liars and "culture warriors" refuse time and again to engage in written debate where it is much easier to destroy their arguments. Its also much easier to distribute a written debate and have it be the focus of intense criticism over a longer period of time.Why are these guys insisting on an oral debate? Because they know the deal. They know that the will loose otherwise. And it makes it all the more apparent that they are charlatans just looking for mechanism by which they can continue to ply their deception.

But its true, and widely accepted among those on the side of science and for exactly the reasons I mentioned.In general, oral debates are a TERRIBLE way to engage crackpots of all flavors on issues of fact. There is an entire debate phenomenon that the creationists brought into modern parlence called the "Gish Gallop" by where they simply machine gun fire small bits of criticisms where each one would require a substantial amount of time for the defenders of science to adequatly respond to. It leaves the impression that there is this whole pile of things that the science side can't answer when in reality there just isn't enough time to do it justice. You just simply cannot bring an entire audience up to speed on the foundations of biology in a half an hour.But in a written debate time is replaced by space and space is unlimited. When you read the few written debates that creationists have been stupid enough to try they get absolutly crushed. I have not read a single one where I thought that the creationists had the upper hand. But I have seen many oral debates that have gone very bad for the side of science. It is hard, nealy impossible, to have a short oral debate about facts with people who believe in magic.On the other side, I have seen very good philosophical debates (e.g. religion versus atheism), especially with someone like Christopher Hitchens at the helm.