Conservapedia declares victory over EvC Forum

So do high rates of traffic at porn sites mean creationists surf there in droves?Yes.Percy should propose a written debate, posted prominently on both sites, unedited and uncensored, to remain in perpetuity...Just to see how they run.Creationists come to EvC, have their heads handed to them, and leave: if traffic is down due to a lack of creationists, that's because creationism can offer no champion worthy of the name. In general, creationists who do come here for debate lose the debate, then flounce back to their porn sites (actual or intellectual), or try to provoke suspension--"I didn't lose, I was thrown out." But I can't recall large numbers of suspended creationists.Alternatively, those folks could give me unfettered posting privileges at their site.I'll be their huckleberry.

Wow! It seems that not only are they aware of EvC Forum, they're monitoring us! I'm flattered!If I were a verbal type person I wouldn't be managing a discussion board. If you're a fan of garbled syntax, if you thought Bush (either one) was a great orator, if you like words like "uh" and "um", then I'm your man!If they'd like to participate in written debate they're welcome to come here. They can even think of it as a way to prove their claim that creationists who win debates here are banned.--Percy

Geez, that's nothin'.
On a daily basis I declare victory over everything, everyone and every idea. Usually before breakfast.........Yup.
Sorry about the extra space in this post, had to make room for my massive e-peen. Let's call a spade a spade, sometime's it's just plain hard to walk with this thing.

I see that your reading this page, so here's my reply to your reply to it. I've been here a long time. I've never once seen a creationist banned for winning a debate. I've never seen a creationist win a debate about evolution.The only time I've seen a creationist banned is because they wouldn't follow the rules they agreed to upon registering. No, they don't. It doesn't even matter if its a topic on evolution or even the Bible, creationists hardly ever win any debates. Creationists are more than welcome to join and debate and nobody here is afraid of them.And no, they won't get banned as long as they follow the rules. A live oral debate is the worst way to do it. All that allows for is the Gish Gallop, showmanship, overtalking, gainsaying, etc.Written debate is by far the best option here. We've already had a thread about your 15 questions. They're complete nonsense. They illuminate the ignorance of the creationist position more than they say anything about evolution. You guys should register here and have your own thread. Its a win-win senario. If you win the debte then hurray, if you get banned then you prove your point. I mean, you're the ones who think its so easy to win. Put up or shut up.But, we all know you're not going to do it because your just projecting when you call us timid bunnies. Its you guys who are the ones who are scared.That's why you're hiding behind your own website rather than joining here.

Hi Conservapedia,In case some of you are interested in debate here, we're always looking for creationist moderators, and if anyone there is interested and has a discussion board history (just so we can be sure it's someone with a moderator temperament), then your own moderator could help out in the Conservapedia debate threads.Give the Forum Guidelines a read, then give the Moderator Guidelines a read, too.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Wow if we're truly lucky the esteemable Ken DeMyer will once again grace us with his presence and show us once and for all just who's boss.Too bad that back in the day he just couldn't live with the fact that I, a lowly woman, had the task of moderating him.

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.

Well, if it's really Ken then he hasn't been here since 2004. His account is set to inactive, but of course that's under the member's control. If he wants to make his account active again he need only visit his profile page.--Percy

Oh I don't know that it's Ken. I just know, at one time at least, he was a self-esteemed editor and contributor at conservapedia.I've been walking down memory lane with the Jonah and the whale - It happened! thread along with all of Ken's other wonderful contributions here.I'm probably showing my masochistic side when I say I miss Ken and WT around here

I also found this bit interesting: That tone is not at all like that of someone interested in science, but more in winning the culture war.

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.

You know that this part of your statement can and will be terribly abused, right?

I was just sent a PM pointing out that I misinterpreted the origin of the comments about EvC Forum. It looks like they were originally posted at the Question Evolution Campaign Blog, then reposted in part over at Conservapedia.Anyway, the debate offer still stands. We're always on the lookout for qualified creationists to fill a moderator role here.--Percy

As a member (albeit not one that has very good standing here, but I digress) I would suggest against bringing some brand new face in as a moderator. It would be far better for someone to come in and be a part of the community for a bit as opposed to coming in straight to moderator role. IMO, they would, in a sense, earn their respect instead of just requesting it be handed to them.Just my $0.02.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

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.