Conservapedia declares victory over EvC Forum

Here is response to poster questioning claims about banned creationists at EVC

quote:

---

You also wrote:

​

"Can you supply the name of even one creationist who was banned without good cause?

​

Can you supply the names of 5 creationists who have been banned from EvC in the past year for any reason?"

​

My response: Please see point #6 in my response to you which asks: Why should I spend time wrangle with an unreasonable evolutionists about EvC Forum which is now an obscure forum and heading for total obscurity - especially since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.

​

In addition, there is the issue of the dubious behavior of evolutionists in history. For example, see: http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm

---

Seriously, if a question can be dismissed in this fashion, then what would be the point of even asking a debate question. A question about something stated as fact on the site is dismissible simply by referring to Haeckle. Really?This is my last post on the matter. I think George Bernard Shaw said something appropriate for the occasion. "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it."

Yeah, EvC is just important enough for the loon to make two blog posts about it, but not quite important enough for him to substantiate anything he says. How convenient for him.

Here's a list of recent suspensions using the last three pages of data from the Suspensions and Bannings Part III thread, ignoring spammers: There are 9 creationist suspensions and 17 evolutionist suspensions, and it was only that close because of ForEverYoung, a prolific repeat offender who was eventually indefinitely suspended, though he was later reinstated (and now says that EvC Forum is the most unbiased site he's ever encountered on the Internet - just kidding ).AbE: I forgot the other reason we'll never see this posted over at the Question Evolution Campaign Blog - they don't have table codes! Aw, poor Question Evolution Campaign Blog.--PercyAbE_2: It was pointed out that Artemis Entreri was not a creationist, so I have corrected the above.Edited by Percy, : AbE.Edited by Percy, : AbE_2.

But these are mere facts, and as such are inferior to things creationists have made up.P.S: checking your figures, I think you must be counting Artemis as a creationist. I don't think he was. A theist, yes; a creationist ... not to my knowledge.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Not sure if one should continue to pay attention to this, but here it is anyway:Question Evolution!It seems they have not picked up on the suggestion to make it a written debate.

Question Evolution! - Not sure what he has to complain about. He posted here twice and is not suspended or banned.

It's also currently linked to at the top of the "In the News" at Conservapedia.Maybe they'd do a written debate at EvolutionFairytales. That forum is under absolute YEC control, and Percy is still a member in good standing there. Percy and Fred Williams also seem to get along well.A debate there could somehow also be preserved at evcforum.net.Moose

My 4 week hiatus is not listed there. That should bode VERY well for *our camp, yes?*I refuse to refer to myself as an "evolutionist".

It also seems to me that at Fairytales they are actually more susceptible to reasoning than the person(s) running this QuestionEvolution blog. That would be wise. They do not shy away from heavy "moderating" at Fairytales if things do not go their way.

I just spent about 30 minutes reading some threads on EvolutionFairyTale, and I found it very depressing. For example, an evolutionist named Isabella listed a bunch of misconceptions about evolution, and explained what the actual Theory of Evolution states.About three pages in, out of the blue, a member of the administration team gave her this warning.Basically, she was apparently expected to preface each statement with "according to evolution..." or "evolutionists believe...", even though it was obvious from the context that she was presenting the evolutionary viewpoint, not arguing that the viewpoint was correct.When there are moderators who behave like this, and yet people can still criticize Percy of unfair moderation policies, I get so depressed.

I think calling Artemis a Creationist is a bit of a stretch, if not completely wrong. I don't recall him professing any great knowledge of evolution, and he spent more time expressing superiority to fundamentalist, liberals and Protestants than discussing evolution.

Obviously there's a fair amount of trying to "play the refs" whenever you have refs.But unfortunately the exact type of moderation you've observed at EFT is not unknown around here.

I did classify Artemis Entreri as a creationist, but my recollection was that his views weren't neatly classifiable. But I didn't think he was an evolutionist, so I called him a creationist. Would you say that's too misleading? He certainly seemed to have his biggest disagreements with evolutionists.Moose chided me via PM for often not recording my moderator actions, and he's right, but Moose would often post a note for me. But it would be accurate to state that the Suspensions and Bannings Part III is not a complete record. It's on my list to keep an automated record of moderator actions.--Percy

Wow! He sure seems to have an ax to grind, combined with overwhelming urges to climb into the gutter and an inability to recognize dry self-deprecating humor.--Percy

He said he was Catholic. Ergo, evolutionist.