quote: Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
quote: The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
It has been proven time after time after time and only your utter dishonesty and willful ignorance prevents your acknowledgement of the facts.
But you have said over and over that the bible supersedes any evidence that contradicts it. All of your claims are based on that one idea.
That belief prevents you from accepting any evidence that we present that goes against your a priori beliefs.
So you don't have to appeal to the bible in this thread as you have told us again and again where you are coming from.
That makes it pretty much a waste of time for us to present evidence to you, doesn't it?
Now, I can't help but feel that "We've already told you, you just refuse to listen" is flatly at odds with the idea of how debate is supposed to happen on this site; and yet that amounts for almost everything that's written.
Creationists, due to the fact that there are so few of them and their basic points are inherently flawed, deserve a bit of tolerance on the moderation front, otherwise a site like this cannot exist. Evolutionists have the advantage of numbers and reality, and so should be held to stricter standards (by which I simply mean the standards in the rules).
A post which introduces no new evidence and no new arguments; and accuses someone of lying, often in almost identical words as used many times before, is in clear and flagrant violation of the site's rules. There are very few rules, if these are not enforced, why are there any?
It strikes me that Faith has a fundamental misunderstanding of geology which I've been trying to get my head around. But no one seems interested in understanding what she misunderstands. It's just
Once again you are simply lying Faith and showing your utter ignorance.
over and over again.
My two cents.
ABE: 'no one seems interested' is unfair. 'Most do not seem interested' would have been better.
Second, each word in Faith's disallowed word list was added when it was directed in a derogatory fashion at someone personally (or sometimes at everyone at EvC) and was not an expression of political opinion
f it doesn't really maintain its intended effect then it seems like we're just trying to create an inconvenience for that poster -- in which case its design is to be punitive and not necessarily designed to be corrective.
Although the inconvenience falls primarily on everyone else, since they're the ones who have to click on the peek button every time they want to make sense of one of Faith's posts. And it is most of them now, since regular expressions have denied her access to huge swathes of the dictionary unconnected with her supposed offences.