Creationist Admins

EvC Forum is always seeking Creationist moderators who will be productive and active. So far, no Creationist moderator has done a single thing.Tranquility Base was the first Creationist moderator. Other than replies to the congratulations for being appointed moderator, he never used his moderator account once, 3 posts total.TrueCreation posted occasionally as a moderator, but for the most part was not a presence, 17 posts total.That's all I can remember, but that doesn't mean there weren't others. Adminnemooseus is in charge of the moderator core and can probably provide more details.To be an effective moderator of a debate you have to have a good idea of what a debate is. A debate at EvC Forum as structured by the Forum Guidelines is *not* what Kendemyer, WillowTree, Whatever, Robert Byers and John Davison are doing. That's why they're in [forum=-28].EvC Forum's original goal, and still its goal, was to provide a forum where Creationists and evolutionists could productively explore their differences. To that end, evasive tactics are not permitted. Period.Kendemyer and John Davison are in [forum=-28] because they'd rather rail at the people who work so hard to make EvC Forum the success it is today. They'd rather make broad unsupported assertions and avoid actually discussing them. Dissent or disagreement is met with evasion and ridicule rather than dispassionate discussion. They'll stay in [forum=-28] until they break the habit or go away.Robert Byers, polite and earnest, is in [forum=-28] because through hundreds of posts he couldn't be brought to an understanding of the difference between assertion and evidence. For example, in Message 223 he says, "You say Toe has great evidence. We say they do not. Next step I insist is yours." This after many posts containing evidence that instead of considering and then explaining why he was rejecting it, he would just post another message saying evolution has no evidence. He could never move beyond his initial assertion, and though sincere could somehow never bring himself to respond to the substance of other people's rebuttals.WillowTree is here because, for whatever reason, he can't support any of his assertions, refuses to do so, and reasons that we're against him because of an atheist conspiracy. I've probably posted about 10 messages to WillowTree at different times explaining that I an definitely *not* an atheist, but I finally gave up. Davidjay may follow WillowTree to [forum=-28] soon - he is as reluctant to provide support of his pyramidology claims as WillowTree.The science forums are rough sledding for Creationists because EvC Forum wants the science forums to consist of well-reasoned discussions, not nonsense. To take a recent example, in So what about SILT and dating????, Techristian's opening post asserts that there are no silt deposits at river deltas older than 4500 years. He was rebutted with references to Dalrymple's book (with an offer to post images of the relevant pages listing all the studies of silt layers much older than 4500 years if he expressed an interest) and with a few facts. At least he was honest in stating he heard it on the radio, but rather than replying to the rebuttals he attempted to change the subject to other things he'd heard on the same radio station. He hasn't responded to the replies expressing a desire to stay on topic. And so another science thread goes dead. I suspect Techristian knew continuing was pointless, since changing the subject didn't work, and ignoring rebuttals is getting people sent to [forum=-28], so what alternative did he have but to go silent?If Creationists had anything to offer other than nonsense then the science forums would be more active. But when your position is without evidential support, and when the Forum Guidelines require you to support your positions with evidence, then Creationists have no choice but to sit out.I don't think the evangelical community is ever going to wake up to the fact that Creationism, in whatever form it takes at any particular time, whether it's flood geology or intelligent design or whatever, is just a collection of concocted assertions with no evidence. There is something very rotten in the Denmark of Creationism, and why evangelicals can't smell the stink is beyond me. I understand and as a fellow believer in God am extremely sympathetic to the concerns of this community about issues of faith, but it was only men who wrote the Bible. God created this universe and we have to take it as we find it.--Percy

Hi Jason aka RisenLord aka Rusty Shackleford aka Sirpimpsalot aka who knows who else,As we disable yet another of your accounts, have you considered the bad example of Christianity that you set for others by continually violating the Forum Guidelines that you agree to follow each time you rejoin?I am yet again absolutely incredulous at the behavior of Creationists. Christianity is not communism. The ends do not justify the means. If you succeed in removing evolution from public schools through subterfuge and underhanded shennanigans then you betray the very traditions you're striving to uphold. If evolution is bad science then demonstrate it scientifically. And if you think evolution is bad theology, then I can only say it it was never intended theologically, anyway.--Percy

You can probably go to any number of Creationist websites and find complaints about how modern textbooks misrepresent the evidence for evolution. Jesus Freak takes precisely this approach in the The lies behind the Miller experiment thread, arguing that his text book presents the Miller/Urey experiment as evidence for evolution. The thread is now over 80 messages long, and despite repeated requests that Jason post what his textbook says he never did so. Similar claims of textbook misrepresentation are a constant theme, yet the evidence is always thin to non-existent. When it comes time to actually quoting misrepresentation, Creationists can't come up with any substance.The only evidence posted came from an evolutionist: me. I finally posted the page on the Miller/Urey experiment from my son's biology book at Message 86. His book doesn't say that the Miller/Urey experiment is evidence of evolution. It only talks about the origin of the chemicals of life. It doesn't even associate the experiment with abiogenesis, which isn't mentioned until the next subsection.Now, Jesus Freak's text book is an earth science book, not a biology book. And though we found it at the publisher's website, it only contains chapter summaries, not the text itself, and the summary does not mention the Miller/Urey experiment. So if Jesus Freak would like to support his assertion, all he need do is type in the quotation, or scan in the page from his textbook and post it. If he has no web resource to do this, he can email it to me and I will post it for him. If his textbook misrepresents the Miller/Urey experiment I will be delighted to critically and in great detail slice and dice the section to pieces for his enjoyment, and will gladly join him in excoriating the textbook publishers who could so badly misrepresent science.But my suspicion is that Jesus Freak is merely repeating what he read at Creationist websites, and that his earth science book does not make the misrepresentations he claims, he just added that comment for effect.And that is what is so stunning about this, because we have this consistent pattern of behavior involving supposedly devout Christians who happen to be Biblical literalists. They apparently have no problem going against their religious principles by uttering untruths or engaging in underhanded behavior or in simply behaving badly when it comes to supporting their religious beliefs. You could cut the irony with a knife, and one would expect the behavior would be rare, but it is a pattern repeated here on nearly a weekly basis.If evolution is false it will only be demonstrated by honorable means that stand up to objective scrutiny. If you don't have a textbook that misrepresents evolution, then don't say that you do. It's very simple, we learned it all in kindergarten: tell the truth and be nice to people.--Percy

Ah, yes, this is a familiar situation, the burden of the reasonable. You didn't reference the specific thread, but I'm guessing AdminHambre is responding to the person he thinks most likely to be capable of being rational and following requests. In other words, it's a compliment. My family compliments me like this all the time, "You're so good at doing the dishes, why don't you do it again tonight?" I can just feel the love and appreciation!Not trying to be flip, hope the point comes across. I think you're broadly appreciated here. And don't think you're alone if you feel like you're getting heat from moderators. If there's an evolutionist Moose would most like to put in Boot Camp it might be me, because I'm as bad as the worst of us at staying on topic at times. Sometimes I feel like he just clicks on the Percy link to see which topics are going adrift! Is this on topic? Gotta go! --Percy