General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

There have been some recent complaints about evolutionists who jump all over Creationists who use the term "prove" while frequently using the term themselves. The problem occurs because Creationists are misusing the word. Here are a couple examples that make the misuse clear.It can be proven that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.This is a proper usage. It only means that substantial supporting evidence can be offered to support the assertion that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. In science, when someone says they can prove something, all they mean is that they can offer a lot of supporting evidence.It cannot be proven that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.This is improper usage, and this is the usage that usually gets Creationists in trouble. Informed persons are aware of the evidence for the antiquity of the dinosaurs (whether they accept the conclusions or not), so if the evolutionist believes he's talking to an informed person then he can only conclude that the Creationist must be trying to apply a mathematical definition of proof. Otherwise the statement that one can't prove the antiquity of the dinosaurs is self-evidently false.If the evolutionist believes the Creationist is unaware of the evidence for the dinosaurs then he probably wouldn't object to use of the word "proven", and he'd hopefully begin filling in the missing information.I hope this clarifies the use and misuse of the word "prove".

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I was speaking scientifically. This issue wouldn't arise in the science forums. But if you wanted to submit the question to objective scrutiny, then the usage is correct, but given what I know about the objective evidence supporting Christian theology the statement is likely wrong, and so in this case saying that it can't be proven would also be correct usage.My preference would be that people abandon use of the word prove because it is so open to misinterpretation, but after suggesting unsuccessfully for a couple years that people use "support with evidence" instead I gave up and surrendered to reality.If it helps, here's an example of correct usage while being wrong: Since the evidence is not yet sufficient to decide between WIMPS and MACHOS, it would therefore be correct usage to say: The only point I was making was that someone aware of the evidence should not be making statements that ignore it. If they don't believe the evidence warrants the conclusions they should say so and explain why.Whether or not my analysis is correct, saying "You can't prove it" has shown itself to be a good way to cause frustration and misunderstandings on both sides, and I wish people would avoid saying it. The process of science involves gathering replicatable evidence to the point of persuading a significant proportion of the relevant scientific audience. A lot of people think of this process as proving things, but science is tentative, so any finding, no matter how "proven", can be overturned, and it seems contradictory to most people that something proven could later be shown wrong. This is yet another reason for avoiding the word prove.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

In case there's any uncertainty, the person who posted Message 218 was *the* Dr. Robert T. Bakker. He registered using Bakker's well known email address, zorilla47@aol.com. The post is from a short section of his frequently given lecture titled Bones, Bibles and Creation. He posted just the one message.I could find only one other board where Bakker has posted, and it appears he used the same approach, posting cut-n-pastes of stuff he'd already written. Check out The Pope’s Velociraptor — and the KKK (I think I read this somewhere, but I can't think where).Also check out this cached page at Google from the same discussion board (don't know why the original page is gone now): Another Bakker Post. Bakker's message is about 2/3 the way down this long page, and it's in the same pre-written style. He appears only to do post-and-runs of pre-written material and not engage in dialog.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Experience has shown that almost everyone suspended for persistent violations of the Forum Guidelines actually believes the moderators are biased against their position. Experience has further shown that persuading these people otherwise is invariably unsuccessful, hence moderators usually waste very little time on this exercise.Your choices, as I see them, are:

• Abandon EvC Forum as a hopelessly biased venue.
  ​
• Take the criticism to heart and try to develop a more constructive approach to discussion. If you seem open to feedback moderators will be more forthcoming about what they see as the problems. If you only want to argue most moderators won't waste their time. We would be delighted to be proven wrong and find that you are not just the most recent in a long line of new members with an unalterable point of view and a chip on their shoulder, the Internet version of the angry young man.
  ​
• Continue as you are and accumulate longer and longer suspensions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you really believe the moderators here are biased and that you're being unfairly treated not because of your behavior but because of your views, then I think your only choice is to not grace us with your presence any more.But if you think your behavior may be playing role in the difficulty you're experiencing with moderators, then all you need do to make the difficulties go away is follow the Forum Guidelines and moderator requests. I'm not going to mention any specific problems I feel you may have in this regard, because to this point you have met all such feedback with argument.My own reading of the Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II thread lends some support to your view that you haven't been treated fairly, but only when taken in isolation. You've established a pattern of repeating your conclusions over and over again while ignoring rebuttals and becoming overly personal, and while you are doing extremely well in my opinion in the whale thread, the hint of your old pattern is still apparent in a fair number of your posts. You may be paying the price for old offenses.Let me say again that a rereading of the whale thread reveals someone who is arguing from the evidence, which is just what we want here. Keep it up and you'll do fine.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To everyone, though I'm responding to Faith:Roxrkool deserved to be suspended.He also deserves a POTM.Some points can't be made politely. Sometimes when you stand up and say what needs saying, there's a price to pay.I also think it would be worthwhile for Faith to try a stint as moderator.I also think that thread must be off topic if the title says it's about living like the Amish while the participants are arguing about paleolandscapes, but I don't usually moderate the non-science forums.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Despite how it might feel to you now, I still suggest you remain focused on producing tight reasoning centered on the evidence.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi FliesOnly,I can't believe that after all this time you still won't fess up about the crayon. Evidently all the early indications were there that you'd turn into a discussion board scoflaw. Stories of your crayon history preceded you here, and after you joined I was ready to jump on you at the first sign. More seriously (slightly), don't sweat it. Instead be proud, for you've joined the exclusive community of the formerly suspended, which includes me. Okay, so it isn't so exclusive. The point is, you're one of us now. Okay, seriously this time, sometimes innocent or relatively innocent people get caught up in things when they just happen to be standing in the wrong place. Sorry if it felt unfair, or if it felt like it cast you in a negative light. Everyone here knows that it's the quality of the contributions that count.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You're right, you're right, and there is a possibility these types of things might improve in the near future. No promises, but it could happen. It takes time and continuous familiarity to efficiently keep the pages updated, consistent and useful. The size of the site is a bit beyond what one person (this person, anyway) can effectively maintain at a high quality level on a continuous basis.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If true, then the evolutionist moderators must be casting a blind eye. We've had several Creationist moderators over time (Tranquility Base, True Creation, JazzLover), and not one has done a darn thing in the way of moderating. Most Creationists refuse offers to become moderators.One of my primary goals in setting up the site was achieving balance, and I thought having Creationist moderators was the answer. But we haven't been able to find any that have a moderator temperament, will actually accept the role, and then actually do anything.Adminnimooseus, EvC director emiritus, put a lot of time and effort into moderator recruitment, but we never managed to acquire that elusive Creationist moderator. It's not like we haven't tried and don't continue to try. I don't necessarily blame Creationists for this. This is a science site, but there isn't much that Creationists and evolutionists agree about concerning the nature of science, and I think that is a lot of the problem.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director