Faith's Participation in EvC

yes, and creationists are routinely banned from the science fora.but seriously, how CAN the discussion happen if they can't participate? yes, i know they disregard the precepts of science -- this is by definition. if they didn't, they'd just be agreeing with us. there simply is no scientifically motivated and accepted theory that involves an invisible man in the sky. i don't think faith is a troll. i post (occasionally) to t.o as well.

---

yes, but look at me. this is my sixth post IN A ROW in this particular thread, within the last half an hour or so. am i troll? or am i just addressing everybody who addresses me?on one hand, people jump on faith for not answering everything. on the other, people jump on her for posting too much. can faith win this game?

---

since iano agrees, i'm not sure i can.

ah randman, it always refreshes me to learn just how truly backwards you see everything. you have a knack for phrasing the argument exactly, but mixing up "us" and "them."one of the issues being discussed, in particular, is faith's dodging of certain points, only to bring them up again and pretend like there were never any questions raised. so, in other words, what you said, only wrt to faith, not everyone else. i think you have again mixed up the definitions of "science" and "religion." i have seen faith admit error here exactly once, and it suprised the hell out of me. she is one of the few creationists i have ever seen admit error. quite simply put, creationism assumes it has the TRUTH^tm on its side, and is motivated primarily religious belief that dare not be doubted. i continually get blasted by creationists for my willingness to doubt my faith. science, you see, is questioning. by definition. it proposes to test things. faith says, "don't test the lord your god," and scorns questioning. and it's not suprising that you have failed to read very much of this thread, where the vast majority of opinions voiced are "let faith stay" combined with the occasional "i can't believe we're even discussing this." i was the first in this public thread to voice my opinion that faith should stay, and that she has done nothing wrong. i have made my point before, for faith, for you, and for others. and i will continue to make it in the future.

---

i'm not going to engage in your off-topic antics, and your standard revisionist rants, but i will note this again, for the record: the contents of this thread disprove your point. the powerful and influential members -- moderators -- are quoted in op in vast majority for letting faith stay. one moderator, the owner of the board, voiced his opinion that faith should go. the word "opinion" is important here. he does not, evidently, have complete say, and must consult the other moderators. and even if he did not, his actions would evidently have been questioned by the other moderators who voiced such opinions, and probably a number of people publically. we have a an entire thread for that sort of thing.your little conspiracy doesn't work, and is simply shown by all the voices, including my own, arguing rather effectively for faith to stay. randman, i've argued for you to be allowed to stay -- a fact you have never acknowledged. faith at least has the good graces nowadays to say "thank you" when people argue on her behalf, instead of accusing them of bias and conspiracy.

---

he has the ultimate power, yes, as owner of the site. but in another regard, the site does not exist without its members, and i'm sure he'd hear a heck of a lot of complaints for banning a member who has essentially done nothing wrong. yes, i have found percy to be very open to discussion. i have seen him swayed a few times, in threads such as these. yes, agreed.

---