99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

For all those wondering...... I just contacted Dr. Hovind by email and gave him the details of the site and asked him to come here and become a member and help us creationists because our numbers are so few. Hopefully he will be able to join, I also asked him about the information that was said about the college he went to and if he had a false degree etc. Hopefully this will work out. He also has a toll-free number I may call. I will fill everyone in when he emails me back or when I call.
reply with your comments,
Chris------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis

I wish you nothing but the best of luck with your attempt, but I fear you are doomed to disappointment. To my knowledge, the only two creation scientists who regularly participate in on-line discussion forums are William Dembski (ARN) and possibly Jonathan Sarfati (TheologyWeb). I have heard of no case where one of the luminaries has appeared on a "hostile" or even neutral forum. Generally, I think the response you will receive - with some justification, I think - (if you get one at all) is that they are too busy to be bothered. After all, these folks make their living doing this. Why should they waste their time for free?It's unfortunate that creationists tend to be swamped on evcforum fairly quickly after appearing. Look at this thread as an example. However, it is the nature of on-line fora, and Percy's activity or inactivity would probably have little impact on the content or participants here. Truth is, this forum is substantially MORE even-handed than most of the ilk you'll find on the web. A hint if you're interested in long participation here: you'll find that the majority of evos respond almost exactly in the fashion in which you approach them. Come on strong or "preachy", you'll get slammed. Come on with bald assertions, you'll see demands for supporting evidence. Come on with a reasoned argument, you'll get reasoned discussion. Mostly, anyhow.Just some thoughts.

Part of the problem for you, messenjaH, is that the predominance of evolutionists vis a vis creationists on this board is a reflection of the overwhelming support which evolution has in the better educated English-speaking world compared with religious dogma such as creationism.

The judges rejected all but one minor point in "Nowhere Man"'s appeals.The only responses since then were a request for more time (over a month ago now) and - although some people have suggested it is a forgery - a whining complaint when it was suggested that a deadline a further two months in the future should be set. That's three months, plus the time waiting for the judge's appeal in a debate where the rules said that there was a one-week deadline.
It seems as if his tactic is to drag out the delay indefintiely to avoid admitting defeat.Rulings are here:
Link 1Request for more time:
Link 2Most recent posting :
Link 3{Shortened display form of some VERY long URL's. - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-07-2003]

I think that it would be an exaggeration to say that Dembski participates significantly at ARN. He posts the occasional essay but generally does not participate much in the discussion - even the idscussion of the essays he himself has posted to ARN.

Aa per what the Q said, it's probably not going to happen.If it were to happen, the moderation problems would probably be mind boggling. Once the word got out, it would seem like we had ever evolutionist on the internet here, taking their shot at good old Kent.Moose

Hugh Ross isn't a creationist ? Are you sure ? Would you like to explain why you say that ?(And I would add that even if a genuinely neutral person were found to control the site it would change nothing. The moderation here is very even-handed. The "problem" is that it doesn't permit creationists to use abuse or mere assertion and has other rules creationists find annoying - such as the ban on plagiarism).

Yeah, "reguarly participates" was probably an overstatement. Also, the equation Socrates = Sarfati on Theology web is an unproven albeit probably valid assumption. However, the main point remains: the creationist luminaries are conspicuously absent on even "friendly" websites. I find it highly unlikely that one would deign to beard the lion in its own den, as it were.Still, it would be interesting, n'est-ce pas?

Maybe. But I bet we could structure a discussion as a limited-participation exercise. That might cut down on the cheapshots and random drive-by "you're an idiot" posts. Pretty moot, tho', I agree.

Mike, Why then have you failed to win any evidentially based argument?What is unimpressive about clado/phylogenetic analyses being congruent to the tune of trillions to one plus of it occurring by chance, that you find particularly unimpressive?What is it about corroborative radiometric dates that come up with 70,000,000 : 1 of the results occurring by chance, of dating JUST the tektites of the K-T boundary, that you find particularly unimpressive?Of course, you won't respond to the above, you, like other creationists wear evidence sensitive sunglasses. A simple logic free dismissal, or simply ignoring the data is enough. No wonder why you aren't impressed with the evidence. You've simply never honestly addressed it. But when you have made an assertion (sans evidence, of course), you get shot down.Prove me wrong, tell me why the four different methods corroborate against v-a-s-t odds of it occuring by chance, show me you can critically address evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Can't the Admins set that up, a thread with only a few people able to post on it?

You mean like the IIDB Formal Debates threads? I don't know whether the software on this site has the kind of lock-out features theirs does. Even so, there should be a way to insure heavy moderation (i.e., delete all posts from non-participants). You'd just have to make sure you had all time zones covered, like one Aussie and one damnyankee from the US Eastern seaboard. It'd be worth the effort to get someone like that on this board.

Wounded,I think this was one of Percies ambitions, to set up a debate between two people, rather than loads of us tipping up. There could always be a parallel thread where everyone could post.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I thought Buddika and TrueCreation had a one on one debate in the Great Debate forum?In any case, the forum rules are the same as before but previously there were many more creationists posting. It is hard to imagine that suddenly all creationists would chaffe at having to follow the forum guidelines. Bannings are few and far between...attempts have been made to get creationists to moderate...what's the fuss? Look at Terry Trainor's site where he just bans anyone with an opposing view.If creationists are lurking and not debating that is their decision. If they are upset because many of us do not accept statements "like the evidence for god, ID, the tooth fairy are self evident" then the burden is on them to come up with a better argument and debate. Most of us are here ready and willing to debate anyone who comes onto the forum whether it be creationists, IDists, or whatever.The concept of a one on one portion of the forum could be interesting but don't such things already exist on the net? And why go to a debate forum only to lurk?

Hehehe. Probably not the most famous debate in the history of the Great Debate, however. Budikka ultimately got suspended and TC became a moderator. Hmmm, wonder what THAT says about Percy's even-handedness...