99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

Actually I think it was predictable. Creationists don't do well when there is a level playing field - often because they tend to assume that they know more than they do and often only look at sources that share their beliefs and biases when they do any research at all.The recent debate on the talk.origins newsgroup between "Lilith" and "Nowhere Man" is a case in point.

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.

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).

You seem to be very confused. Hugh Ross is what is called an Old Earth Creationist. He accepts the scientific evidence that the universe and the Earth are old, and interprets the Bible on that basis. He still rejects evolution.

So what you are saying is that even though Hugh Ross rejects evolution and believes in creation - based on the Bible - he should still be called an evolutionist because he doesn't interpet the Bible in the same way you do ?Well I can only conclude that you have very little understanding of either Hugh Rosss' beliefs or of evolution. Which means that you are in no position to be sticking labels to him

While some of us (myself included) have no more or perhaps less formal education in biology than creationists I suspect that we still know a good deal more of the relevant facts than the majority of creationists.Who is going to understand science better - an armchair scientist or an armchair religious apologist ?

I think you have it the wrong way around. It is *creationists* who put themselves forward as Gods by insisting that THEY cannot be wrong.YOu are definitely putting a false label on Hugh Ross by calling him an "evolutionist". He isn't, and that's a fact. And while I think Hugh Ross's interpretation of the Bible is a bit strained it is no more so - and in fact less so than some of the interpretations I have seen.
(And you might want to read what 2 Peter says about a day and God).And sicne you know all about evolutionary theory you KNOW that the earth and the universe have been shown to be old by evidence outside of evolutionary theory - and it is THAT evidence that Hugh Ross accepts. So eihter you know nothing of what Hugh Ross beleives or you knowingly endorsed a falsehood.The administration of this site is not biaed, if bias was an issue then creationists leave because it is not biased in their favour. And if creationists are outnumbered it is because so many leave so quickly.

In general creationists are not even armchair scientists. They pay little attention to even popular level science (in contrast I have two undergraduate level texts on evolution and a number of popular works).So let's rephrase that to make my menaing clear. Who is going to understnad science better someone like myself who reads about science and even a little of the philosphy of science or someone who sticks to reading religious apologetics ?

So basiacally you are saying that creationists are paranoid ? I would have no problem subscribing to a creationist-run forum if I could see that it was run fairly. Finding one that is, however, is difficult.

So, you don't even know why Hugh Ross concludes the Earth and the Universe are older than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible allows ? Didn't you know that he is an astronomer ? Doesn't that suggest which evidence he is most familiar with ?So where does evolution come into astronomy (and please don't try to confuse "stellar evolution" with biological evolution - they aren't the same thing at all).

Then perhaps you should use the "reply" button at the bottom of the post you are replying to. It is very helpful in keeping track of the thread of conversation. You might have noticed that most of the posts here have links to and from the messages they reply to - but yours do not.

It comes from the fact that these people largely agree with the mainstream scientific view, and only those indoctrinated into a religion like Buz's agree with him. The obvious explanation that the evidence is in line with the scientific view, and against Buz's beliefs is absolutely unacceptable. And so it is necessary to make up excuses.

You started this thread on the 6th August.The retirement of the Creationist moderators was announced - and took effect on the 18th.http://EvC Forum: Moderators and Administrators -->EvC Forum: Moderators and AdministratorsMoreover you know this, because you replied to the thread.