News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Hi Russ T

I’ve read the bible, all of it, twice, so I know that the character, god, is painted as being angry in a very petulant human kind of way and loving and capricious and generous and illogical and tyrannical and so many other human like emotions that must, logically, mostly be beyond an all powerful, all knowing being. I may choose to focus on one illogical part of the book at times, don’t mistake that for ignorance of the rest it’s just easiest to discuss one point at a time. The trouble with the bible is that it contradicts itself so often that you have little choice.

You completely missed the fact that being angry at someone can be a subconscious act. The fact that you missed this point is strong evidence that you are subject to the same.

What makes you think I missed that? Sure it’s possible to be subconsciously angry at someone but only at someone you believe exists even if only subconsciously. I’ve never met an atheist, and I know quite a few, who still believes in god subconsciously. Maybe they exist but I’ve never seen any evidence for it.

When you are asked to put some kind of a tattoo on your hand that enables you to conduct commerce, remember this conversation.

LOL yes I’ve heard that one before and read the bible passages that it’s based on. So you actually believe it Russ T? Amazing!

In Reason

Russell

There is a difference between reading and understanding, just as there is a difference between reading and studying.

Nevertheless, let me test your integrity by asking you this:

Why was God angry in part of the Bible and loving in the other parts?

How is this a question that tests integrity?

I don't know why He was portrayed as angry. Perhaps His actions were interpreted as the actions of an angry being? Just like the misinterpretation that death is evil. God uses it so it cannot be evil since He cannot do evil.

Since God knows everything both past and future, how can He be angry at the actions of mere humans for doing what He knew they were going to do? Wouldn't that make Him angry all the time since He knows off all our disobediences already?

I agree with Linear. ?????????????????

It is a test to see if he understands what he claims to.



He was angry to demonstrate our imperfections. Paul said that these things happened for our instruction (paraphrase).

This demonstration was used to further demonstrate the great work of mercy that He would have on us.

The old testament was performed (including God's anger) to demonstrate the effect of the law, which was used to show us that we are flawed (rebellious).

Once we realize that we have a problem, God provides the perfect Solution.



No, I believe He means exactly what He says. He was, indeed, angry. He allowed Himself to experience these emotions for our benefit.



The Bible portrays spiritual death as something to be avoided, but physical death as something to experience in purity and honor.



No.

God's anger towards us is for our correction. It is an instrument of communication that we are capable of understanding in our rebellious immaturity.

Just as if you had a child who did something harmful (rebellious) to himself/herself after you told them not to, you would allow yourself to experience anger so the child would fear and stop doing it because you don't want them to harm themselves.

When the child becomes mature and is no longer rebellious (hopefully), there is no need for anger. When they are mature, their motivation (to do harm that was buffered by fear invoked by your anger) turns to love, at which point there is no longer a need for anger and your parent/child relationship becomes a friend/friend relationship.

(...fear of God is the BEGINNING of acting wise...)

(...and Moses was called the friend of God...)

Simply put, the anger is a form of communication necessary because of our immaturity and rebellion.

Enter modern times when people take no time to understand this concept.

Then, humans, because of various lies (to discredit the Bible) and seductions that induce fears (lack of faith), fall into the trap of being led by their emotions all the time. Then they assume that God lives with the same limits, then they become incapable of understanding the true nature of God.

However, if we became mature, we would experience all of the wonderful emotions that our mature actions bring.

In short, when you truly learn to love God, your life's turmoil turns into peace, even in troubled times.

If we are rebellious children, God speaks to us as rebellious children.

When we are mature, God speaks to us as a friend.

Russ, a question, as the relevant thread has been locked. You appear to have, or are planning to, remove Russ2 from the forum. I wonder if you could explain the reasoning behind this.

He is not a troll. He has provided scientific information and wants a rational discussion. Someone like Alia Atredes, on the other hand, might post nothing of substance (angry assertions with no evidence) and not receive a warning.

I have been told, during the time that I've been here, that I am a liar, deluded, controlled, God-hating, and all sorts of other things. I put up with it, as many others do. As far as I can see, when Russ2 makes accusations such as someone being deluded, he gives the reasons why and is inviting a debate.

Could you clarify how he has broken the rules in such a way that he's going to become the first regular poster on this forum to be banned? I assume that means that RAZD and I will be next because of our "constant lies"?

Ah! Then it wasn't a test of his integrity (whether he is lying or not) but rather a test of the integrity (solidity) of his understanding. Of course, you are using your opinion of what the Bible means as the yardstick for this test.

So God only pretended to be angry?

So God can make Himself angry whenever He wants?

The Bible never says that either spiritual or physical death is evil.

Then in emulation of our heavenly father it is good for a father to show anger towards his rebellious child when administering punishment. Thanks, now I don't feel guilty about those times when my anger was directed to my children. However, now I feel ashamed that I didn't show my anger every time I punished them.


Of course! Because if you vent your anger at your young children every time they are rebellious (don't obey you) then the natural thing for them to do is to grow to love you.
Of course...of course. They will love you because they are so grateful that you didn't kill them in your anger.

The integrity of ones understanding is dependent on the integrity of ones heart.

This is why coveting—a corruption of the heart—"blinds" a person; It interferes with their ability to understand.

In short: The most common lies are the ones we tell to ourselves.

The Bible teaches about this.




No.

He allowed Himself to feel anger even though He knew the outcome of the thing, just as you would feel anger toward a rebellious son even when you know the outcome of the thing.



No.

He gets angry when we provoke Him through our rebelliousness; He gets angry when WE want—in a manner of speaking.



Not true. It does not use the word "evil", but it makes it very clear.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
(Matthew 10:28)

Paraphrase through deduction: Physical death, no big deal; spiritual death, very bad.

"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their (physical) lives unto the death."
(Revelation 12:11)

(paren mine)




You are drawing a perverse and far-reaching conclusion that I did not give to you.



You know that I didn't say this.

The concepts I gave are simple and easily understood. I can only assume that you are provoking me.

In short, any healthy child will grow up to love a parent who cared enough to correct them. The fact that a person experiences anger toward their child is a sign that they care. If a parent was indifferent, it is a sign that they don't care.

If course, there are exceptions, such as if a parent is completely selfish and gets angry only because they are inconvenienced by their child. Certainly, this parent is not fit to be a parent.

Chapter and verses please!


You are confusing me. He really gets angry but He only allows Himself to be angry when we are rebellious but He can't make himself angry....I'm dizzy!!!


Who said anything about "bad"? Sure it's bad for the person going through it. Death is bad for the people who loved the person who died. Bad does not mean evil. God uses death, both physical and spiritual to punish those who disobey Him. God cannot do evil, so those things cannot be evil.

Thanks for the altar call but I'm already saved.


I agree that you didn't think you were providing this conclusion. However, since you say that God was angry when he punished Sodom, Jericho, and the whole world except Noah, then you need to Biblically support why my conclusion is "perverse" and "far-reaching".

Perhaps I am. However the concepts are simple and easily understood if you decide to avoid thinking about God's attributes. You want an angry God at the expense of his omniscience and omnibenevolence. I follow a God who is just and dispenses justice without anger, but uses it not just for punishment but for good. I follow a God who allows only those things to come against me that will help me grow closer to Him. Not angry spanking but lessons from hardship that turn me into an adult and brother to His Son.

Yet the second example is the kind of God you seem to want to worship.

Before I do, let me just ask you.

Do you believe the coveting blinds a person's ability to discern?



We are created in God's image. For that reason, when you get to know yourself, you can get to understand the attributes of God more readily.

I'm not sure what you're not getting here, but it's really simple.

When we do things wrong, God gets angry, and rightfully so.

You seem to think that he can't get angry because He knows the outcome of the thing, yet, you know the outcome of a thing if you get angry at a child, yet you still get angry.

I believe you are glumping a belief that God is afraid with Him being angry. Don't and it may make more sense.



You're getting all caught up in the language.

I would suggest that you get a Strong's and an Interlinear and look up evil and bad and other related words in these contexts so you can better understand how it works.

Refocusing, you originally said:



Simply not true, but again, you have define evil before we continue, otherwise, there's going to be confusiong.



No, you need to do some research. Bible study is your job. You have to deal with your own feelings of guilt and determine for yourself how your emotions should work.

That's your job, not mine.



Wow. You make a statement, ask a question, and then changes the rules midstream.

Believe it or not, God really does get angry, just as you do. Now, if you don't believe that God gets angry, how do you reconcile all those verses in the OT?

I'm real interested in this one.



God is God. He is all that he is.

It's not up to me to define Him.

He is loving and angry at times, but He is only angry when it's right and beneficial to be angry.

He was right to be angry in the OT. It was beneficial; For our benefit.

Do you believe the Bible is accurate or not?

Just one note. God doesn't always control what happens to us. (Only allowing certain things). The scripture about Him not putting us through more than we can handle means that we can handle it WITH HIS HELP. In essence I suppose He allows us to make lemonade out of lemons and/or supports us through if we turn to Him.

Right. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm sure you knew it but that scripture is sometimes taken to heart and then folks are let down when more happens than they do seem able to handle. I've had a rough couple of years and it threw me for a major loop. Got kind of slap happy and had a lot of negative emotion to work through which is completely normal. Almost got rebellious, too, but it made me miserable. I feel like the Lord has blessed me tremendously to make it through, though, when I kept Him in the forefront to help me. Sometimes people do crack.... My mom has a bit after my brother dying literally a year after my grandmother, her mom, did. She isn't real sure footed in her faith sometimes. Eternal perspective makes a huge difference. She's doing better, but her mind is not what it used to be partly due to age along with it and my "Christian" sister isn't helping. (She's impatient and judgmental). She told me not long ago she doesn't have sympathy for mom because mom wasn't the mother she should've been. Her own daughter claims the same. Honoring parents is a COMMAND and for the good of us and our parents. (And is a fruit of love anyway - parents are very human). Just a bit of my own experience with that....

Members of my extended family who ARE LDS (in-laws) have not been kind to me, either, but that too has ended up making me stronger. Its hard sometimes being beautiful..... LOL (Just kidding - but my SIL is heavy and I've always irritated her. She's older, too. And honestly she has issues so I have to be the bigger person and try and understand her).

What I believe is not at question. What does the Bible say about this? Which is what I asked you.

No, when we do things wrong He responds to set us right.

I am not God. I am but a human with ties to my emotions, and quite a bit less control over them than God. Are you trying to make God in my image? I don't recommend it.

I don't think I even mentioned that God was afraid of anything. You will have to provide some reasoning behind how you drew this conclusion.

Indeed I will look up evil in Strong's. In the meantime you could maybe show me how, if death is evil, that God was not doing evil when he destroyed Sodom. Are you saying that God does evil things?

Additionally, I don't need to define evil for you. You stated that death is evil, so support it with Bible verses.

No you need to support your idea that God punishes in anger but somehow I am not to emulate my Father in Heaven and punish my children in anger. Bible verses please.

Not one of those statements was a question. You did take English in high school didn't you?

As for "changing the rules", perhaps you could point out where this took place?

Anthropomorphosizing of God, by people who wrote the Bible.
Do you still wish to make God in my image?

You say it is not up to you to define Him, yet you do so right here. The Bible says He is just. Justice delivered in anger is not Justice. You cannot reconcile the petulent anger portrayed in the OT with a just and benevolent God unless you realize that the actions of God were misinterpreted as anger.

Accurate in defining the character of God, yes, if you read the whole thing and not focus on individual verses. Accurate rendition of history, no, because the requirement for historical accuracy was not part of that culture. The main point of the "histories" was to provide and emphasize particular truths about God and man's relationships.

I have to agree with Linear here on how things are being deduced. First we get to know GOD.....we don't get to know God by knowing ourselves. God is perfect. You may be saying the same thing, but seem to be setting yourself up to be an authority and expert where you are not and your lack of humility and arrogant approach to fellow human beings does not speak well for your stance.

Russ, I know in your heart you think you are doing all this out of love and then have very human reponses which in reality deal with your pride. But you do seem to set yourself above others. You are right about the corruption out there...but perhaps your viewpoint is skewed by focusing too much on that. It's a symptom of the building evil because Jesus return is around the corner and satan is becoming more blatant and is deluding the elitists out there who are answering to him. But satan is a fool and God has more control than I believe you may be giving him credit. Gloating that someday these "sinners" will know you were right is not winning anyone over to God. This is your forum but it does not give you any real authority from God. I think we all owe each other more respect than has been shown, but honestly, you should be the one setting the tone and example rather than propagating the attitude that is on here. You can't ban every one.

You are so completely wrong.

I could not care less about pride. Pride is nothing more then a waste of time. I have nothing to be proud about God. He is the only justification for pride that is valid.

My firm stance against ridiculous religions (like evolution or mormonism) has nothing to do with pride. It is all about the fact that false belief systems destroy and ruin the quality of their lives.

My motivation is because I care about people. If I didn't care about people, I would not waste my time defending truth and integrity of knowledge on this system. In fact, I would not even have started this system.



I'm sorry if you've gotten that impression, but I don't set myself above others.

I do set the information I've researched above others, because the vast majority of people simple rely on information they've learned in textbooks or on TV or on websites. They don't research well at all.

They have not learned how to put themselves out of the picture. They let their own desires (coveting) blind their ability to discern and without discernment, you cannot accurately research.

That's the way it is.



No, in truth, it's all about the corruption.

The corruption of knowledge is an intentional thing to cause division between people. This division enables a small number of people to conquer a large number of people. It's an old war tactic called "divide and conquer".

If there were no corruption, we would be landing on planets on distant stars by now, and we would all live in peace in harmony.

No, you see, the fact is, the central problem IS... corruption!



Well said!

Evil is working harder then ever because Yashua's return is near, and the elitists are in direct contact with evil.

This is why I call them "rock star politicians"; Because they have literally sold their souls for power and money.

Again I say... Well said!



The Bible says that satan is very smart and that the children of light not as crafty in their ways.

God has total control, but guess what, He has given that control to US. He has made US responsible for the things that happen here.

If WE would learn that God has given us this responsibility and the resultant blessings or consequences, then WE would be more apt to respond correctly.

Unfortunately, people hate responsibility (because of their own selfishness), and so God says, "OK. If you're unwilling to stand up against evil, then evil shall have you, and so it does."



The people who I am speaking to on this system typically have no desire whatsoever to be "won" over to God, AND therefore, I am not speaking for their benefit.

I spend the time posting here for those who will listen to logic and reason, whoever they may be. I do it for those who love truth and are not blinded by coveting. Those are the ones I care much about.

Please note that telling people that one day they will know has nothing to do with gloating. Nothing at all.

It's a stern warning and an admonition for them to consider their future: Something people often think far too little about.



The only authority anyone has is the authority that has been given them by God.



Respect means telling people the truth.

People who lie to others for the sake of gain or acceptance are those who give no respect.



My tone is the tone of truth, and if people are slanderous or disrespectful, so be it. I have been very tolerant for a long time, but as I said, that time is coming to an end.

Also, interesting that you place the responsibility of "setting the tone" on me. Actually, that is the job of ALL of us, including you.

But again, people hate responsibility.



There's no reason to. Most people are reasonable enough not to slander others.

Good luck finding a woman Russ. Right now I can't stand you. I've made an effort to be sensitive to your feelings but you incapable of the same. And you are NOT given authority from God. If you think you do have it - you are deluded.

You are NOT given authority from God. If you think you do have it - you are deluded. You are a self appointed preacher. You are very prideful.... and that was satans down fall.

Are you "judging" me???



I'm sorry that you are unable to believe me.

My motivation has nothing to do with pride. I can't stand pride because it only acts as a barrier between people. It's not good.

Is it possible that some of your own relationship difficulties with people in your life could be related to your unwillingness to see the good in them?

Perhaps you choose instead to condemn them in your mind giving them only the credit that you are willing to believe they deserve.

Russ - I have now completely lost any regard for you or faith in your integrity, honesty or even complete sanity. You are not what you appear to be. I am done on here. Fare well to the rest of you.

I can't believe you actually believe Pwcca and R2 are the same person. You are a fool Russ. C ya

I'm in full support of the owner at this point. This is outrageous and should never have been allowed to come to this in my opinion.

Most adults would hang their heads in embarrassment to have posts like these associated with them. We've all behaved badly at times, but this takes the cake! It's like watching a bad day in a playground with a little gang grouping together in a mini uprising.

I doubt anybody was fooled (or surprised) by Pwcca's silly comments recently. But he's begging to be banned, and waving his pom poms around frantically "ban me, ban me" so let him get his wish, if that's what the outcome is from his own taunts. It's long overdue. I will not miss him.

Patience is a virtue Russ, but surely there comes a time when enough is enough. You maybe copping a backlash at this point, which is hardly surprising, but perhaps the end result will be a much better one?!

I can barely stand getting on this forum anymore, but it's very difficult to view this and say nothing. I am well aware of the responses I'll get for daring to put up a pretty isolated post of support, but hey, knock yourselves out!

Farewell to you too Jeanie.

All I have to say is that I would like to see some consistency. I never know if I'm the next person who won't be able to log on when I try. I've made it clear that I disagree with Russ about creationism, and he is banning people who he calls "intellectually dishonest," which presumably is everyone who disagrees with him. Is he making an example of a few, is he picking people who have just annoyed him the most, are all the evolutionists going? Pwcca has gone and that's not surprising because of his recent posts, but Russ2 is a bit more puzzling.

Never mind . . . it's Russ' forum and he can do what he wants LOL. I'll chat here for as long as it's allowed.

Hey Bex,

Sometimes googling on a screen-name produces interesting results. He hinted several times that it was a celtic name ...

http://everything2.com/e2node/pwwca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwcca

Russ can run the site anyway he wants to. If he wants to fill the first page with locked threads, it is his prerogative. If he keeps posting the same old same old already been discussed stuff and then complain when new people want to open the discussion and ask for some kind of substantiation, then that is his prerogative too.

If he wants to ban people for making him uncomfortable, then that is his prerogative. If he wants to ban people for disagreeing with his conspiracy theories, then that is his prerogative.

Having a closed discussion forum doesn't make it honest or the truth.

Enjoy.

Russ, I owe you an apology. I guess I was the one who was duped with regards to Pwcca and R2 and feel like an idiot. I'm still not sure about it....but they were 2 of my favorites. ????????????

I was rather irritated with my husband all day yesterday so I was guilty of transferring that over here and apologize for that, too. We had a nice evening together. To be honest he gets tired of me being on here - but he's gigged on weekends, etc. so long it fills my time sometimes.

I saw red too when you referred to Mormonism as rediculous. BUT I shouldn't have reacted. I still hold that you do not have any authority to set yourself us as an authority. You may be good at some things and be a good guy overall - but you don't "have it all" and need to learn to be more respectful to others because YOU just might be wrong even though that concept never enters your mind.

I am still likely pretty much "done" on here....but didn't want to leave on those terms.

Thank you Jeannie for your apology. I appreciate it and I respect you for having the humility for doing it.

Sorry to hear about your long weekends. I've been there myself.

Threads were locked for obvious reasons.



You are misrepresenting me, and you know it. This is slander.



You seem to want to be banned judging by the fact that you are misrepresenting me again.



Obviously you want to push me to the point of banning you. Regardless of what your purposes are for intentionally slandering me is, you are being immoral.



Judging by your intentional misrepresentations of my character (slander), you have no regard for truth.


I often get the impression that this is just a joke to you, and if that is the case, I feel sorry for you because you will have deep regret one day.

There will be very serious events that we all will face in the near future, and there will be some vitally important encounters we will shortly have just after we pass away, and perhaps one day, when you're struck with fear, you may understand why I'm serious about truth.

Until then, you'll have search them out yourself.

Pwcca wasn't Russ2, Jeanie. Two different people. I don't know anthing about Russ2, he was certainly passionate about his position. I learned a lot from his posts. He seemed to have a lot of knowledge about genetics in particular. Pwcca, he was what he said he was. I'll be keeping in touch with him.

Ah, while I've been in the process of writing this, I see RAZD has been banned. I saw nothing inflammatory at all in his post. I guess the writing's clearly on the wall. My turn next for slander character assassination lying,etc.

I'm glad I'm not as stupid as I was thinking : )

I'm still learning some being on here - but it truly isn't fun anymore. RAZD has no reason to be banned. Starting to feel a little bit stuffy....

I guess its back to what I was thinking.... Funny how its slander when others call it as they see it but Russ can call us all the names he wants and asassinate our characters. In fact - others would be respectful of him if he was of them.... Funny how that works.

If you leave, LindaLou - keep in touch with me privately, ok?

You're welcome Russ. I meant it. Doesn't mean I still like everything, but I am responsible for my own behavior. I agree about discernment as far as the "judging" thing, too, but others of us are also capable of using that. (Actually that is something I consider myself as having a gift for. I always check myself (sometimes after the fact admittedly) and don't ever just assume I'm right - but I have been a good majority of the time throughout my life). There is a difference in disagreeing and belittling or judging someone personally, though, and my position is that you would do well to reword some of what you say rather than stoop to out and out insults and I still hold that only God can truly judge a person's heart.

Hey Russ, just for the record, I've been fond of you from the start and still think you're a very good guy. You do bring a lot of valuable information to the table which I appreciate and am in agreement with you more than not in general terms. I appreciate all you do on here, too, with this forum. You have put up with a lot, too. And you're human....as we all are. I guess you know by now I don't speak to score brownie points - but I sincerely haven't wanted to hurt your feelings. Whether you admit them or not, you have feelings. We all do. Truth is what we are all trying to get at which is what makes this forum so interesting. I get bored with the same old same old personally and think the differences are interesting sometimes to a point as long as people are somewhat sensitive about it but most on here are. I can't say I blame you for finally growing tired of things that were being said by a few you banned. I gather that you also feel a sense of responsibility for what is posted on here as well....with it being your forum. And a need to right what you feel is wrong if it is important enough because you do answer to God for that. Just so you know - I do understand that. I may be wrong on some counts, but guess that is how I would feel in your shoes.

I'm spending too much time on here personally, though.... I think I need to distance myself for a bit, so for now am tuning out.

I don't even know If I should be here ...
Or even want too be here as..
This is the least likely place I want to be and I have better ways of spending my time on things I really rather spend my time on anyway..
Instead of just going around in circles here..
As I see it.
But, I just had to make a detour here to put in my own two cents as well..
If the flaming personal insults and the bad behavior I have seen here lately was happening on the message board I have been on for years..
The moderator would have put a stop to it long ago as their rules call for warnings and then banning.
Some times it could be one warning if your really lucky and
then straight > to banning if you insult the moderator that is.
As Russ being the owner of this site he sets the tone.
And he has every right to do so..
Not by anyone elses authority but by his own right because he runs it.
Not me or you or anybody else on this board has that right.
He pays the bills and it's his board.
First I want to say I appreciate what Jeanie wrote here..
(((( Smiles ))))

You have put up with a lot, too.
I can't say I blame you for finally growing tired of things that were being said by a few you banned.
I gather that you also feel a sense of responsibility for what is posted on here as well....with it being your forum.
And a need to right what you feel is wrong if it is important enough because you do answer to God for that.
Just so you know - I do understand that..

Thank You For That Jeanie..
I wish I could do the quote thing like you do but I'm behind in that department..

And... Saying it like it is..
I couldn't have said it better..
Dear Bex.. (((( Smiles ))))

I'm in full support of the owner at this point.
This is outrageous and should never have been allowed to come to this in my opinion.
Patience is a virtue Russ, but surely there comes a time when enough is enough.
You maybe copping a backlash at this point, which is hardly surprising, but perhaps the end result will be a much better one?!

And I can understand this too..

I can barely stand getting on this forum anymore..

I have voiced something such as this on Russ's chemtrail site as I was very disappointed in how far So Sick was takeing things
and no matter how I tried to see the good side of her which she has..
There was no excuse for that kind of flaming personal insults.
Kind of feeling put off by it myself..

This is Russ's board and he doesn't need that kind of behavior/ flaming personal insults here from anyone and it would not be allowed
to get even to that point as it's been taken too here, on his board..

If you insult and keep attacking the mod or owner on the other site.
It's adios ...
The owner/mod should be allowed to have some respect for himself and also from others who use his site and to be able
to use his authority without others treating him like he has no rights on his own board ..

How insulting..
Thats how I see it..
Well I've said what I have said..
Weither whoever agrees with me or not..
I'm done and out of here..
Just writeing this post here has really tired me out.
But it needed to be said.
I'm done.

Stay Well.
I know I try..
Lynn

Hi Lynn,

Your post is appreciated and comes from an outside clear point of view. Thank you. I totally agree with you! I've not yet come across an owner/moderator who has so patiently tolerated so much from his own forum members. All power to him for cracking down.

Nice to see someone else support the owner, considering the sacrifices/work he's provided so many people on herballure and the amount of patience required.

God bless you!

Cheers

As others here are voicing their opinions, I will voice mine too.

I agree with what has been said about this being Russ' forum, and he can obviously choose to do what he wants. This isn't the first forum I've been on where the owner has had a "crackdown."

However, we might ask ourselves what constitutes personal insults. Would that include calling someone deluded in the course of a debate? Telling them they are using logical fallacies, that they are not supporting their opinions with evidence? This is all routine in a debate, though if you are on the receiving end of the comments it can be tempting sometimes to react emotionally. I've been on the receiving end of it myself and I sometimes thought it frustrating and unfair. I've been called names, here and elsewhere. Here, I'm called a liar and a God-hater all the time. It has to be water off a duck's back.

Three of my colleagues have been banned from here and especially in the case of RAZD, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything he's said which is more inflammatory than anything anyone else has ever said. I've seen creationists post some pretty nasty stuff and nothing happens to them. RAZD has been a gentleman wherever I've encountered him, whether or not we agree about what is being discussed.

If Russ wanted to stop people making personal comments, then he could post a clear set of rules and moderate, as is done on most other forums. I don't think that's the idea behind the bannings here but Russ can speak for himself if he wants.

I honestly had no intention to say anything about this but truth be told I'm a little irked about the comments here. I'm especially going to miss RAZD because I can't talk to him on the forum where I met him either, and I think Russ' reasons for getting rid of him are crystal clear. In fact I never know at the moment if I'll be able to log on here myself because by Russ' definition, I am as "intellectually dishonest" as Russ2 and RAZD because I accept that evolution happens.

Let me try to explain one more time my reasoning for banning.

I personally don't care about name calling, BUT if someone else is offended, then that will be considered a point against the person doing the name calling, and they will eventually get warned if it continues, although banning on that grounds takes a while.

Have rarely received complaints about anyone's behavior on this forum. The few times I did, I took action in one form or another.

What I protest against is when someone makes deductions about someone's character that are defamatory, and then they are warned and corrected, but they continue to do it.

Under this circumstance, the communication becomes nothing more than intended harm.

This is what happened to me.

I was slandered, I corrected several times, but was slandered again. So, being that I have to play the role as a third person as well as I can, I considered the first several times "warnings", and eventually, when it continued, I felt the need to remove the offenders.

So...

If you call someone names and they don't complain, don't expect anyone to get banned.

If you call someone names and I receive complaints about it, then you will eventually get warned and, if it continues, you will get banned.

If you defame someone's character and they don't complain, don't expect anyone to get banned.

If you defame someone's character then I receive complaints about it, they will be expected to make corrections (object) to the misrepresentations. If it continues and I receive more complaints, then, after being warned, you may be banned.

So, what you can deduce is this, and this has been my position all along, except that I've begun being more strict about it lately:

Name calling is considered harmless unless I get complaints.

Slander is considered harmless unless I get complaints. If I do, then warnings will come and banning may occur if slander continues.

When slander happens to me, I have to try and act in the third person and make an objective judgement call.

In my case, all three parties (this includes SoSick) had slandered me, were warned, and then were banned after being warned and after I posted corrections. It is as if I filed a complaint, posted a correction, received more slander, filed another complaint, and then banning occurred.

I hope that makes my position clear enough.

Yes, though I find your definition of slander . . . interesting. I've stated several times that you have "slandered" me, my family and friends by repeatedly calling us liars. I haven't complained because it doesn't bother me to be honest, it's part of debating. If it's slander to disagree with someone's beliefs, then all of us do it all the time.

Never mind though, it's your forum and I don't think arguing is going to help matters.

Actually I do have one last question. As forum owner, Russ, couldn't you see that Pwcca and Russ2 had different ISP addresses? Because they were two different people. I've been talking with Pwcca for months and he has always represented himself honestly here, he just got emotional about what was happening with the bannings.

Surely you could tell that Pwcca didn't have the kind of scientific knowledge that Russ2 had. He was being sarcastic. Just to set the record straight.

MODERATOR NOTE: The user who made this post is a previous user (Russell2) that has been banned from this system. He created multiple accounts for himself and is obviously at it again.

I just finished reading through a great deal of posts here after trying to find why all these faces who are new to me were banned. If anyone has the time could you tell me who the forum moderator is? I've found the posts where someone named RAZD and Russell were making rude comments about another poster but there's a poster named Russ who has downtalked other people's religions and personalities as well.

Could the forum moderator, if you're reading, please give him a warning and/or ban him? It seems only fair.

Rejoining under new handles OR being invited here from other forums (as damage control) after banning is nothing new. But I'd advise leaving a bit more time inbetween both in future if you want to even "half" convince anybody.

Nice try regarding your apparent ignorance about "who the owner/moderator is" and that he ought to ban the poster "russ". Then of course, we'll get the predictable "surprise" when you learn that Russ is actually the owner/moderator

Did you bring your pom poms?
(just a little inside joke on here). No offense, but this is kind of insulting to people's intelligence on here.....and changing IP addresses is nothing new either.

Cheers

LOL

I guess it is amusing Jeanie (to a point). The person in the end, in trying to fool others, can sometimes make a bigger fool out of themselves (as seems to be the case here).

Quote

I just finished reading through a great deal of posts here after trying to find why all these faces who are new to me were banned. If anyone has the time could you tell me who the forum moderator is? I've found the posts where someone named RAZD and Russell were making rude comments about another poster but there's a poster named Russ who has downtalked other people's religions and personalities as well.

Not only have the posts this "new member" claims to have read been about the banning, but they've been about Russ the owner and the reasons why he did it. The ongoing references to his "ownership" of the forum and powers of banning, his own statements, the statements of other members about his actions in doing so are all throughout the thread, could not be missed by even the most abscent minded person. The "new member's" attempt at playing "new and ignorant" have well and truly backfired, but I guess it's given us a bit of a laugh.

Quote

Could the forum moderator, if you're reading, please give him a warning and/or ban him? It seems only fair.

Oh dear, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. A master of disguise? Or a foxy trickster failing miserably?

Reynard the Fox is Russell2 who has been permanently banned for creating multiple accounts and lying about his identity.

Amen and good riddance! I was so tired of the evocrew ganging up on us that I didn't even want to post here anymore.

God bless you, Russ!

Ah we've missed you Alia. What should we talk about?

I think Russ has made his point, Linda. Until you and your evocrew show up with some real facts which contradict the word of God (something besides your pseudo-science which Russ has rebutted on countless occasions) I don't see there's much to discuss. You people can't even agree with yourselves, but then it's no wonder when you're blinded with your evogoggles.

"[Evolution Theory] is the motivating factor for guys like Hitler and Stalin and George Bush, by the way, who is a Satan worshipper, like we don't know that."

--Kent Hovind

No Russ, Reynard the Fox was Pwcca wanting to get back on and talk. Do you not see the obvious differences between Pwcca's and Russ2's posts? Why are you insisting that they were the same person?

Where are you getting these Hovind quotes? Even for him they're pretty extreme. Thanks for the chuckle.

I'll happily chat once you present something of substance to chat about.

LOL, what an idiot Reynard the Russell is. I bet you feel real stupid now, don't you Reynard? I mean PWWCA. I mean Russell.

Oh wait, you can't reply. Laugh's on you!

Why should I point the way for an evolutionist? Remember, evolutionism equals Satanism.



Something with which you will ignore and wipe away using intellectual words that mean nothing? No thanks, Linda! I am not so blind. But then, I don't wear evogoggles.

Think you of the fact that a deaf person cannot hear. Then, what deafness may we not all possess? What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us?

--The Orange Catholic Bible

When God hath ordained a creature to die in a particular place, He causeth that creature's wants to direct him to that place

(yamn) another troll.

Russell2 said that HE WAS PWCCA.

Can you tell me which post this was? Pwcca was sarcastically claiming he would follow in Russ2's footsteps but I didn't read any post where Russ2 said he was Pwcca.

Pretty obvious to me too : )

I'm not laughing at what he said about Russ. The whole thing is rather rediculous, though. Reynard is obviously Pwcca, though, not R2. But who knows? I'm confused : ) I am feeling more and more I'm just wasting my time on here, though.

Yes, it would be nice just to get back to some normal conversations here.

But I have to say, look at Russ2's posts. He has a very detailed knowledge of genetics. He's the sort of atheist skeptic I've met on other discussion boards and have sometimes debated with. I miss his informative posts.

Pwcca is a pagan. He does not have Russ2's scientific knowledge. All you have to do is read posts by each of these people to see that their personalities and styles are completely different, not to mention the subjects about which they post. I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would think they're the same person. I've also been talking with Pwcca for months and I KNOW he's not Russ2. I don't know who Russ2 was or where he came from but one thing's for sure, between him and RAZD there's been a big knowledge drain here.

I think everyone should be unbanned and be given the opportunity to start with a clean slate, provided that they adhere to what's expected of them. SoSick is a darling and just has a tendency to jump the gun with what she says from time to time, but I think she deserves at least a "one last chance". And, I can't believe I'm saying this but the heathen evolutionists (AKA, Satan worshippers) should be allowed back too.

Three strikes and you're out is always a fair enough policy if you ask me.

It isn't my decision to make but perhaps if the other posters out there chimed in with their feedback we could make a difference? Does anyone agree?

I agree. Pwcca has been here a long time and has been the same the whole way. Russell2 is known by CTD on another forum and he used to debate there (the same as he started doing here)but later, as CTD left and came here, Russell2 soon followed. I hardly think Russell2 would waste his time being Pwcca for so long on these forums. He's very good at what he does, I'll admit that. Very intelligent guy, though I do not agree with him or his theory and intelligence is not an automatic signal to "truth" either, neither is simplicity signal of "not knowing anything". I've seen intellectual people blinded by pride to such an extent, they can be seduced by lies, tell them extremely well and convince many. But I've also seen very intelligent people who are very humble to go with it.

The difference in knowledge with both of those individuals is marked. Just as you stated. I don't believe that a person is necessarily more intelligent or less than others, because knowledge/interest of certain material makes a big difference. So you used the right words there Linda. However, we can certainy limit ourselves with silly behaviours and pride and wind up looking foolish. Haven't we all?



Exactly. I haven't spoken to Pwcca and I can't imagine we'd have two words (outside of this forum) to say to oneanother But I too know that he's not Russell2 and if he was? I'd give him a virtual academy award for probably the best virtual acting I've seen in a long time. It's not even possible in my opinion. As far as I know Linda, Russell2 was on a forum CTD and I think RAZD (might have been on). He came over here not "too" long after CTD when he must have learned about the existence of this forum. I could be mistaken. CTD knows him from another forum/s.

But again, Russ is the owner and would have the details of their registration and their accounts etc.....we don't.

You're kinder than I am Alia. There is a history on this forum and I have been here through most of it. While none of us have been perfect, there has been an ongoing taking for granted of Russ' position on here for a long time. False accusations, slander and words being put in mouths began to be the norm on this forum and I think there were a couple of warnings at one stage, but that was it. If you read through the posts, you ought to see how they have spoken to the owner a number of times with contempt and at times near mockery. A total lack of respect that was ongoing. Baiting him.

Russ has been very patient with them for a very long time and perhaps he's decided to finally crackdown and start getting tougher. Anger and lashing out is one thing, being sarcastic is one thing, but when you treat the owner, his mental state and his forums with contempt and mockery there is usually an immediate ban (well on most forums I know of). I do not know of any owner that would have tolerated this and for so long.

If Russ decides to "unban", then that's up to him and up to him whom he would do this for.

Number wise it's been unbalanced most of the way. Usually it's either CTD arguing on his own or Russ against 3-4 or more evos at once. I'd like to see things even up a bit more to be honest. I wish another creationist or two would join up, but it seems only evolutionists get wind of the forum and come on over.

Well, they play games and change their information and IP addresses. It seems deception is part of their make-up or the way they think, the way they live maybe? so it's natural. It's nothing new to get onto a forum under another name after banning, especially if the person likes the forum/information enough. But it's another thing to play games and insult everybody's intelligence. Which I think in the end, is based upon their own severe limitations.

Hi Bex, ((( Smiles )))

Just came back to say this to you..
The reason I believe more people that are Christian don't participate here is because it is exaustive.
Extremely exaustive and I don't know how Russ finds all the time and energy to do it.
And they also may find it a waste of time as..
Lots of them have allready made up their minds anyway and have read other Christian boards and other sites..
And books ect..
with different concepts/information or just information on it and have compared it as well.

So they would like to keep it more simply instead of like doing complicated math equaisons or jumping jack games like
makeing a complicated job out of it.
Doing that in my opinion does not make someone look more intellgent it just confuses people..
and is a waste of time and effert and energy thats what I believe.

I've allready found someone who has keep it simple and easy to understand for me..
In more then one place.
And I'm happy with it..
And of course this will make no one happy and there will be no end to this ever..
And people will just not agree on the so called evidence.
And I could understand why a person could want to believe in evolution it's just so much easier in the short run.

I just believe it takes alot more faith to believe in evolution then creationism, but that's me.
And I'm not ignorant everybody.. Thank You..
Just Christian that will do..
Some high school dropouts believe in evolution and some highly intelligent people believe in creationism and I know that to be true.
This is just my choice as well as we are surrounded by miracles all around us and complexity and the question is..
Is it by creation or accident??
I believe in Micro evolution just not Macro..
And I also believe in motive too..
As they are extremely motivated to find things and make it all work.
Because if they stop finding things, they lose their funding.
Interpertation, motive and idiology and plaster paris and great art work..
Yes... I do question that and that plays alot into how I see things too..
Sorry people.
But there is just so many reason why I feel the way I do and I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of.
I really don't.
And I'm not going to go into all of them now.
It's just to much and what for??
But I see the footprint of God in the world.
And without energy or intelligence.
Things fall apart..
I saw a program on the History channel about this what if there was no people in the world what would happen then??
What happens if you don't water your lawn or your vegetation?? And expecially on very hot days..
Or in a drought.
Or till the ground...
My water is from above..
In a spiritual sense.
Like for alot of people who believe in this way.
But you mentioned dust Bex??
So I thought you would like this.

" Out of Dust"
The World Book Encyclopedia reports; " All the chemical elements that make up liveing things are also present in nonliveing matter ."
In other words, the basic chemicals that go to make up liveing organisms includeing man , are also found in the earth itself.

This harmonizes with the Bible's statement:
" And Jehovah God proceeded to form the
man out of dust from the ground."
-- Genesis 2:7..

See...
I'm just no fun...
So back to what I enjoy the best.
Shareing with others who feel like me.

And yes with what Bex wrote..
I've seen that happen on another board as well.

It's nothing new to get onto a forum under another name after banning.
Just have to continue watching it.

You Take Care You All
With whatever you all decide to do with it.
But please try to stay well..
And I understand Jeanies words on how one may feel that way..
((( Smiles ))))

I am feeling more and more I'm just wasting my time on here, though.

As I only have so much time and energy to give myself.
And I'm just worn out writting this..
And I will make nobody happy.
Well maybe someone but I don't know.

Take Care You All
Try To Stay Well
Lynn

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for taking the time out to come on here and give your honest and clear opinion. Yes it will annoy some and possibly be argued about (you know that), but looks like you are content and certain in your faith enough not to get too wrapped up or concerned about it God bless you for the work you have done on the bible forum. Both yourself and Abishag!

I do admire those that battle it out here, but I don't envy them.
It's ongoing, it's often cyclic and many of the past presentations/information are buried in new posts denying any was ever given and often starting the argument from scratch again. This is exhausting. I just thank God they cannot be removed entirely, even if they are buried again in newer posts. So one relies on readers using the scroll bar and starting the posts from scratch to read thoroughly for themselves. Very necessary on here and then they can come to their own conclusions.

I think you're very wise, you know what you believe, you're certain of it and that's enough for you and it's enough for God. In the end, it's most important what He thinks, not what anybody else does! Afterall, He's the one we answer to in the end.

Take care and I agree with every bit of your post! Could not have said it better.

Yeah, I agree. There should be a limit on the number of evolutionists allowed into this forum so as not to drown our voices out. It's very much unfair and I'm pleased Russ decided to even the score a little by banning numerous evolutionists. This isn't a game, after all, we're at war!

God bless.

Well, it doesn't seem to bother Russ or CTD at all. They just answer the posts at their leisure regardless of how many. But I feel on occassion, it does get ridiculous.

Russ didn't ban the evolutionists to even up the score, but at it's a nice change anyway! For now! If/when more join, it would also be nice if a few more creationists joined as well and those who actually don't mind debating and battling it out day after day. Being fluent in the language would help too.

But I think enough information is on this forum for anybody to leaf through and read and again, come to their own conclusions.

I don't know enough forums regarding this topic and I don't invite others to the forum.

That's exactly what I thought when I read the post. I was somewhat surprised, but then I remembered how brazen RAZD has become. To intentionally insult and slander the host of a forum is to invite banning.

I find it amusing that anyone can manage to feign surprise. The quotes are right there in your post, RT, yet some would pretend it's a matter of forgetting what was said and omitting to scroll up.

Now if you want this forum to be a showcase of lairs and cowards demonstrating lies and cowardice, you should not be banning. But if you have other intentions (and we have indications this is the case) your crackdown is not only justified; it's ...well, it's overdue. I understand some of the reasons why, and my use of the term 'overdue' is not meant to express complaint(s). You have suffered many slanders, as have others, and true to well-established patterns, those who get away with such do not count themselves lucky and quit while the quitting's good.

To judge by what's been seen on this forum, folks'd think there are no honest evolutionists. This is not the case. I have encountered some myself. It would be a good thing if some show up here. Until that happens, we must make do; but this does not mean we have to suffer insult and abuse.

It does make me angry to see good people maligned, and I have striven to set things straight on more than one occasion. I am thankful that I have been allowed to do so here. On other forums I've seen what happens when one is unwilling to let slanders go uncorrected. As a matter of policy, I don't participate on forums that support dishonesty.

That's enough for now. It might have been more preferable had RAZD been banned for a slander against another party in some respects, but folks should think about the situation. RAZD brazenly posted that junk during a crackdown, knowing full well none of it was remotely close to being the case, knowing he was falsely portraying RT, the host of the forum. Either he knew what to expect, or Satan tricked the pants off him.

I shouldn't comment too much here. We have a considerable body of additional evidence in support of the conclusion.

For the record, I've said several times that I get called a liar, a God-hater, etc here, and that seems to be OK with people. I am actually neither, and neither are my friends and family who accept evolution, but "slandering" all of us is OK here too because apparently by definition, creationism is the correct position and anyone disagreeing with it is a liar.

Nice to know where I stand at least.
Don't kick RAZD when he's down, CTD. He isn't here anymore to read it anyway. Sorry but there isn't really anyone here for you to argue with anymore. I'd rather pull my toenails out. I guess you heard that two scientifically knowledgeable people disappeared from here so you thought you'd come back. I await more threads about how Darwin was a homosexual and Hitler wanted to force evolution on the world.

Welcome back CTD!

Hi Linda, just to correct you at prematurely judging CTD's absence on this forum over the last few weeks (which is not surprising, you've played this card before). As far as I'm aware, he went away weeks ago on break/holiday.

Is this yet another opportunity to score a cheap point?
I wouldn't paint yourself with a halo Linda. People can read and those familiar with the posting history on here, probably won't be swallowing it either. False accusations and words being put in mouths have been very much part of the games played by the evolutionists on this forum for a long time.

Yes thanks Bex, i confirmed in my last post that many here think I'm a liar and a God-hater.

I'm short-tempered for various reasons at the moment and made it clear how I felt about this person being back. On a better day I would have kept my mouth shut. I don't like talking with unpleasant angry people but I guess I should simply count my blessings that Ikester isn't here to add his own angry voice.

You have yourself to thank. You've confirmed it by demonstrating both through false accusations and contempt towards Christians/Christianity a number of times (no mystery). Small wonder one might come to such conclusions.

I find it hard to believe that "many" on this forum have called you personally a "liar" and a "God hater", but more accurately I'd say challenged the information and posts that reflected both - by you and by any other evolutionist doing the same. Playing victim in light of your history here Linda is assuming ignorance on our part or the part of the readers here. Somewhat insulting if you ask me.



It has been pointed out to you CLEARLY by Russ and even quoted why RAZD and Russell2 were banned from this forum. It's been gone through more than once on here to try and explain to you "why". Tell me, has CTD done the same with the owner? treated him with contempt, questioned his mental state and character and mocked him on his own forum?

CTD has retaliated towards the opposition with as good as he's been given. He too has been falsey accused, had words put in his mouth etc also and isn't fooled. My sympathy towards your side is limited. Since I've viewed both his posts and the oppositions.

From what I've viewed on here and it seems others have also seen it. Evolutionists enjoy brow-beating anybody who challenges/questions their theory. Their dislike of somebody who can speak their own language back to them and give as good as he gets is patently obvious. Is it any wonder you would wish for him to leave or be banned? You had it easier when CTD was pretty much the only one arguing with the lot of you. Now that the major support links to your theory are gone, we're getting the toys thrown out of the cot!

Sorry, but those bannings in my opinion (and I'm not the only one who thinks so) were more than well deserved! One in particular was LONG overdue (Pwcca).

Oh cool it Bex. You yourself are biased. I'm not going to carry on bickering, and others who read here can make their own decisions.

Getting "all evolutionists are liars" out of what I wrote is beyond most folks' capacity to misinterpret by accident. I testified that I had met honest evolutionists which is pretty much the opposite. Had I the capacity, I might make it more clear than I did. And I'd be interested in any suggestions that might help.

I don't think there's been much room for doubt for quite some time.
I have no intention of kicking him. Had nobody objected to his virtual request to be banned being promptly granted, I may not have bothered to post on the subject.

But as we are continually reminded, the hopes of the evolutionary cause are founded in emotion and appeals to popularity. So I voiced my opinion. Surely the contrary opinions were not based on events, but posted for the purpose of swaying the prone-to-be-swayed, and I figure if they exist they can just as easily sway back... or better yet, they may at any moment begin to evaluate things and learn how much better it is to evaluate things for themselves based upon evidence.

Suit yourself. I'll try to refrain from responding to your posts in that case. Of course you can help me by omitting logical fallacies, slanders, and other such things as cry out for correction.

Actually my return was delayed by weather and automotive problems, not that it's anyone's concern here. As for the scientific capacity of the unruly, they need all the endorsement you can give, and more. They could've stood to display it if they had it, that's my opinion. Science consists of proper methodology; it has nothing to do with using a hundred words to say nothing meaningful. That's my opinion too.

I must have missed those. Can you direct me to such?

I am aware that a weak case could be made for homoDarwin. He took "long walks" with one of his professors who was a homosexual, and his position aboard the Beagle is reported by some sources as being "primarily a personal aide to the captain", which might be another way of saying "cabin boy" which is another way of saying... But if he was that kind of "cabin boy" it certainly doesn't seem to have been for the captain himself. The man has an outstanding reputation which in more than one way is incompatible with such behaviour, and casts doubt on speculations that such would even occur under his command.

Darwin was actually a last-minute choice. Another candidate had agreed to take the job, but backed out at the last minute. One who wants to believe can easily imagine someone tipping him off "Hey fella! You know what they do on them ships? You know what that job's really about?"

And that's all I know on the subject. If there's any substantial evidence, it would explain a lot; but I'm not aware of such. HomoDarwin is possible, perhaps slightly probable, but nothing one should assert unless they have more evidence than this. Folks should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Even if Darwin was guilty, I doubt much evidence will turn up at this late time.

As for the Hitler thing... I understand Hitler had a good deal of respect for the English because they were a little island country and had built a magnificent empire. He could have been privately trying to evolve London into a correspondingly magnificent city by introducing random bursts of energy to its buildings in hopes that they'd evolve; but we have no indication that this was the case. None whatsoever.

Hitler's evolutionism seems to have been confined to the human race. I do not know that he ever tried to apply it to the world. I suspect you mean to say he wasn't an evolutionist, but we have records of what he did and all arguments produced thus far against the firm, involuntary conclusion of honest historians are based merely upon cherry-picked words, words of a man universally acknowledged to be a prolific liar. You are wise if you prefer not to repeat them. They are unfit material even for the purpose of fooling oneself.

You will most likely be upset to see that I have accepted the position of moderator here. It wasn't something that made me happy. I shall miss mocking the mockworthy, but it is all for the best. The source of most mockworthiness is unacceptable behaviour, if one considers the matter; and we hope to make such behaviour a relic of the past.

It may be that some new participants will show up if we have a civil atmosphere. But I shan't waste time just now speculating. The future holds what it holds. History teaches that we'll do well to prepare for unruly raiding parties as well.

This is Russell2


Greetings!

There's much that has been said which I could chime in on but I'd like to just take one observation for the time being and discuss that.



This is an interesting remark about evolution which I've never heard before. What prompts you to say this? My reason for asking is that in the science field this ascertation is generally considered to be the exact opposite. Evolution rarely appeals to one's emotions, particularly for those adopting an atheistic stance in the field (not to say evolution and religion are incompatible, many examples prove otherwise). On an emotional level I fail to see where someone would find evolution an appealing scientific model; as regards logic and reasoning, however, it should certainly pose as an alluring topic.

Regards,

Pantoufle

I quoted CTD as saying:


You are saying quite clearly here that no "honest evolutionists" have "showed up here." How else could anyone possibly construe this?



I have no reason to make use of logical fallacies because reason and science do well enough. If someone thought I'd used a logical fallacy I'd like them to specifically point out what it was.

I'm not interested in your personal interpretations of history to suit your own biases; kindly go put your propaganda in the thread you started for it. When I mentioned Darwin and Hitler I was using something called sarcasm.

Saying they have not shown up is not the same as saying they don't exist. This forum is not the entire universe, and what I wrote would make no sense at all if that were the case. My words cannot be twisted to mean honest evolutionists do not exist. The very attempt to twist them... well, we all know.
Been there - done that. More'n once. 'Member? Oh, you 'member.

And I 'member something about someone not wanting to discuss things with me...
Hmm. Just looked inaccurate to me.

But if evidence did exist, I'd like to find out about it. Is there something objectionable about desiring to learn?

If you don't wish to carry on "bickering", I suggest you refrain from the kinds of statements that invite response/retaliation/correction. Since you seem unable to do this for any length of time, I expect they'll be more of the same.

I'm no more biased than yourself Linda, possibly less so.

I see we have a "new" member again already. Did you invite another one Linda to try and "even" the numbers again? (Or should I say "outnumber" if possible). OR did an older banned member resign up again under a new name? Or do we genuinely have a new member that's just happened to sign up so soon after the bannings of other members? Either way, I'll say hello to you Pantoufle! and welcome to the group!

OK CTD, I'll have a third go at this and see if the message hits home. You said:



You are calling all evolutionists who have ever been on this forum liars. That was my point. Russ banned people for calling him a liar but let's put that point aside. Please find something specific that I said and explain to me how it makes me a liar.



Wrong. Find something specific I said or give up making facetious unsubstantiated claims.

Let's talk some science shall we. I'm mildly curious about why you claim that stars don't form from clouds of gas and dust, and what your evidence is for that.

No Bex, I didn't invite anyone. I don't talk on any other forums right now; I don't have the time. You seem to think I have a burning desire to make war here. I assure you I'm not "in fightin' form." I'm hacked off that the people who knew the most about science were banned here and that only leaves me again and sometimes LinearAQ; I'm hacked off that it's "slander" when someone criticises the creationist position but all similar comments to evolutionists are acceptable here (witness the names of many of the threads and ask yourself if they'd be accepted here if "creation" were substituted for "evolution"); I'm hacked off that I haven't got the time to correct some of the gross scientific ignorance being passed around. I'm also hacked off because I've had a lot of grief in my personal life lately. That's it, in all honesty.

If I tell you a lie about yourself, we both know it's untrue. This is a most arrogant act. It is insulting on at least three levels, and it is an attempt at intimidation.

Russ banned people for dishonesty, and the particular form of dishonesty in question leaves little choice: one either accepts intimidation of this sort or one does not. Once it became evident that Russ was not going to accept it, there's no more point in the intimidation game. Subsequent events of this sort must be classified as forum suicide.

Now since you have asked me so nicely, and said please and all, I suppose I'll comply with your request. I could spend a lot of time on the project, but I choose otherwise. Your current series of posts is deceitful.

Only now do you come close to accurately acknowledging what I clearly said. You've been trying to create the impression that I said things I didn't. I never said all your evolutionist friends or family members were dishonest, nor can anyone get such an impression from reading what I said. Not even if they tried!

I don't care if this is some habit thing, or whatever excuse you might try to come up with. This is obviously dishonest, and I don't see why any creationist who chooses to post here should have to be subjected to such treatment as a matter of routine. On evohype forums we expect such, but we don't have to put up with it here. It should be pretty clear at this time that this isn't an evohype forum.

You have shown that when cornered you can interpret what people say. Why not pretend to be so cornered all the time?

You might do well to recall some history. The first thing you did that convinced me you were insincere to some extent was when you supported the cowardly attacks on the livelihood of Guillermo Gonzales. How anyone could have such strong dislike for a person they don't know the first thing about is something I'd rather not understand, and attacking a man's livelihood without cause is just purely a cowardly act.

During our discussion, you also omitted to explain how an astronomer could be a threat to the precious doctrines of evolutionism. No evolutionist has been willing to state the obvious.

Neither has anyone ever explained how the story of post-abiogenesis evolution is in any way in conflict with ID.

These omissions are not by accident. They are the result of the absence of any possibility of satisfactory answers. If evolution says nothing about the origin of the first life, there is no problem saying it might have been created. And to stretch to astronomy, well... You said exactly all you can say: absolutely nothing.

Unless you're honest enough to require yourself to answer such questions... But we have no indication that this might be the case.

Still I maintained hope. I imagined you might one day look back on this forum and have a good laugh.

We discussed self-regulation, and I thought you might allow yourself to notice, like "Hey! This junk won't make sense no matter which way you try to work it. Selection is impotent when there's no disaster, and reality shows the disasters are avoided. Hmm... needs rethinking..."

But my imagination knows its place. Neither it nor any other part of me is sufficient to alter history. I know these thoughts were not acceptable to you.

Now when I gave up hoping was when we were discussing glaciers, and your own source spilled the beans. You pretended not to even see it. That takes serious dedication there! That's commitment. Embarrassment can be quite powerful in it's way, but it couldn't jar you into even looking at the truth there.

It ain't like evolutionism would fall if the glacier dates don't work, either. This is a pathetic, trivial issue devised to prop it up, but it's not important at all. Even so, you cannot admit to yourself that the evohype could be bogus.

I do not doubt that every single person who has ever taken the time to investigate evolutionism at all knows it's false. They have to subdue the part that knows this, but it's there. There's no way to rid oneself of it, so it must be kept down.

I have to wonder that people aren't troubled when they begin to have an easier time keeping it down. That should be a warning sign. What other aspects of reality can one treat in such a manner? What other fantasies can one put over on oneself? It's scary stuff.

I expect you're a little more than mildly curious. This is a part of evolutionism, and like the rest, it doesn't work. You take and fill the universe with one big cloud of hydrogen and nothing else, and it won't evolve. It will obey the laws of thermodynamics. It will obey the gas laws. It is absurd to claim it will do otherwise.

Were there a magic self-organizing property in the matter, such a property would still be present and available for observation. It is not. So scientifically, we know it must not have been. The story is impossible. The story is as antiscientific as it can get. There is no wiggle room; nothing to obfuscate; no way to twist understandings of the laws of science to make the hydrogen cloud break itself up and begin forming the universe we see.

The energy available in the cloud is uniform. Without an imbalance there's no way to get the work done even if a device had been in place and the device was designed to perform the task. That's thermodynamics, and by the story that's a system where even the cockeyed, bogus, evomyth versions of thermodynamic laws must apply.

This wouldn't concern you in the least if it didn't have something to do with evolution. But we both know it does. You might ask yourself why... I suggest overriding your concerns by diverting your attention. Just think was a rotten coincidence it is that I'm able to accurately assess the situation. The evogod of luck sure is cruel to allow me to possess such information as I do.

I fail to see why you are denying over and over that saying no honest evolutionists have showed up here means that you are saying there are no honest evolutionists here. We both speak the English language. Let's just chalk this up as another example of you re-writing history the way you want it to be.

You are claiming that I was wrong/lied/etc about various things, again without giving specific examples. My information about glaciers comes from a family member who is a glaciologist. Maybe we should go back to that thread and discuss what exactly it is you disagree with.



No, just mildly curious, because a) astrophysics as a science did not exist in Darwin's time and has nothing to do with fossils or natural selection, and b) knowing real things about this field of science as I do, I'd normally ignore comments like yours, but am wondering how you would attempt to defend them -- once you made it more clear what you were trying to get at.

Where is your astronomy information coming from? Do you not understand how gravity can perturb a cloud of gas and dust and cause it to collapse? Or are you saying you don't believe that the universe came from a cloud of hydrogen (which astrophysicists don't believe either)? Hint: a) do some reading about astrophysics before you make silly claims like astrophysicists don't understand thermodynamics, and b) if you're going to claim something, make it clear what you are actually claiming, and why it's relevant to a creation/evolution discussion.

I'd like to edit the previous post, but time has expired, so I will paste the edited post here:



I fail to see why you are denying over and over that saying no honest evolutionists have showed up here means that you are saying there are no honest evolutionists here. We both speak the English language. Let's just chalk this up as another example of you re-writing history the way you want it to be.

You are claiming that I was wrong/lied/etc about various things, again without giving specific examples. My information about glaciers comes from a family member who is a glaciologist. Maybe we should go back to that thread and discuss what exactly it is you disagree with.



If you want to resurrect that flogged horse we can go back to the thread where we discussed it. I gave you a lot of reasons why his university did not grant him tenure and they are quite straightforward and acceptable in academia. He's been made a poster boy by the Discovery Institute. There are other creationists working in the world of science who are getting on fine in their careers. No one bothers Michael Behe, he's got a cosy little spot at his university.



Maybe because you've never asked this specific question. If an IDer accepted that heritable traits change over time in a population, usually through the process of mutation and natural selection, then no there's no conflict because that's evolution. We both know, though, that this is not what IDers claim, and the leaders of the ID movement are evlangelical Christian groups with obvious ties to creationist organisations. Remember Of Pandas and People?



Go read about what natural selection actually is. We've been talking about it elsewhere and you've so far made it clear that once again you are criticising something you do not understand. I don't know why I spend time doing this -- I guess because there's virtually no one here left to do it and I don't like to see scientific ignorance spread like cancer all over. My toenail pliers are at the ready.



No, just mildly curious, because a) astrophysics as a science did not exist in Darwin's time and has nothing to do with fossils or natural selection, and b) knowing real things about this field of science as I do, I'd normally ignore comments like yours, but am wondering how you would attempt to defend them -- once you made it more clear what you were trying to get at.

Where is your astronomy information coming from? Do you not understand how gravity can perturb a cloud of gas and dust and cause it to collapse? Or are you saying you don't believe that the universe came from a cloud of hydrogen (which astrophysicists don't believe either)? Hint: a) do some reading about astrophysics before you make silly claims like astrophysicists don't understand thermodynamics, and b) if you're going to claim something, make it clear what you are actually claiming, and why it's relevant to a creation/evolution discussion.