pangloss

I replied to Helen in this thread:

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000155" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000155</a>


with:

"I don’t know what an “evolutionary apologist” is supposed to be, but I do know that evolutionists have known for a long time that “junk DNA” is not “junk” in the common usage. I also know that many lay evolutionists consider ‘junk DNA’ to be useless junk, just as many lay creationists still think that the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution or that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. Those are indicators of the general scientific ignorance of the American masses, not of ‘apologetics.’..."


It was 'moderated' to read as follows:


"I don’t know what an “evolutionary apologist” is supposed to be, but I do know that evolutionists have known for a long time that “junk DNA” is not “junk” in the common usage. I also know that many lay evolutionists consider ‘junk DNA’ to be useless junk… indicators of the general scientific ignorance of the American masses, not of ‘apologetics.’"

Hmmmm.....

scigirl

pangloss,

Wow. Hey we the evilutionists may have all the evidence on our side, but they have censorship on theirs.

But it's ok if you are lying for Jesus.

scigirl

RufusAtticus

Just another reason why my decision to concentrate my time elsewhere is probably a good one.

~~RvFvS~~

Tom Ames

Hey, at least they used ellipses to indicate their pruning. That's more than Philip Johnson or Michael Behe are in the habit of doing in their published works!

Blinn

They really are an insecure bunch over there. I tried to register earlier today. I filled in only the required fields, and for the "My Religion" field, replied with "none." I just got an e-mail from them, which in part read, "Unfortunately, your recent registration application at BaptistBoard.com has been declined."

So much for "...believ[ing] that open and honest exchange of ideas can be beneficial to all participants."

RufusAtticus

From the BB administrator:

Apparently they don't bother to check the posts of Helen Setterfield. Half the stuff she posts is obviously false. The other half is more so.

~~RvFvS~~

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

pangloss

I have been BANNED at the board in question for doubting Helen's conversion story.

What a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

MOJO-JOJO

Ditto....Kritzer and his righteous goose-steppers' censor tactics almost make "The Washington Post" look like a right-wing rag.

The only way to perpetuate a myth as reality is to constantly lie and distort.....ask the Mormons.

RufusAtticus

You were probably right to doubt her conversion story. From my interactions with her she appears to exagerate a lot. She as never explained what she means by "I was not raised in a Chrisitan Home" and "I used to believe Evolution."

Remeber, Helen is their Holy Cow. They bend over backwards to protect her from being exposed as the fraud she is.

~~RvFvS~~

Darwin's Finch

RufusAtticus: "Remember, Helen is their Holy Cow."

Sadly, it's true. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the quality of discourse at BB.

RA: "They bend over backwards to protect her from being exposed as the fraud she is."

Again, dead on. Insofar as I have any interest in BB to begin with, it is because of their evol/creation forum. But this undeniable pattern of BB moderators arbitrarily suppressing legitimate debate just to shield her from exposure is BS. She doesn't have a shred of integrity, as far as I can see, and the BB administration that protects her is no better. She would be torn to shreds in any uncensored forum, and she knows it. That's why we'll never see her around here. Without her fan base and her crooked umpires, she's not interested in playing the game.