liquid

Just noticing your passage referring to Dembski. I always found design-testing experiments a laughable proposition from the creationist camp.

The fact is that, assuming they are right and everything is designed, that they have no control undesigned object, and no idea what 'undesign' looks like as it wouldn't exist anywhere in the universe.

Testing for a creator is only scientifically valid in a universe which has no creator. Ironic huh?!

RufusAtticus

Yep, that appears to be just about right, except with one provision. It is only inflammatory if an atheisitic, devil worshipin', baby killing evilutionist points out flaws in a God-fearing clean-living Christian.

The moderation on BB is hit or miss, since multiple people read the email. I'm trying to get a full list of "editors."

-RvFvS

DireStraits

Since Helen is so cocksure about evolution/creation, perhaps a formal debate at II is in order.

Helen is not cocksure. Helen is running scared. At least part of the reason that the board chnged was because Helen was being shown for what she is.

Why not challenge her? I'm sure there are many around these parts who would find it quite entertaining and enlightening.

Helen cannot survive on board that does not abide by her rules.


Not that I think she would actually rise to the bait.... But at least she would have to cop out in front of her own people.

That's a good reason for thinking that she will not even try. And when she did cop out in front of her own people, her owm people supported her.

Seth K

As someone who has debated Helen on and off for 5-6 years and has seen her in action on diverse boards, I can confidently say that she'd run screaming silly from such a proposition. She would never engage in a discussion on neutral turf. She needs to have at least a sympathetic moderator, if not an actual hand on the delete button in any debate lest she be shown up.

BB is not the first board where Helen and other creationists have felt the need for shielding from those dirty, stinking evilitionists. It is endemic of virtually all creationist-run boards I've run across.

Darwin's Finch

Pangloss: The administrator at BB has not posted your latest offering to the ongoing debate with Helen. Apparently, your post was considered too inflammatory and insulting, but of course the readers have not been given the opportunity to judge for themselves. Worse yet, (s)he has seen fit to paraphrase your post for everyone else. Since BB continues to show their usual respect for free speech and openness, perhaps you would be so kind as to repost your response here so those of us who give a damn can read the unexpurgated version. Thanks.

RufusAtticus

What do you guy's think?

Should we keep a permanent thread in this forum containing unfiltered posts to BaptistBoard? With possible commentary on the "editororal" process?

-RvFvS

babelfish

I vote YES

Oolon Colluphid

Apart from the possible bandwidth considerations (?), I reckon that's a great idea. I don't have time to go anywhere else but here, and I doubt I could restrain myself to even the innocuous 'stupid' even if I did. But I feel it's important that somewhere pulls their twaddle apart. If we can't get eg Helen here, at least we can slice 'n' dice their arguments, if only for our own amusement.

I totally fail to see the point of a discussion board where the discussion is censored out of existence. If they want to preach, that's fine. But if they won't let us discuss it openly, then we'll have to resort to other methods.

Cheers, Oolon

pangloss

I also vote yes.

I posted my freshly gutted post in its entirety in a new thread.

As for challenging Helen, I'm game, but as Seth et al. mention, she would never go for it.

I've got a meg or two of archived posts from the old CARM board - where Helen was a 'moderator' - in which she bails form posts whenever she gets shown evidence that one of her 'friends' doesn't provide her a pat answer for.

Darwin's Finch

I vote "yes" as well.