Thanks Bex,

Quote
Well RAZD, depends on what you consider insults.
We could define an insult as any false comment that attacks the character of a poster rather than the message, the argument, that is being presented.

If we all strive to refrain from this behavior - taking time to comment to anyone who crosses it no matter what "side" they are on - then we should be able to discuss things like adults.

Quote
Are they insults if they are deserved, and provoked or long past due?
Yes they are still insults. Yes they are sometimes deserved. The question is whether we can grow beyond this.

If the point is to get beyond the insults to actual debate about the issues, then anyone can point out that statement {X} is an insult, rather than engage in tit-for-tat behavior.

Quote
I feel it's become a touch more fair recently.
How does "fair" enter into discussing the issues and the evidence? A statement is either true or false, and if evidence shows it to be false, then it is false. Fairness has nothing to do with reality.

Quote
What you consider "no evidence", may not be shared by the readers. It's always a wise move to remind readers on here to use their brain and go read posts from the beginning themselves, rather than take "someone's word for it". And hey, if you're correct? The posts will speak for themselves, without requiring you to 'say so'.
And being told to "scroll up" does not mean that the evidence is there either.

If the perception of what is or is not evidence is different then the question is whose definition of evidence is correct. CTD likes to claim that conclusions are not evidence, yet he seems to provide nothing other than his own conclusions in many arguments. To me evidence is some aspect of objective reality, such as the physical height of the ground around the Grand Canyon where it crosses the Kaibab (uplift) plateau. When I say that the land north and south of the Grand Canyon is lower, and then post the picture, it isn't lower because I say so, but because the picture shows that this is so. We could argue that the picture is based on conclusions, but that would not change the elevations of the ground would it?

Quote
No longer 4 to 1.
I find the whole issue about numbers and balance and fairness to be irrelevant. The question is whether the argument is true or not, not how many people make it. You demonstrate that your argument is true by presenting evidence and showing valid logical development of the argument from the evidence.

The picture of the Grand Canyon shows that Hovind's position is false, as either the ridge has uplifted since the canyon started to form or it hasn't, and if it hasn't, then water had to run uphill and then along a hillside to carve the canyon in it's current location. It isn't an insult to Hovind to post this, it is the truth shown by the actual elevations of the ground.

Enjoy.