Originally Posted by CTD
I suggest we would do well to make a rule requiring participants to display some minimal capacity to remember the past, and perhaps to reason logically. I believe there is a minimum level of competence and honesty required for members to contribute to the discussion.

Posting here is not a right, and feigning stupidity and incompetence is a practice we can be fairly certain we've seen enough of. Such members who are not competent to post semi-intelligently would still be able to read posts - they simply would lose the capacity to clutter up threads.
Of course you get to be the final arbiter of what is competent and what is not competent?

Quote
Displaying too short an attention span, whether the deficiency be real or one of convenience, is either an indicator of intent to deceive or utter incompetence.

How many requests do we need to present evidence to people who have a consistent record of refusing to acknowledge it when it is presented? Such posts are misleading, and it is not a very practical thing to copy and paste every thread in the forum into our posts on a weekly or even monthly basis.

Just look at this

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=47735#Post47735
Originally Posted by LindaLou
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the very few scientists who are creationists are of the correct opinion, even though you'd be hard pressed to find creationists in fields which are directly related to evolution (such as genetics or biology) and the age of the earth (geology).

I notice that you have not actually answered my questions in the above post about what we are supposed to do about existing evidence if we are to become creationists. You seem to be implying that we should accept your word for it that there really is evidence for a worldwide flood but it's being concealed. I can't say I'd easily be swayed by this, I don't like to take someone's word for it and prefer to see the evidence on which their words are based. Maybe you can go to an appropriate thread here and present your evidence for the worldwide flood. If I've been fooled by the establishment then I and everyone else reading this ought to know. I suggest you avoid the Grand Canyon because that has already been discussed and I am not satisfied that you have proved anything about it being carved by one catastrophic flood.

I also note the absence of a reply to my question about the sorting of fossils in the geological record. I can't see how this fits into all life being created simultaneously, or a worldwide flood in which many of these simultaneously created creatures died. I'd have a lot of trouble sweeping this under the carpet if I were to become a creationist. What should I do? Maybe you could also discuss this in an appropriate thread.

How many threads could one copy and post in response to this?
Apparently, none. At least that seems to be your capacity.

Quote
Notice how selective the memory problem is? The fact that other threads exist hasn't been forgotten. Even the topic of one of them is still remembered. And we all know this post is but one of dozens, which employ the fallacy of convenient large-scale forgetfulness.

But whether this be deliberate or somehow otherwise, it is counter-productive. It is not beneficial to the community, or to any individual. From our perspective, the loving thing to do is to correct such. From the perspective of their prophets (which they must accept or be hypocrites), the unfit do not deserve to survive.
The belief in evolution does not require subscription to Social Darwinism.

Quote
The rule shouldn't require perfect memory of all events, but to forget things on grand scales, things that have been discussed for months at a time is not consistent with a person who is both competent and honest.
What is the minimum size for a "grand scale"?

Quote
I advocate the banning of all bogus tactics. If evolutionism can be supported honestly, by half-competent human beings, let us find out. We will never find out if we permit the incompetent and/or dishonest to run amok and ruin the forum.
Please list all bogus tactics so that everyone can see how even-handed you are in determining and enforcing the rules. Plus, I'd really like to know what they are so that I can avoid censure.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke