Creationist Censorship

[archaeologist55]

If this was a YEC discussion forum, David would have been banned by now for dissent.

But it isn't and he is not,

I have been banned from many creationist/christian forums because christians are not perfect and act as badly as unbelievers do.

[Mountkeen]

I have been banned from many creationist/christian forums because christians are not perfect and act as badly as unbelievers do.

Let me translate that for you:

"My (mis)interpretation of science and my interpretation of holy scripture are the only interpretations that are valid. As a result all those people that think differently to me are wrong. Because I am right and they are wrong they have banned me from creationist/christian forums (fora)."

Well, there's a surprise!

[archaeologist55]

I have been banned from many creationist/christian forums because christians are not perfect and act as badly as unbelievers do.

Let me translate that for you:

"My (mis)interpretation of science and my interpretation of holy scripture are the only interpretations that are valid. As a result all those people that think differently to me are wrong. Because I am right and they are wrong they have banned me from creationist/christian forums (fora)."

Well, there's a surprise!

sad that you think you have to put your words into my mouth.

[Mountkeen]

I have been banned from many creationist/christian forums because christians are not perfect and act as badly as unbelievers do.

Let me translate that for you:

"My (mis)interpretation of science and my interpretation of holy scripture are the only interpretations that are valid. As a result all those people that think differently to me are wrong. Because I am right and they are wrong they have banned me from creationist/christian forums (fora)."

Well, there's a surprise!

sad that you think you have to put your words into my mouth.

Merely clarifying your obfuscation.

You say you have been banned because other "christians are not perfect". The conclusion we can draw from that is that you believe you are a better christian than they are because your interpretation of scripture is more accurate and/or your understanding of science is better.

Dunning-Kruger?

[archaeologist55]

Merely clarifying your obfuscation.

You say you have been banned because other "christians are not perfect". The conclusion we can draw from that is that you believe you are a better christian than they are because your interpretation of scripture is more accurate and/or your understanding of science is better.

Dunning-Kruger?

That would be assuming something not in evidence which makes you look foolish not me. I never claimed to be a better Christian than anyone

[a_haworthroberts]

I tried to comment here "Coulter is nuts. And dangerous."
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... -in-brief/

But - contrary to your recent statements here - you appear to be BLOCKING me (my post does not appear on-screen as awaiting moderation - instead I am being fobbed off by being asked for personal details that I have already supplied: "ERROR: please fill the required fields (name, email)."

By the way the reality-denier Tee quote mined me (as well as either censoring ie falsely editing parts of my comments or else hiding them in their entirety) here: https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... e/#respond
As I reported in full on my Facebook page on 1 November 2016. I quote my words at the time: "I'm being QUOTE-MINED by a creationist blogger. Yes, REALLY: I just made two responses, as shown below:
"You have QUOTE-MINED me you liar. This is what I wrote (I told another person AT THE TIME by an email which I have saved and which I am now sharing more widely):
"
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... e/#respond
"Could the moon be younger than most people realise?" NO. Unlike the honest looking folks at Christian News, you are a bigoted fool. READ the ABSTRACT of the paper: "We also observe a secondary cratering process that we estimate churns the top two centimetres of regolith on a timescale of 81,000 years-more than a hundred times faster than previous models estimated from meteoritic impacts (ten million years)." TOP TWO CENTIMETRES. Not WHOLE SATELLITE."
I commented on the news report, LIAR 'Tee'.
I am sending a wide circulation email exposing your behaviour (if you provide your email address to [my email address] I will copy you in). Attached will be a photo of this page as I submit this comment (which you will of course censor because you are a reality denial lying bigot for Jesus, whether he wants you behaving like that or not).
You are a liar. No wonder you are voting for Trump as you also made clear on 28 October. Only fascists and fools are voting for Trump.
He is evil (and not Christian). You are evil (and claiming to be Christian)."
Followed by:
"Although your words - including "Could the moon be younger than most realize?" - were in fact taken directly from the Christian News article, you also quoted the article SELECTIVELY. It also stated (among other things): "Because crater-counting is one way to estimate the age of a planetary surface, astronomers say that they will need to revisit their dating estimates of the moon’s surface" and "Not only does this study invalidate the idea that craters only form over long eras, but the research suggests that these regular impacts could completely alter the surface of the moon within a timescale of thousands—not millions—of years." (Yes - 81,000 years, not 6,000 or less.)
I now realise your reply was referring to what you did rather than what I did. So you DIDN'T in fact comment on the news report. But you DID quote from it selectively, probably in an attempt to mislead. (And you censored most of my comment instead of addressing it, which suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead rather than mere incompetence or 'rushing').
The story is not about the moon's formation or the moon's age. It's about the lunar surface.
Parts of the Christian News report also seek to mislead by the way. You have to get to the 'small print' to realise that this is NOT about a 'young' or 'younger' moon. Many readers would fail to see the wood for the trees because of deceptive comments made quoting YEC physicist Jason Lisle (described as a 'Christian' scientist):
"Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is nearly a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away),” and “So this ‘spiraling away’ of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years, but if the earth and moon were over 4,000,000,000 years old (as big-bang supporters teach), then we would have big problems,” and “This is because the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.” Scientists neither claim that the moon was formed at the immediate same time as the Earth nor that it was once almost 'touching' the Earth. They believe that a collision between Earth and another planetesimal formed the moon and also that recession rates have been increasing over time.""

The polite (or pompous?) fraud and hypocrite 'Tee' twisted my first response into:
"
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... e/#respond
“Could the moon be younger than most people realise?” NO."
(and then pretended to 'rebut' a bastardised version of what I ACTUALLY wrote - which of course he will FAIL to rebut here either)

The science hater 'Tee' is also whinging on his current blog "We are tired of these attacks upon a man who has held office for only 1 month." Well, here's another one. Trump is a science rejecting pathologically lying anti-democratic narcissist. Clinton is not perfect but looks like a saint in comparison. Unlike YEC Christians - who look like unrepenting endlessly lying and deceiving sinners - not saints.

But carry on posting here you proven fraud. You are not banned. You might wish to incriminate yourself further ...

[archaeologist55]

By the way the reality-denier Tee quote mined me

How can you answer a person's points without some sort of quoting there words?

ut - contrary to your recent statements here - you appear to be BLOCKING me

You need to stop falsely accusing people especially when you have no evidence the blocking was done by them. I have not blocked you nor blacklisted you.

But you DID quote from it selectively,

again, how does one address specific points without selecting those specific points and quoting them?

I have had enough of AHR and his false accusations and insults. I am surprised this forum or his parents haven't taught him how to discuss with others correctly

[MisterGordons]

The meat machines in administrative positions seem afraid of Ashley Haworth-Roberts. He receives warnings from them and argues and is allowed to continue. Cowboy Bob Sorensen has shown the poor logic and dishonesty of Ashley Haworth-Roberts many times. AH-R is a source of examples in poor reasoning.

[MisterGordons]

If this was a YEC discussion forum, David would have been banned by now for dissent.

But it isn't and he is not,

I have been censored on this forum and have seen how others are treated. The rules that one promises to follow at sign-up are not enforced regarding resident atheists. The rules only apply to those of us who reject evolution. New rules are created. I was told not to call someone a liar even though I had evidence. The reflexive 'liar! liar! liar!' comments directed at me are permitted by the administrators. This is called having a double standards.

[a_haworthroberts]

Tee twisted my words (ie silently edited them) instead of publishing them in full and then addressing, properly, what I actually wrote in response to his blog post last autumn - thus giving a false impression and cheating. He is yet another young earth creationist FRAUD. No wonder you have had 'enough' of me you liar (just as the pathological liar Trump has had 'enough' of media reporting of his chaotic opening weeks in power). Sorensen and Gordons are also proven lying windbags. There is no dishonesty on my part. Something your stupid 'worldview' cannot cope with because your worldview involves judgmentalism and reality denial.

[a_haworthroberts]

I have no role in moderating this forum.

Funny how Gordons is suddenly whining (again) about alleged unfair treatment - when he desperately wants to attack me because I have exposed the fraudulent behaviour of yet another dishonest young earth creationist who thinks he is entitled to break the rules of fair and open discussion rather than play by them.

[MisterGordons]

I have no role in moderating this forum.

Nobody said Ashley Haworth-Roberts has a role in moderating this forum. He is misrepresenting what I said. He misrepresents people frequently.

Funny how Gordons is suddenly whining (again) about alleged unfair treatment - when he desperately wants to attack me because I have exposed the fraudulent behaviour of yet another dishonest young earth creationist who thinks he is entitled to break the rules of fair and open discussion rather than play by them.

This is just a personal attack. Cowboy Bob Sorensen has pointed out that Ashley Haworth-Roberts often uses the appeal to motive fallacy and the straw man fallacy. AH-R has refuted himself again.

[MisterGordons]

Ashley Haworth-Roberts appealed to my motive but clearly and obviously deliberately missed the point I made. This forum has biased administrators. AH-R claims it is a place for fair treatment. That is false.

[a_haworthroberts]

Nobody said that Mister Gordons said that Ashley Haworth-Roberts has a role in moderating this forum. Mr Gordons is misrepresenting what I said. I simply clarified the situation - the moderator is Brian Jordan. A mere fact Gordons. (And an excuse for another malicious lie from yourself.)

"This is just a personal attack. Cowboy Bob Sorensen has pointed out that Ashley Haworth-Roberts often uses the appeal to motive fallacy and the straw man fallacy. AH-R has refuted himself again." Yet more lying - which is what you do nearly all of the time. This is also an example of the sort of contortions YECs go through in order to maliciously 'prove' that people like me 'lie' (whilst trying to change the subject and take attention away from their own lying).

"Ashley Haworth-Roberts appealed to my motive but clearly and obviously deliberately missed the point I made. This forum has biased administrators. AH-R claims it is a place for fair treatment. That is false." I have already told you that I am not an administrator or moderator of this forum. (Personally I have no objection to you saying that another non-YEC/unbeliever on this forum lied - IF you can prove that they did.) But your implied accusation that I have broken the rules of the forum is false. Of course you provide no details, but just fling mud. You would like me silenced because you are arrogant. And because I expose creationist dishonesty - not because of alleged poor logic. No such luck.

[archaeologist55]

The meat machines in administrative positions seem afraid of Ashley Haworth-Roberts. He receives warnings from them and argues and is allowed to continue. Cowboy Bob Sorensen has shown the poor logic and dishonesty of Ashley Haworth-Roberts many times. AH-R is a source of examples in poor reasoning.

well i am tired of him as he does not represent me honesty at all. he drives me away from this forum