Posts by hiddenpilot80

So, here we go again. It’s the exact same story as my appeal regarding the permanent ban from the science subforum. My "crime" there was simply stating and explaining a fact: the evolutionary process hasn't produced anything in hundreds of millions of years that the theory claims could pop up in just ten million. Since the moderator didn't care for that particular fact, I got banned—even though I was just debating other users and following every single rule on the site.

Now, I haven't just been permabanned from the crypto subforum; I've been hit with a site-wide ban. And the offense? I pointed out and explained the fact that the volume data in the blockchain is quantifying non-existent assets. Basically, I’ve been exiled from this forum because I voiced facts that rubbed the moderators the wrong way, all while staying within the rules and engaging in actual discussion.

Since there’s absolutely no basis for a ban under the existing rules, my appeal is being flat-out ignored. It's clear the administration doesn't want to side against their own moderators. Which begs the question: what is the point of an appeal system if it doesn't actually work?

Just saw my notification. Apparently, I earned an incredible 500 points and a permanent ban. On top of everything else, he actually accused me of "inciting illegal activity." I’m literally laughing out loud. So, according to him, claiming that quantity symbols and labels aren't "property"—even if the law insists they are—constitutes "inciting a crime." That’s like saying the law claims certain people aren't citizens, and then arguing against that claim is somehow criminal. Seriously, what is wrong with this guy? He’s probably neck-deep in some Bitcoin scam and can't stomach anyone telling the truth about it, so he makes up these idiotic accusations to silence anyone critical of the scheme. It's pathetic to see a moderator act like this. He's just using Reddit as a tool to pull people into scams while persecuting innocent users.

So, I was debating some crypto stuff on the forums, playing strictly by the rules. Then this moderator, Wand_1, jumps in with his little theory about Bitcoin. He clearly knew his logic was shaky, so he basically told me that if I didn't just accept his take, I’d be punished. He calls it an "instruction." Basically, he was telling me I wasn't allowed to use actual arguments to challenge his view on Bitcoin being classified as an asset. Truth is, it isn't even his own opinion—he's just parroting some politician's talking point that got baked into the regulatory framework. I called him out on it with facts, and boom—I got a red card and a ban faster than you can blink. No rule violations, no nothing. Just penalized because I dared to think critically. It's absurd. It’s like criticizing a federal law and getting arrested for it. Feels like some dark, totalitarian setup where you aren't allowed to question the decisions of people in power. Wand_1 essentially handcuffed and jailed me just because I questioned the legal classification of Bitcoin. I'm asking the admins to step in and fix this blatant injustice.

Still waiting on an appeal in the Ban Hammer section after months of silence from administration, and now the system is blocking me entirely with a "you do not have permission to access this page" error.

I need the admins to clarify something: are we allowed to present findings from Natural Science that clash with mainstream ideas about nature here on the FBI forum? I’ve noticed the moderators and several users—both directly and indirectly—rely heavily on what's "popular" to shut down arguments. Some people even get visibly emotional when popular theories are critically examined, resorting to ad hominem attacks. Based on the moderator's response over in the Ban Hammer section, that’s exactly why I got partially banned on the FBI forum. Apparently, presenting biological findings that show evolutionary outcomes don't align with popular interpretations of evolutionary theory is a problem.

It's obvious to me that these ideas are being pushed because of the philosophical viewpoint (Naturalism) held by the moderator and certain users. But a philosophical stance doesn't erase physical findings, nor does it sit above the scientific method used to uncover them. Besides, the subforum isn't called "Naturalism," it's called Natural Science. Even if it were, it would be absurd to kick out anyone who critically questions Naturalism. In that light, it's even more bizarre that this crackdown happened in Natural Science. So, I'm looking for a clear statement from administration.

Can someone from management finally tell me why I got banned from the natural science board for being labeled a "crackpot"? According to the dictionary, that basically means you're a lunatic or an idiot. All I was doing was sharing observations about the natural world and defending arguments built on actual facts. Can I at least see one example of a comment being called "crackpot"? Honestly, I can point to one right now from the very person who banned me. Here’s the comment and my response (at the top).

Since Frogger went silent after that—probably realizing his own suggestions were pure crackpotery—wasn't my ban actually just a result of his personal frustration?

Whatever the reason, there's clearly no basis for this action, so I'm requesting that the ban be lifted. Besides, once I was kicked out (the only one holding that position), the entire discussion just died. Isn't the whole point of a forum to have a debate?

First attempt, 3 days ago—deleted.

Second attempt, 6 days later:

What exactly makes this "trolling"? And why is it considered "aggressive"?

On the flip side, you have a mountain of posts from Ged Earthse, North Wind, and others just pushing back against my position. They literally just quote a sentence and say the opposite without offering a single shred of actual argument. They do it in basically every single post. But that kind of rhetorical gamesmanship—which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion—isn't trolling, whereas the post above is. Where specifically, how, and why?

There you go. Missing the point again. What on earth do specific observations in natural science—which is what my thread is actually about—have to do with the philosophical question of how one defines a scientific theory? Absolutely nothing. Science is about uncovering reality. That’s the whole point of science, and that's my stance: discovering how the actual world functions. A theory, on the other hand, is just a way people conceptualize things; it's an idea about certain aspects of the real world before they are scientifically discovered. Through the process of scientific observation, testing, and experimentation, we then determine if those ideas hold water. None of that has anything to do with how someone chooses to define a theory, how long they've studied it, or how popular it happens to be.

In that sense, your logic is just bizarre. You’re banning any comparison between a theory and reality simply because the theory is "popular" or because scientists have spent their "entire lives" working on evolutionary theory. Just as a reminder, the Inquisition once ran things for the Catholic Church, too.

But beyond being weird, your approach is flat-out wrong. Scientists don't actually "work on" the theory of evolution. It’s an a priori philosophical fiat. What scientists actually work on is the PROCESS of evolution: genetics, paleontology, geology... or evolutionary biology, which merely compares organisms based on a paradigm built upon that initial philosophical fiat. What this live experiment is doing is attempting to falsify that philosophical fiat. That fiat assumes the PROCESS of evolution is capable of producing the rapid functional changes seen in the fossil record discovered by paleontology. This assumption exists because that process is what our current senses and instruments can actually reach.

So, that philosophical fiat is like the idea that erosion could produce sculptures of attractive women. Obviously, such an IDEA is not the PROCESS (erosion). It isn't science dealing with erosion. When we attack that idea, we aren't denying erosion itself, nor are we attacking science. Similarly, the philosophical fiat in the form of evolutionary theory is not the PROCESS of evolution. It isn't geology. It isn't paleontology, etc. It’s just an idea. And that is what is being challenged. We are challenging an idea that doesn't align with revealed reality. The problem is that this idea has been embedded into science by aggressive, popular naturalism apologists as an unquestionable truth. Consequently, it makes it look like an attack on evolutionary theory is an attack on science itself. That’s why, in today's scientific community, criticizing evolutionary theory is impossible, making it the only theory that had to be protected from criticism through institutional repression. Sure, you *can* criticize it, but you'll end up being ostracized like a pariah.

So, everything you and your buddies are doing here on Reddit by trying to ostracize me is just an imitation of mainstream tactics. It's a desperate attempt to defend a scientifically falsified idea. You don't care about the truth, reality, debate, or arguments. You're just mimicking what you see and then rationalizing your behavior with empty philosophizing and personal insults—like this response of yours, which is a perfect example of how the opposition responds to my thread. A thread where I’m no longer even allowed to reply.

That’s why I don't expect anything from you. I'll just wait to see if this behavior aligns with Reddit's standards. If it does, no big deal; there are plenty of other online forums where free discussion actually happens.

So, I got slapped with a red card, a 300-point deduction, and a ban from the natural science sub for being labeled a "crackpot." My crime? I started a thread where I presented a live experiment clearly proving that reality doesn't match evolutionary theory—specifically, that even after 500 million years, we aren't seeing what the theory claims should have happened in just a couple of million (like the Cambrian explosion). That gap between reality and theory is the textbook definition of falsification. I even put that in the title, but the moderator arbitrarily changed it.

On top of that, I demonstrated that evolutionary theory relies on a philosophical fiat built on a logical fallacy.

Bottom line: I presented direct observations from nature and one logically sound argument. What followed was a debate where I responded to counterarguments while strictly following all the rules of the sub. Most importantly, my responses were based purely on science—knowledge derived from observing natural processes and phenomena. That’s literally the entire purpose of the "natural science" section.

Instead, the opposition completely ignored the actual natural science and my experiment. They just kept regurgitating theoretical assumptions and veered off-topic with generic appeals and ad hominem attacks against me.

After all that, I—the author of the thread and the only one holding a consistent position—get branded a crackpot, lose 300 points, and get blocked from replying to my own thread. All thanks to Zachary Mendoza2. It’s bizarre. The moderator of "natural science" essentially banned direct observation. In short, they banned science. They left the opposition free to just repeat theoretical scenarios. Banning science while leaving pure imagination unchecked on a sub titled "natural science" is an unprecedented move on Reddit.

I’m asking the administration to fix this obvious injustice and lift these sanctions.