Frogger violence PDF - Natural Science

It’s honestly wild how Zachary Mendoza2 just goes off in this debate between the cosmopolitan crowd, Wanda, and myself... the cosmopolitans and I are getting flagged red, yet Wanda—who’s basically just sitting there while we answer his questions, even though he keeps digging deeper and pushing buttons constantly (which we don't even bother responding to)—doesn't get hit with a single warning. Not for trolling, not for provocation, not for drifting off-topic, not for being rude... nothing at all.

Look, we all see how it works. It’s clearly a coordinated group, protecting one another like a bunch of cornered bears in a Chicago winter... but surely someone out there might have an opinion on this blatant favoritism, this cronyism, this sheer audacity?

Or maybe not...

If you have something to say, say it. 🤷
People here generally complain about the penalties they receive, yet the penalties given to others aren't their concern and shouldn't be. That being said, I must correct your inaccurate statement; Wand was issued a yellow card, which you could have noticed while watching the red card given to Cosmopolitan.

Your penalty was issued for trolling. And do you know one of the fundamental traits of a troll? Trolls want to see others punished. 😉
Oh, and they become quite bitter when their plans fail. 😳

Furthermore, from this post, it is evident you were aware of the policy we maintain at PZU regarding creationist trolls, yet knowing this, you engaged in creationist trolling at PZU. Nice to meet you. 🙂

On this particular subforum (natural science), the natural science moderators tend to act more like dogmatic inquisitors—essentially narrow-minded individuals who seem to believe their perspectives are absolute. To them, it appears that the natural sciences are packaged into a finished, unchangeable dogma, which they guard like high priests protecting sacred doctrine...
In this space, however, the situation is almost the exact opposite of those classic inquisitors; here, it feels like any sort of creationist viewpoint is immediately thrown onto the pyre.
That said, I would argue that modern natural science, through its own analytical evidence and reasoning, is actually breaking free from the rigid shackles of Darwinism and the outdated logic rooted in old Archimedean principles...
Today, an open mind requires looking at scientific analyses from various disciplines that suggest there is a certain objective intelligent design at the core of natural realities. This isn't about blind faith; rather, it's about facts established through the rigorous application of the scientific method.
As an example, I’ll provide a link to a documentary that uses very recent findings to analytically challenge Darwinism. I truly hope that someone older than Zachary Mendoza2, or whoever else belongs to that specific crowd... I can't quite recall the name... might take the time to watch it. Perhaps, eventually, this forum could allow for moderation by someone more serious and open-minded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVxOe...layer_embedded

steelskipper5 said:Kenneth Cruz2, perhaps once you grasp the fundamental distinction between a documentary film and peer-reviewed scientific papers, you might begin to understand why the natural science moderator maintains such a seemingly “dogmatic” approach to moderation.

...well, you are just a typical Lastene individual... hardly a genius by any stretch of the imagination...

I shared that documentary because it essentially provides a concise summary of numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies...

steelskipper5 said:Kenneth Cruz2—once you grasp the distinction between a documentary and peer-reviewed scientific papers, you might finally see why the natural science moderator acts so "dogmatically."

Before 1995, you could have published a "peer-reviewed paper" arguing that planets didn't exist outside our solar system in the Milky Way—but today? You'd be laughed out of every academic circle in the country.

Religions cling to dogma like a drunk to a lamppost, whereas science remains stubbornly resistant to anything labeled an "unproven possibility."

steelskipper5 said:Kenneth Cruz2, that moment when you finally wrap your head around the massive gap between some flashy documentary and actual peer-reviewed scientific papers... man, it's a total trip.

Look, I get it, but this just isn't the place or the right damn time to be dropping life lessons in the middle of a formal grievance hearing.

Kenneth Cruz2 said:On this subforum (natural science), the moderators act like dogmatic inquisitors—narrow-minded and intellectually stifling. To them, natural science is some finished, absolute dogma that they guard like high priests holding the only true gospel...
The irony here is that it’s actually the reverse of the classic inquisitors; here, they’re burning what they call "creationism" at the stake.
Yet, modern natural science, through its own analytical evidence and reasoning, is breaking free from the rigid shackles of Darwinism and the outdated logic based on old Archimedean principles...
Today, an open mind requires looking at scientific analyses from various fields that suggest an objective intelligent design lies at the core of natural reality. This isn't about faith; it's about facts established via the scientific method.
I'll provide a link to a documentary that uses recent findings to analytically challenge Darwinism. Hopefully, someone older than a toddler—or whatever that other term was—will watch it, and perhaps the moderators will finally allow a more serious, open-minded individual to participate on this forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVxOe...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
Science!