Summations Only

I agree with AE. But it looks like you already left.Grow a pair.

It's always a shame when people leave a forum but the worst way to go is with a whine - either disappear quietly without looking back or say goodbye properly. Thank us for all the fish or use a verbal kalashnikov if you have to, but don't whine, it's embarassing.

Perhaps his "farewell" was a bit emo, but I can think of nothing he has done to earn our enmity. There are very few people I'd like to see leave this forum. The rest, even when I disagree with them, I'd like to feel welcome even if it doesn't seem like it in the heat of debate.

how come?I think it is just sad that someone who is leaving says anything and cries like this about it.the account is already inactive. This person should grow a pair IMO. I like to rage out and get banned.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : forgot who i was quoting

Do it.

Ditto.

Others have left for a spell to return after a respite, including me. Hopefully this will be the case with Foreveryoung.Creationists need you here Fearandloathing. We'll leave the proverbial lights on for you.

BTW, my own, for the most part has stood up to the test, so as to give the best of my pack, of opponents including the science doctorates a run for the money. They don't usually KO my stuff in a page or two.Of course, Admin, et al's response to that is that it's lil' ole me that drags them on, but I've shown that it's largely the cite pack of trollish one or two liners and repetitive demands for whatever by ever present stalkers, Admin, et al.Another thing about my stuff is that it draws in responders and even lurkers who wish to join the fray. The Exodus comes to mind in that regard. Lyndonshire on redshift the topic of redshift/alleged expansion of space was another.I'm all the more convinced of my own Biblical POV having sized it up with counter secularistic POVs.Theirs is all bass-akwards and totally illogical. Allegedly utter chaos progresses into incomprehensible complexity, design and order naturally void of planning or designing.Their temporal universe's zero or whatever event had no space in which to happen, no time in which to happen, no reason to happen, no outside of into which to expand; nothing.OTH, mine has a reason to have happened, eternity to have existed, unbounded space in which to exist expand and or contract etc, and a planner, manager, designer, worker in order to arrange elements of chaos into complexity and order. So no, whether my POV is acceptable here at EvC matters not a lot. When I get censored by burnings or whatever, there's usually something to debate over cups of coffee, though eventually caffeine leaves me sleepless. The full buffet bar that most get would be nice for a change. the nature of scientific evidence? Whatever the heck is that and from who's perspective??(wink wink)

Buz, I have found that you are not able or willing to deal with science and either it's methods or its results. You have shown that here time and again. I have advised you time and again to leave science alone as you have no talent or inclination for it. Your POV is the exact opposite of science, and is the epitome of apologetics. You use the typical creationist tactics of ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. To be kind, I could include misunderstanding that evidence, but after things have been explained to you time and again--with evidence--that simply can't be the case. You are afflicted with a sad case of willful ignorance, and that's nothing to be proud of.But to bring this back to the OP, I would not have you or any other creationist leave this forum. I would, however, have you address evidence in a scientific manner. Can't have everything, I guess.(As an aside, you have some of the best grammar, spelling, and punctuation on the board--after mine, of course!)

I don't deny any facts that i am sure are facts. You have to convince me they are facts before I will believe them. You say the age of the earth is a fact. I read a bit of your age correlations paper. I am not convinced about the climate correlations in regards to the devils hole in nevada where there is a stalagtite being investigated. I am not convince oxygen and carbon isotopic ratios are good proxies for paleoclimate. I feel they are rough estimates at best. What exactly do you call a good correlation? But, lets say you are correct and they all correlate well. If all radiometric decay was greater in the past and every isotope has had its decay rate drop off at exactly the same rate as each other, then something that happened 570,000 radiometric years ago could have happened 25,000 years ago in reality, and it would still show the same correlations.

I am not a loon. I will not be giving any show. But this is prime evidence of what I was talking about. I don't ridicule anyone unless I despise them. I don't know why you would be any different.

This is the crux of my problem on this board. I am here to talk about my ideas about various issues that science has supposedly settled. It is called brainstorming. I suppose other people call it the daydreams of a lunatic. It seems that is the prevailing opinion here. I make no bones about the fact that I believe God created the universe and did it in any way that was planned and guided by intelligence. That drives my "day dreaming" about new ideas in regard to supposedly settled issues.When you ask for evidence for my claims, I am not sure what I could possibly do to satisfy your demand. I don't think anything I could come up with would satisfy your criteria for evidence. What am I supposed to do then? Am I supposed to just shutup? I don't even agree with most people here about what is true science, so that means I will never be talking "science" here to anyone's satisfaction. I have rough models about what really happened, and they are ideas and that is all. They seem like possibilities to me. I feel like it is up to you guys to show me why my possibilities are impossibilities indeed. I rarely ever see that. What I do see is a demand for evidence for my claims. My evidence is the facts of what we observe in nature. I will never give you evidence in terms of "acceptable science". I don't agree with how "acceptable science" came to their conclusions. This drives you people crazy I know. I am not going to change however. I am never going to do "science" by the way you people define "science". Don't get yourself all worked up trying to get me to either. Don't try ridiculing me either to try and do things your way. It only drives me away and tempts me to go on a blue cursing streak, or just give up and walk away.

I understand wanting to tear holes in the ideas of others . That isn't what I see many hear doing however. I see downright hostility expressed in the most ugly sarcasm and ridicule possible. I see no need for this type of attitude. If that is science, then scientists are a bunch of hateful , insecure assholes.

I guess part of the problem is that I didn't realize that there were so many professional scientists on this site. I didn't realize I was going through an adversarial review process. I just thought it was a bunch of hateful mocking by intense haters of fundamentalist christians. I see that on theological sites and in real life. What I saw here was no different. I will give your adversarial posts a closer look to see if they are indeed purely scientific adversarial reviews indeed. Right now, it just seems like ridicule and piling on for the pure enjoyment of it. I don't mean everyone, especially folks like taq, and trixie, and rahvin. You will have to excuse me; I am not a professional scientist. Not yet at least. I will have a geology degree by may 2014, and then will hopefully be going to graduate school. Even by then, I will be hopelessly behind most folks on this forum.

Here, we see the crux of the problem. You say that we have to convince you before you will believe what we take to be facts. But you want us to believe what you take to be facts.Doesn't the same requirement exist in both direction? You have to convince us before we can believe what you take to be facts. But now you protest that we want evidence. How is this convincing going to work without evidence?