It wouldn't be appropriate to turn this thread into a discussion of thermodynamics. I'll confine myself to commenting on the process.
I'm not asking you to discuss td with me here. The only reason I brought the text forward is to request an answer to the question in it.
I understand that you do not agree that there are issues with your comprehension. Perhaps this view is incorrect and it is really everyone else that isn't comprehending.
My IQ tests well above average and I have no problem comprehending the td laws.
As I said elsewhere, since you refuse to learn from others, and since you won't learn on your own, and since you will bog debate down interminably insisting that your comments make sense, moderators have no choice but to administer admonishments and/or limit your participation.
That's just not true, Percy. I have learned a whole lot since I came here and continue to learn from you people, the internet, books and elsewhere. Certainly I am aware that most of my counterparts are a lot more knowledgeable on science than I am. For this reason, I do my homework and limit my posts to that level of knowledge that I do have. This is what I did in my td thread, and am willing to be shown otherwise. You and others make no effort to show me anything. You just keep on keeping on making these insultive, degrading, generalized, and unsubstantiated accusations about my stubbornness, lack of the ability to comprehend, et al.
I think it would be very helpful if you would address a question I've raised several times. Why do you have this passion to participate authoritatively in discussions of topics about which you know almost nothing?
I continually called for counterparts to refute my op and other statements. How about a great debate, with a volunteer counterpart going back and bringing up all the effective and sound refutations that were posted by my counterparts on my td thread? Ask for a volunteer and I'll gladly take them on, so long as it isn't mike. Mike badly needed moderating in that thread, imo. All he did was heckle with insolent off topic yada. Had he been a creo insulting an evo, no doubt he'd have been admonished. I would also want to be able to bring up specific posts which were not effectively refuted.
When someone tells you you're not making sense, try to get to the bottom of what doesn't make sense.
Of course they're going to tell me I don't make sense. I'm an ID creo. I tell them to go to my op and show where I messed up. Neither they nor you do it. You all simply go at me for talking nonsense/ID creationism.
Engage people in a dialogue about it. Definitely do not go into your standard defense mode of protesting ad infinitum that you were making perfect sense and that we're all just a gang of evolutionists trying to shut you up because we cannot refute your arguments.
Percy, we
dialoged for ten pages about it. Again, if you can show where I messed up, please educate me by cutting and pasting specific messups and talking about them. They and you refuse to do that though. Why? The only reason I can think of is that they/you can't do it. Like I said, I challenge anyone to a great debate on specific posts they consider to have been effectively refuted in that thread.
That particular objection makes no sense anyway, given that all your posts reside here unchanged and undeleted. If your arguments were really as effective as you seem to believe, wouldn't we just delete them and ban you? If it were really our desire to silence Creationists, aren't we being particularly dunderheaded strategically?
That would be real dumb strategy. You'd not only loose what credibility you have here with creos, but you'd have even fewer bonafide creos willing to put up with the bias practiced here.
Please tell me this, Percy. How many active, I say active bonafide ID supernaturalist Biblical creos who have stayed any significant length of time do we have here? I count one, based on the threads I've read and participated in. Me. Hopefully Anti-climacus will prove to be another, but, imo, if he gets talking ID science he'll get plenty of biased static. Have I missed some/someone? Nearly all of the 'creos' here are not ID creos, but evolutionists who you people get along with fine. Why shouldn't you, when origin wise, there's only about a nickles worth of difference in their ideology and yours. You made a big deal about my fellow creos siding against me in my td thread. Of course. Why shouldn't they? They're evolutionists, like the rest of you. Herein lies the problem. ID supernaturalist Biblical creationists who debate ID and the supernatural are in effect, disallowed participation in science threads, which brings us back to the question at hand as put forth in the ongoing td rhread which I desire to participate in.
buz:
The topic of this thread is a "Discussion of the 3 thermodynamic laws." ID creation involves the "mysterious" and "no physical imperitive that it is so." Peeper, the evolutionist has been allowed to debate/discuss the 3td laws relative to the "mysterious and that which has "no physical imperitive that it is so." i.e. the improbible. Since ID creationism involves the "mysterious" and "improbable," may I assume that I will be allowed equal opportunity to discuss/debate the 3td laws in this thread as an ID creationist, or is this thread closed to ID creationists?
Again, I'm not asking you to discuss td law here. I'm only asking you to specifically address the question in bold print.
™ Version 4.2
