Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report discussion problems here: No.2
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 468 (491288)
12-13-2008 3:50 PM


The following exchange resulted in a warning by AdminNosy that I would be suspended if I continued in this vein.
Buzsaw writes:
Peg writes:
no, my suggestion is that perhaps the earth is STILL flooded by water
Granny Magda writes:
It is indeed, but it has never been completely flooded, nor is that even possible.
1. Unless the earth was relatively smooth before the flood and the tectonic activity from the flood due to irregularities in the earth crust, (abe: volcanic activity) etc created the mountains.
2. Unless there was enough vapor in a vapor canopy over the earth to supply enough water to cover the relatively small mountains which were on the relatively smooth surface of the pre-flood earth.
There were likely pre flood mountains but obviously not nearly as high as they became post flood. The sea fossils in modern hight mountains attest to that.
I believe the observed tectonic activity can be interpreted to support the above possibility as an alternative to the mainline science model.
1. My understanding is that the consensus by all, including conventional science is that the mountains were at some period, formed by some means which requires that at some period the surface of planet earth was smoother than is observed today.
2. It is my understanding that there was a time of significant flooding on the planet as attested to by conventional science.
3. If the planet's surface was less mountainous the amount of water in the deep oceans would be such that far more, if not all of the planet would have been flooded unless some of the water was in the form of atmospheric vapor.
This is where I was intending to go with my argument. Thus I am requesting permission to continue posting in the current flood thread in the vein that I was pursuing.
Granny Magda's position is that a world wide flood is/was impossible. I beg to differ.
Problem for EvC: If the flood is considered proven to be impossible, why is the Biblical flood topic allowed at all on this board?
Perhaps the topic should be moved to the Free For All.
NOTE: I see the link is not working. I'll go ahead and post so as not to loose my message. Then I'll work to edit in the link fix.
Edited by Buzsaw, : link fix
Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix botched link fix.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AdminNosy, posted 12-13-2008 3:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 468 (493949)
01-11-2009 11:02 PM


Faith Thread Issue
Hi Admin. My apologies for discussing these issues in the thread. In my mind I justified it since it was a response to you, the debating member. I should have known better.
Percy said:
Someone will reply that they have evidence that the Bible is true. You'll say they don't. You'll settle on an example, perhaps the Exodus, and start discussing the evidence for it. This has been done to death, which is fine, nothing wrong with repeats because the participants and audience are ever-changing, but I'd like to wait a while before starting the equivalent of another Exodus thread.
1. You understand that some of us here cite evidence to under-gird our faith in the Bible at large.
2. You remind that the Exodus topic has been debated enough and that you don't want this thread to become a debate on the Exodus.
In one of my responses I briefly cited some examples of evidences which we use to bolster our faith in the Biblical record. I knew what you said here and if anyone proceeded to debate any one of the specific evidences I cited in debth, especially the Exodus which you specifically warned about, I would have declined to get into it.
My take on the warning was that the thread was not to become an Exodus debate thread. I didn't consider one brief citing of it along with other evidences as turning this into an Exodus debate.
Reality Man says:
....what it is about faith that makes people so determined that what they believe in is as real as the keyboard I'm typing on.
As a guy with no faith whatsoever, I want someone to baby spoon feed me the rational (the key word here is 'rational') reasoning behind the strong belief people have for things that as of yet have no substance, physical or theoretical, or have such an abstract application to reality.
This is a question of curiosity, I simply want to discuss the science behind faith, and one's absolute certainty that something incredible, such as God or a virgin giving birth or miracles, exists.
The virgin birth as well as the Exodus are both examples of abstract applications to reality. However there is some evidence supportive of both of these miracles. With the virgin birth, it's the prophecies relative to it in the OT. With the Exodus it is the photographed research etc. With Israel's phenomenal return as a nation, it's the modern news etc. There are others. These are the things which corroborate with many other evidences which under-gird the faith of us who are Biblically astute.
With all due respect to John 10:10 (abe: and ICANT), Reality Man obviously does not want to get preached at by John 10:10 (and ICANT) in this thread. He wants us Biblical creationists to explain to him how we could possibly have faith in something like the virgin birth, (abe: and so much more like phenomina in the Biblical record). If it weren't for the many evidences which bolster faith in the Biblical record, I would have to say that I have blind faith in the virgin birth. As I said, it's the corroborated evidences, i.e. the knowns which is the science, if you will, Reality Man that bolsters my faith in the Biblical record to the point that I'm able to believe in the virgin birth, etc, etc.
How do you expect me, Iano, ICANT, Berlot and others to respond to Reality Man in answer to his question. He and the rest of the board will most certainly despise and criticize us soundly if we do as you suggested and preach to him feely nonsense which does nothing to address Reality Man's sincere request for reasons.
I hope you will reconsider your action but if not, so be it. I'm not going back there to make a fool out of myself, (abe: fellow Christians, Christianity and the Biblical record by responding to Reality man with foolish feely reasons for exercising faith.) I don't think anyone else cares to either. Imo, you've essentially either killed the thread or turned an otherwise interesting thread into yada about nothing of substance.
My suggestion to you as Admin is to ride heard on the thread to make sure it doesn't get derailed into debating specific evidence issues, but to allow the participants to briefly cite evidences j(abe: which bolster our faith) as one of the reasons we have for adamantly exercising faith in abstract applications to reality relative to the Biblical record.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 01-12-2009 8:40 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 468 (494206)
01-14-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
01-12-2009 8:40 AM


Re: Friggin Thread Issue
Mmm, what gives on the friggin faith thread? People are still debating evidence and Modulous is requesting more evidence while Buzsaw is banned from the thread for talking evidence on the friggin faith thread??
http://EvC Forum: Why so friggin' confident? -->EvC Forum: Why so friggin' confident?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 01-12-2009 8:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 01-15-2009 8:00 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 468 (494322)
01-15-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Admin
01-15-2009 8:00 AM


Re: Friggin Thread Issue
Admin, it appears that you are ever increasing your micromanagement of creationists, including in the non-science threads while your secularist friends enjoy immunity in both.
You chastized me for comments made in the friggin thread, directing me here. I make my points here and you decline addressing any of the specifics of my message here.
Now you're advocating any new faith thread be relative to what Rahvin, our counterpart has posted. I had something else in mind for a new faith thread. Are we creationists totally obliged to you now for faith issues we want to debate and discuss?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 01-15-2009 8:00 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 01-15-2009 10:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 468 (494365)
01-15-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Admin
01-15-2009 10:43 AM


Re: The Buzsaw EvC Record
Admin writes:
With someone else I might be more forthcoming, but I've never had much success explaining anything to you, and seeing no indication that this time would be any different I demur from any such attempts.
Obviously, with you, Percy, creationist evidence is off the table here at EvC. You tolerate the easy ones so you and yours can make fools out of Biblicalists. Most of the evidence apprised creos are gone. They aren't as thick skinned as I've been these past 5 plus years. If you ban me, so be it, but you're shooting yourself in the foot if you think you can promote a boring lop sided www evolution vs creation board.
In nearly 6 years I've been suspended ONCE, for 2 hours and permanently banned TWICE, yet you paint me as problematic. You banned me because since I obeyed the Forum Guidelines you and your moderators had no reason to suspend me. You wanted me out because I was scoring points debating you and your buddies. Obviously that's what's going on here.
Remember shortly before my first banning, Percy, obviously the hands down winner of the first ever EvC Great Debate which was about creationism and the LoTs? There were two (non-creo) judges who were to judge the winner of that notorious debate with Jar. The judges declined to judge a winner because I (the creationist) obviously won with Jar on the ropes from the gitgo and the first to end the debate on page two after bragging before the debate that he'd put me away in the first couple of messages.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add comments
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 01-15-2009 10:43 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Admin, posted 01-15-2009 1:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 468 (494374)
01-15-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Admin
01-15-2009 1:56 PM


Re: Friggin Thread Issue
I posted comment by edit in my last message before I saw your message for no more on this. My apologies and no more on this from me.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Admin, posted 01-15-2009 1:56 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Admin, posted 01-17-2009 7:19 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 468 (500522)
02-26-2009 11:57 PM


Re: Dr Jones vs Buzsaw
I believe Dr Jones has gone over the line on the Forum Guidelines regarding personal attacks here
I seldom complain to admins about counterparts but Dr Jones persistently attacks me as a liar and his implication that I am a racist of the KKK ilk is way over the line so far as personal attacks go. I would appreciate if he were admonished to abide by the guidelines relative to personal attacks of this magnitude.
Dr. Jones writes:
But you have no proof he isn't do you Buz? You have no evidence that he's a muslim ergo continuing to call him a muslim would be lieing.
All I did was present the correlation of the two men, Obama and Odinga to their actions which I regarded as favorable to Islam and against Christianity, all the while claiming to be Christians. I'm alleging that something is stealth about that picture.
My statement was in the form of a question and not an emphatic allegation. No lie there; nothing but hateful personal attack by Dr Jones.
Buzsaw question:
Are both stealth Muslims who work to undermine the Christian constituency and to non-candescently aid and abet the advancement of Islam?
Dr Jones's totally unfounded personal attack:
Following that logic it's safe to say that like your fellow racist christians the KKK, you want to lnych black men and firebomb their curches.

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by AdminNosy, posted 02-27-2009 1:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 73 by Admin, posted 02-27-2009 6:53 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 468 (500554)
02-27-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Admin
02-27-2009 6:53 AM


Re: Dr Jones vs Buzsaw
Admin writes:
You say that he's attacking you as a liar and implying you're a racist. What he's actually saying is that your logic makes as little sense as someone concluding you're a liar and racist like the KKK. If you don't like the example he used then it's your own fault because you've failed to understand his points when he was making them less, uh, pointedly.
Note the phrase, "...like your fellow racist christians the KKK...."
There is no such thing as my fellow racist Christians, the KKK. There is nothing Christian about the KKK and they are in no way fellows of me. Dr Jones has gone beyond logic analogy. Why did he choose that analogy? His history has been to persistently personally attack me as a practicing racist to the tune of the KKK. I take this analogy as nothing but another one of his personal attacks. Imo, he, like the rest of us should learn to debate the issues void of these kind of inflamitory personal attacks.
I did not categorically state that Odinga was a Muslim. I presented my point and put the statement in the form of a question as I have cited.
Edited by Buzsaw, : corrected italics

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Admin, posted 02-27-2009 6:53 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Admin, posted 02-27-2009 9:10 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 468 (501571)
03-06-2009 6:51 PM


Percy writes:
That at a single mention of God you immediately drop into "preach" mode makes clear that what you're spouting is your religious beliefs. The degree to which your successful at restraining yourself from saying what you really believe does not fool anyone. To you the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, just as it was to Behe at Dover.
We're up to message 65, it's well past time to answer the question. What's the physical evidence for the intelligent designer? Please don't wast everyone's time and just make stuff up off the top of your head. If you don't have an answer, don't reply.
http://EvC Forum: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence -->EvC Forum: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Percy, I'm seeing these kinds of messages from you, member Percy, all too often. It's consistently the creationists who are effective debaters who you treat like this so that your people enjoy the advantage. The problem is hardly ever them. It's always us. I've come to the conclusion after six years that it's time for me to move on to where I can function without this incessant antagonistic harassment from the forum boss.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 03-06-2009 7:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 468 (545129)
02-01-2010 2:50 PM


Re: Goddidit Vs Itdidit Question
EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?
Percy writes:
I actually had a simpler point than you were making of it. If you want to argue that God is the creator of matter and energy in a science forum then that's fine as long as you support your arguments with scientific evidence.
But if you instead want to argue philosophical issues about what it's possible to really know, then since that issue can be raised in literally any thread we normally restrict discussion of such viewpoints to threads in the Is It Science? forum. Discussion of Max Planck's views on this topic in particular belong there.
Hi Percy. I understand your point and intend to abide within the perameters which you have set.
As to the thread question of where the matter comes from, the Biblical answer is from whom all things came and in whom all things exist, referring to the Biblical intelligent designer, Jehovah.
Thus for the Biblical creation IDist like myself, that the universe has forever been managed and designed by the Biblical ID and all living on planet earth has been relatively suddenly created, my only answer to the thread question is goddidit. Thus, the only scientific evidence I can cite is archeological, historical, experiential, socialogical, and the goddidit interpretation of all scientific data observed.
This, however has not been MatterWave's driving impetus, perse relative to your response above, his being more blind assertion that goddidit, in place of itdidit. If goddidit, data relative to the god must become the driving impetus of the pro-god debate but there appears to be no venue for debating such data.
Perhaps a topic in Is It Science would afford a venue for this data, though it has been my understanding that such debate would not be deemed suitable in that segment of EvCs science fora.
The dilema for creationists appears to be that what we consider science does not meet the standards established for science debate.
Theology forums or Coffee House appears to be the only place for airing our views, but then we cannot respond to objections in the science forums regarding alternative views of what is aired by our counterpart ideologists. Thus their claim that we have no evidence and thus no legitimate goddidit responses to their claims.
Perhaps a unique forum for alternative science views would serve for a venue of this nature.
Reasons for keeping religion out of the mainstream science fora is well taken as it becomes difficult to keep the debates withing reasonable perameters and the tendency for Biblicalists to get preachy and theological. Thus perhaps a unique forum for alternative science views would be and answer for consideration.

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Admin, posted 02-01-2010 3:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 468 (545138)
02-01-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Admin
02-01-2010 3:08 PM


Re: Goddidit Vs Itdidit Question
Thanks, Admin. I read your message but wasn't sure what the perameters were as to references to the Biblical record in Is It Science forum. I will assume from this that I've been mistaken as to what those perameters are, but will take care not to over-reach them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Admin, posted 02-01-2010 3:08 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 376 of 468 (560582)
05-16-2010 9:17 AM


The Benign Dr Adequate
Perhaps (I say perhaps) I've gotten to understand Dr (sometimes in-) Adequate, especially after our joust in Freeforall a while back. As a creationist, I've actually moved from despising to liking him and appreciating his intelligence, no matter what he says. He seems to have a rather benign form of rudeness, unlike (ahem) a few others which come to mind.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 424 of 468 (574200)
08-14-2010 3:52 PM


What's The Difference??
Perhaps Admin (abe: Purpledawn) could explain why member Buzsaw's message in the Circular Thinking Thread should be tagged as off topic when member Purpledawn's was not tagged as off topic.
Both member Purpledawn and member Buzsaw's messages pertained to evidence. My message was a response to PaulK who implicated believers as the only members who's MO was circular thinking, allegedly producing no evidence.
Message 119
purpledawn writes:
As an onlooker, I'm very disappointed. I have been waiting for you to show me the difference between what you were originally claiming and what crashfrog is claiming. I don't see a difference.
You expect real time evidence from crashfrog, and claim God is providing real time evidence. What you haven't shown is the real time evidence that you feel God is providing. All you offer for evidence is a book where the newest additions are over 1500 years old. The evidence may have been real time for the people back then, but what is available today?
To remain the ultimate authority throughout time, real time evidence would need to be available for authentication in every generation.
Where in the Bible does God actually claim to be the ultimate authority over everything?
Give a few examples from the Bible of the evidence that backs up that claim.
Provide current evidence that you feel still backs up that original claim today.
Buzsaw writes:
Message 132
Because the evidence is IN DISPUTE, who is convinced depends on the ideological mindset of who is convinced and who is not convinced OF THE DISPUTED EVIDENCE, so around and around (implicating circularity in both ideological camps) we merrily go, debating the DISPUTED EVIDENCE.
Secularists DISPUTE EVIDENCE like fulfilled prophecy, application of historical data, geology, and interpretations of archeological discoveries, geneological data, mysterious phenomena, human cultures and observed complexity.
Creationist believers DISPUTE EVIDENCE like dating methodology, mathmatical calculations, application of two, four, ten and eleven etc dimensional models for a three metric dimensional universe, historical data, geology, interpretations of archeological discoveries, geneological data, mysterious phenomena, human cultures and observed complexity.
(color emphasis, mine)
Edited by Buzsaw, : add name

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by AdminPD, posted 08-15-2010 5:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 428 of 468 (574441)
08-15-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by AdminPD
08-15-2010 5:16 AM


Re: What's The Difference??
AdminPD writes:
Your post seems to be addressing the general body of evidence that Christians provide for their belief. That isn't what the discussion is about. It is about Pauline's argument concerning circular reasoning.
Thanks for responding, AdminPD. The messages that led up to my message pertained to circular reasoning. WSW24 alluded to the need for evidence relative to circular reasoning. PaulK responds, alleging that believers don't have evidence, implying that they are the circular reasoners. My message was to the effect that whether the evidence is viable depends on the ideology of the one making the assessment. That's why I said something like "around and around we go, debating the issues."
You chose to tag my message rather than PaulKs. If mine was off topic, so was his. His MO is to continually make these blind asserted statements that prophecy always fails. Had I not responded, he gets his property bash in.
I'll let it slide and move on. Perhaps it would be good for you to check what leads up to creationist's messages which occasionally on the surface appear to be off topic.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by AdminPD, posted 08-15-2010 5:16 AM AdminPD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024